"Churches urged to back evolution "

From the great wikipedia almighty:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist. An adage regarding this fallacy is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist.

Argument from ignorance is similar to but not equivalent to the argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true.

The types of fallacies noted above should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of proof, in which a genuine logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise."


AND there goes your flying spaghety monster. Awwwww...

I rest my case.




Hehehe... I enjoy browsing this thread eating my cookies and drinking my hot chocolate... :p
 
Last edited:
You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed. If you insist on invoking the mystic-agnostic idea that there's "some power behind the universe, call it what you will" then I suggest you join my invisible flying spaghetti monster for a discussion session.
 
superluminal said:
You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed. If you insist on invoking the mystic-agnostic idea that there's "some power behind the universe, call it what you will" then I suggest you join my invisible flying spaghetti monster for a discussion session.
You are completely ignoring the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.
 
QuarkMoon said:
What about it? Anthropic Principle may be related to what I'm saying, but I do not subscribe to it nor advocate for it. I'm speaking purely about Deism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

QuarkMoon said:
To believe the entire Universe, with all it's constants, patterns, laws, and processes such as Evolution is just an enormous product of chance is completely illogical.
"Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the fundamental physical constants were sufficiently different, then life as we know it would not be possible and no one would be around to contemplate this fine-tuned universe we live in. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Same thing you said...
 
TruthSeeker said:
You are completely ignoring the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

Don't just say I'm ignoring it. Show me how.

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen,

There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.

or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist.

Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.

An adage regarding this fallacy is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist.

Correct. But having a mountain of evidence that contradicts claims for something does constitute proof that the thing does not exist as stated.

The fallacy you are making is assuming that god is untestable. This is wrong.


Disproven:

- God answers prayers (zero statistical correlation)

- God made the earth (it coalesced from a solar nebula just as we see other solar systems forming today)

- God made the heavens (all matter came to be in the Big Bang)

- God made humans in his image (humans evolved from apelike ancestors)

More???
 
superluminal said:
You should wake up your case. Do we atheists have to explain every stinking thing to you desperate god types?

We'll do this one...more...time.

No one is saying that god cannot or does not exist simply because of a lack of evidence. On the contrary, there is much evidence that indicates that the traditional gods do not exist. The entire method and body of knowledge called science logically and empirically contradicts the supernatural claims for gods, thus sufficiently proving that they do not exist as claimed.

soooo... the negative can be proved after all

btw, agnostics are not "god types"... they're maybe types

:)
 
TruthSeeker said:
"Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the fundamental physical constants were sufficiently different, then life as we know it would not be possible and no one would be around to contemplate this fine-tuned universe we live in. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Same thing you said...


Not necessarily. And like I said, it may be similar but I don't advocate for it, only Deism. And is that supposed to be some kind of counter-argument, or an ad-hominem?
 
superluminal said:
Don't just say I'm ignoring it. Show me how.
Hehe... I just realized the riddle... :D

Did you read the link?
"not having evidence for something is no proof that something does not exist."

Want to translate it to your argument? Your argument says that God does not exist because we haven't found evidence showing that he exist. Let's translate this to that phrase...

"Not having evidence for god is no proof that God does not exist."

There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.
Not life. How about a list, btw?

Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.
How about showing that evidence, since you have it?

Correct. But having a mountain of evidence that contradicts claims for something does constitute proof that the thing does not exist as stated.
Huuum. Ok, now let's see the evidence, then.

The fallacy you are making is assuming that god is untestable. This is wrong.
Ok. Then test god for me ;)


- God answers prayers (zero statistical correlation)
Where did you get that statistic?

- God made the earth (it coalesced from a solar nebula just as we see other solar systems forming today)
So God didn't make the solar nebula either?
Where have you seen a detailed description about how "god" created earth? How can you just assume that god didn't create the solar nebula and formed the solar system within the time limits that we observe?

- God made the heavens (all matter came to be in the Big Bang)
And who made the Big Bang? How did all the matter end up in that single point? Where did that matter come from? Do you have answers?

- God made humans in his image (humans evolved from apelike ancestors)
The image of God is consciousness and intelligence. Humans are conscious and intelligent, thus "are made in his image".

Yes, please. Let's discuss this. It's extremely interesting.


Here, my friend. I'm trying to find the truth just as you are. I can't dismiss the idea of a god because I simply have no substancial proof to accuse him of his unexistence. As much science tries to answer questions, as more questions are raised. There are many questions in life that I haven't found an answer yet, so I wouldn't want to dismiss and idea such as wide and potentially useful as a god. I'm invinting you to take a neutral position just like I am taking. ;)
 
Varda said:
soooo... the negative can be proved after all

btw, agnostics are not "god types"... they're maybe types

:)
I have the impression they have forgotten that....
 
QuarkMoon said:
Not necessarily. And like I said, it may be similar but I don't advocate for it, only Deism.
Well, you said that there are too many patterns, laws, etc that come together to "create" us. That's exactly the argument of the principle. The principle state that the probability for all those things to come together is very small, therefore, there is a god.

And is that supposed to be some kind of counter-argument, or an ad-hominem?
Where did you get that from? I'm supporting your arguments.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Well, you said that there are too many patterns, laws, etc that come together to "create" us. That's exactly the argument of the principle. The principle state that the probability for all those things to come together is very small, therefore, there is a god.

You can't just look at the main ascertion, read a little bit more on the subject. For example, Anthropic Principle actually claims that Humans are somehow special because everything in our Solar System lined up pefectly to sustain life on Earth. I don't believe that, in fact I think it's ridiculous. The same constants, laws, and processes are active throughout the Universe. Life can evolve anywhere.

Where did you get that from? I'm supporting your arguments.

Oh, well I just assumed you were playing "Devil's Advocate" again, my apologies.
 
Truthseeker said:
Let's not teach Big Bang, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not teach the Brane, because it's just a hypothesis!
Let's not twach philosophy or phsycholoy or sociology or economy, because it's just a hypothesis!

There are evidence for all of these. Where's your evidence for god?

ID explains the world exists as it does today as it did 10,000 years ago, when it was created by a powerful white man with a long beard.
The only evidence for this are awkwardly written books by barbarians from the Middle East.
 
QuarkMoon said:
Selection based on what? Chance. And I'm not talking about just Natural Selection, because if you know anything about Evolution, you will know that Natural Selection is not the only process inherent within Evolution. To believe the entire Universe, with all it's constants, patterns, laws, and processes such as Evolution is just an enormous product of chance is completely illogical.

I do indeed know something about evolution since I am supposed to be an evo-devo guy. I already told you that evolution is not a product of chance and you just keep repeating that it is. I do not think your answer is a product of chance but it is completely illogical.
 
QuarkMoon said:
You can't just look at the main ascertion, read a little bit more on the subject. For example, Anthropic Principle actually claims that Humans are somehow special because everything in our Solar System lined up pefectly to sustain life on Earth. I don't believe that, in fact I think it's ridiculous. The same constants, laws, and processes are active throughout the Universe. Life can evolve anywhere.
Not all people who believe in the principle believe that humans are special.

Oh, well I just assumed you were playing "Devil's Advocate" again, my apologies.
It's all good...
 
Roman said:
There are evidence for all of these. Where's your evidence for god?
No there isn't. Those things have been simply invented by science to explain the data that has been received. There's no actual evidence that can statistically prove those hypothesis. Hence why you have both Big Bang and Brane theories! They are mutually exclusive, did you know? :rolleyes:

ID explains the world exists as it does today as it did 10,000 years ago, when it was created by a powerful white man with a long beard.
The only evidence for this are awkwardly written books by barbarians from the Middle East.
Does it look like I'm talking about a god in particular?
 
AmishRakeFight said:
Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) hold any weight?

AmishRakeFight

Plenty. As far as physics is concerned, there's no way to violate it. But it doesn't contradict evolution. 'Disorder increases' is the layman's version of the law; in its proper form it's precisely defined as the change in a type of energy (entropy).

Which basically translates to - the sun is winding down and becoming more 'disordered' by releasing huge amounts of energy. The earth basks in a tiny, tiny part of this energy and while being filtered through to more and more disordered forms this energy happens to power all life on earth. I assume you know about photosynthesis?
 
Truthseeker said:
Does it look like I'm talking about a god in particular?

Uh, the closing line of your argument?

Truthseeker said:
Teaching children many perspectives is important to increase their understanding of life. If we teach Descartes even tough he was wrong, what's wrong with teaching Intelligent Design?
 
Intelligent Design does not necessarily need to refer to the Christian God.

There are some characteristics which define a god, which is true to all "gods" and those are the characteristics you are required to use in such an argument.
 
Back
Top