Necessary requirement for believing in God
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
1. Please carefully read your own words...it is an assumption. It is certainly by no means the truth.
2. Complexity requires only time.
3. Evolution is a plausible system that is complex that requires no designer...
2. Complexity requires only time.
3. Evolution is a plausible system that is complex that requires no designer...
I'm just answering the thread topic don't shoot the messanger, I'm agnostic and I'm not preaching so stop biting my head off.
That is simply another alternative, which is absent of any evidence and rife with assertions of supernatural beings. We were brought here by an alien species is yet another alternative, also void of any evidence with a host of other similar assertions.
That is yet another alternative. That assumption, however, would only be relevant if one can demonstrate that it is entirely impossible for complex systems to form naturally. Evidence from evolution demonstrates that complex systems can form naturally over time.
There would also be a requirement to understand why we as humans have flaws in our "design" which other species do not have or are better equipped. The eye is a good example of those flaws.
No, it doesn't defy logic at all. How does lineage equate to the demand of a creator?
How are we superior over all things earthly?
I can only conclude that anyone who would automatically assume there was a creator has not looked at any evidence, and is merely making that assumption based on first view.
A similar assumption can be made thusly: I look out my window and conclude the earth is flat.
I know...I responded to your answer. It was illogical. Sorry if I appeared hostile.
What is the moral system that produced this assumption?
What is the moral system that produced this assumption?
Well since we're here...I'd say that would be evidence to conclude we got here through some process.
There is no such evidence. Certainly that shows they can create themselves or devlop themselves beyond limits.
No that would not be a require it's more like a desire. It's completely an unnecessary question because errors can be itroduced after creation and less you're capable of deciphering the entry time of those errors it's impact on the initial design is irrelevant.
What lineage. As I've posted in the sticky thread for Evolution in the science and society forums...there is more than enough quotes to say there is no lineage. Fragglerocker made excuses but didn't disagree.
That's a good question surely you're not just going to stop there.
An that is perfectly all right. A further search finds that life if far more complex than darwin or anyone else could have ever imagined. There is a beauty in that truth.
Aye - and why would it be a supernatural process?
Right - so now we have "evolved" into lesser creatures than originally designed?
Not a very good design initially, then, is it - if it is prone to "devolution".
Beauty in truth is a far cry from ID or God.
Complexity has its own beauty. And natural complexity the most beautiful of all.
Nowhere in that is there evidence of anything other than nature.
because of the intricacy of that complexity...
Evolution doesn't exist therefore neither does de evolution. Yet decay is real and complex machines are prone to break down in an oxygen atmosphere.
The idea that the design must not be very good is the argument I'm less concerned about. Atheist have used this thinking in attempt to counter intelligent design and it really has no basis. Atheist aren't really good judges of good designs since they believe life isn't design at all despite the fact they can't reproduce those some complex forms. They seem to have complete disrepect for life.
So the intricate complexity of the state of my sock drawer is a SUPERNATURAL PROCESS.
:wallbang:
Quite. Long slow processes, over millions/billions of years.
You are free to deny there is no such evidence, however mountains of evidence are widely available for you to peruse. Please do so before making unsubstantiated comments.
Errors after creation? Can you explain or substantiate that in any way? With evolution, the changes are usually in favor of the species. What your claiming is opposite, that the changes are not in favor of the species. Perhaps the creator made the errors?
Then, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here:
"We've all had a pro creator the thought of humans not having a creator despite our lineage an superiority over all things earthly really defies logic."
You made the claim, I can only assume it was made with some reasoning in mind. Have you any reasoning or merely an unsubstantiated assertion?
It doesn't matter what Darwin imagined in regards to complexity. Again, if one is concluding a creator, they simply have not taken to the time to understand the evidence, nor have thought it through.
That simply does not follow, Saquist. There is no reasoning whatsoever in concluding supernatural beings from the 'intricacy of complexity' - of course, you'll need to explain that.
Then, why do people still get sick from the flu? The virus evolves.
The eyes of humans are breaking down compared with the eyes of hawks? Why didn't the eyes of hawks break down? Or the smell of dogs? Or... endless examples to follow...
On the contrary, atheists respect life FAR more than theists, who view life as a mere stepping stone to an afterlife.
So, how are scientists to reproduce something that took millions of year to produce?
Circular reasoning...the intricate complexity is supernatural because of its intricacy?
You cannot logically make this statement with any certainty.
Being a graphic designer hardly gives you any more qualifications to judge a cosmic design either. Just because ID and your job title share a word grants you no authority to speak from a pedestal.
Further this makes no sense. ID supporters should be the ones to attempt to reproduce complex life forms since ID purports that a complex system requires a designer.
Even further, successful or failed attempts made by geneticists and other types of biologists to achieve perhaps cloned animals - or whatever experiments you might wish to disdain today - says nothing of our origin.
:shrug:
Sorry - was that meant to be the extent of your argument?
Somehow I expected... more.
Nothing complex, just... more.
The others before me have covered the bases for the pathetic drivel of an argument that you make.
You are correct - ID really has no basis.
Actually it's 'cos we know design (seemingly better than you) when we see it that we understand there to be a lack of intelligent design in our own makeup.
A logical fallacy (irrelevancy).
Lack of ability in no way (except through irrational and illogical means) leads to evidence, let alone proof, of impossibility.
Please understand this.
It gets irritating to have to repeat it over and over again.
Evidence please.
Where is evidence of my "disrespect for life"?
For that matter where is evidence of your "respect for life"?
Mere confidence statements, Saquist - and they grow tiresome.
uh...no...That was more like repeating myself.
Logicaly I can. There is more than enough information. Doubly we know that science doesn't have a firm grasp on how biology works. The incurring errors that simply have to be there because of our ignorance in this department mean that the adverse information has more than a little credency.
I'm not saying you can't argue infinitely till time peals away...obviously you can but LOGICLY...Logic dictates much and thus far it is logical to say life does not come about by it's own design. Life doesn't rewrite it'self into another form and design. That's just observation that is a logical conclusion.
I'm not a "graphic" designer. I am Drafter. My field is Drafting and Design and I speak from no pedestal I speak from experience.
Failure speaks volumes. Where evolution errors or failues...and it is in many areas...It eliminates evolution, randomness, from consideration. At which point we must recognize that these functions are not random but ordered. And order is not something that happens on it's own. Even the universe has a mixture of order and chaos. Biology too has that mixture...but for sucess order is a must.
Sarkus;1604174[QUOTE said:
elegantly simple, logical.
covered is a good word. Covered over the evolutionary errors, covered over the hoaxes, cover over the information, covered over their true...intentions. Yes I believe they have covered over everything that could point away from evolution.
If you say, so...
A lie?
Experimenting is the form and standard of the Scientic Method. Failure and Lack of ability to prove a theory is grounds for dismisal....(except for evolution)
Then I suggest that you as a free thinking moral agent, use your perceptive powers and be happy with the rationale that you've chosen rather than confront mine. You'll not get anywhere with this attitude or the constant exceptions to the rules you provide for evolution. Any fool with a bic marker and notepad can make a fallacy and they often do...
The question is where isn't the evidence for your disrepect for life. I don't even have to go down the list of complex biological forms to know that you're going to belittle everyone as a contruct of chance. Evolution is...a disrepect for the complex functions of life. You attempt make it easy...comfortable. Your...use your euphemism and fallacies....."oh...it's not complex at all." The human brain can only hold billions of times more information than the best computer on the Earth....Right? But that's not complexity... We can't reproduce that in the same efficiency we can't fathom how it came to be in the first place. The process through evolution is completely undefined.
WE're so complex... The Encyclopedia Britannica says..
"The Brain is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person's lifetime."
Why would evolution create such an excess beyond our lifetimes?
"This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use." said by a scientist who then asked..." How can this be reconciled with evolution's must fundalmental thesis: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable advantage?"
On the human brains development...""It remains the most inexplicable aspect of evolution."" Since evolution would never produce and pass on such an excessive never -to-be-used capacity.
Disrepect for Life is and understatement. You ridicule Life. You don't understand it but somehow it's beneath you. You can copy and clone it...destroy it...slice and dice it...but you can't explain it. By way of explanation of the incredible abilities of life you aspire chance and random forces to it's development...You've never seen it work...and you don't seek to attempt to define it's limitation sinces you believe it's limitless despite your inabilities of your own limitations..
If I wanted to talk to you...explain to you and explicitly draw out the case for you I would...The information is at my finger tips...But you don't want to be convinced so...why would I waste my time with you...It's triffling. You've never heard what I would be telling you and you'd just make it up as you went along...
Why...I don't know why. May be science have given you a sense of superiorty over me. Perhaps it's never your intention to be proven wrong. Or...you've already decided that I am wrong....so it would be truely triffling for me to.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited:
green berg u dont need a requirement to love god there is no colour or race that can say u have to have requirements we dont fill in forms for job interviews and they say do u have requirements to believe or love a god
the reality is u dont need a requirement to have a say in what god or what religeon u want to chose in life understand this would u do to others what u dont want done to u would u kill cause ur god says so would u eat food infront of a hungry child cause ur god says so ....am sorry but that is no god nor a religeon is a terrible act of cruelty god in every form of religeon no matter what one u choose has to be ur desicion and no requirments for u to undergo just be careful cause people are always condemning other religeons than their own and sum will hurt kill to prove that their god is theone when in actual fact there is no requirment to love a god or belief
JUST HAVIN A SAY
the reality is u dont need a requirement to have a say in what god or what religeon u want to chose in life understand this would u do to others what u dont want done to u would u kill cause ur god says so would u eat food infront of a hungry child cause ur god says so ....am sorry but that is no god nor a religeon is a terrible act of cruelty god in every form of religeon no matter what one u choose has to be ur desicion and no requirments for u to undergo just be careful cause people are always condemning other religeons than their own and sum will hurt kill to prove that their god is theone when in actual fact there is no requirment to love a god or belief
JUST HAVIN A SAY
And circular - and a logical fallacy. Not elegant, not simple and not logically sound.
So no actual counter-argument then?
Didn't think so.
And so I'll say it again - as you clearly do not understand - failure to be able to recreate something is NOT evidence of impossibility.
What of this simple, elegant and logical statement do you not understand?
Why would you honestly think that something that has taken the order of millions of years to happen in nature can happen in even one lifetime in a lab?
And why would you honestly think that current inability to create life from raw materials is evidence that it is impossible, and thus evidence for a creator?
If you really do - may I suggest you browse through: THIS WEB SITE
Oh, I am happy with the logic I use - and the reason I confront yours is to try and get through to you the clearly illogical arguments on which your position is based - and yet you are seemingly unable to see them.
If someone understands and accepts their position as illogical and irrational but still wishes to hold their position - no problem - there is then nothing one can do to educate or argue with them further. But when one clearly uses logical fallacies and doesn't realise, someone should point them out.
What exceptions to the rules???
Point them out!
True - some more than most - but that means we shouldn't point them out? If one's position is based on a logical fallacy that means we should ignore it - or brush over it?
No - the question was what I asked. Either have the decency to ask it or stop with the flippant comments that you know you can not support.
You're grasping at straws, as well as creating strawmen, as well as now arguing from emotion (aka Appeal to Emotion).
And there you go: clear appeal to emotion.
More of the same.
No - it's not right.
Estimates of brain capacity are between 1 and 1,000 Terabytes.
1 Tb drives are now becoming more frequent in computing, with some computers having up to 100 Tb of storage.
So - care to revise your estimate of "billions of times more" - to merely "the same as"?
No - it's not.
Size is not equivalent to complexity.
A diamond the size of a planet is no more complex than a diamond the size as a grain of sand.
And there you go again - arguments from incredulity (another logical fallacy).
Who says it's excess?
A lack of understanding is not evidence for anything else. Learn this.
Again I will ask you to provide evidence of my "disrespect for life"? If you have none - evidence of MY disrespect or others on this site - then please refrain from such drivel.
Support your claims or don't make them.
The rest is just a diatribe of strawmen, irrelevancies and ranting.
Feel free to start.
Just bear in mind that if you don't support your claims with evidence or with logic / rationality then they will not be accepted.
However, at present you have demonstrated nothing of any value, merely confidence statements and a clear lack of understanding of some of the more basic concepts of logical debate (demonstrated by your continued illogic despite it being pointed out).
Come back when you have evidence to support your claims, please.
To a person of no value, I offer no value. To a person that demonstrates nothing I offer the same.
I think that short of communication is used to often by churches..."Hell Fire" and it's not even a true teaching of the Bible. Heaven and Hell have the largest misconception in christendom today. the Chruches have engineered a dominion of error that prevails the earth today and they did for power and subjugating people to their will.
Today you will often see warnings on american church marquis that warn your immortal soul will suffer in Hell if you don't come to church...
They're lying and Omitting details of the bible.
They won't tell you the bible says Jesus also "went to hell"
That good people that served God faithfully also "went to hell"
and they leave out the details of what the Lake of Fire and sulfer really mean...
And today proves no one really wants to know what the bible really teaches they're engrossed in Christmas Holloween and games and toys... It's part of the Syndrome of Indifference that frequently prevails societies and tends to be a blinding effect untill something desasterous strikes and suddenly they're asking...
"Why would God allow such loss of life?"
"Why did God take my child from me?
"What did I do to deserve this?"
They've been told God is responsible...thus the scientific community scorns this outlook...It's one imperfect perception looking upon another imperfect perception. The truth is powerful and as Jesus said is sharper than any two edge sword...He was talking about the truth of God...but Truth alwasy has such an effect.
These people who cry out like this in times of peril often do so because "truth" has cut them....reality has cut them. It's made them wake up briefly from the lies and omition perpetuated by tradition. If God really cared then why does the pastor say he took my child..."that New Orleans was punished for it's debased activity."
Thus the only real NECESSITY is to take in knowledge about him....How can you come to understand or "believe" in anyone who you haven't gotten to know?