With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[TruthSeeker]

6. Conclusion: Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for God's Nonexistence
The argument of this paper might seem at first glance to tell us more about the nature of causation and the nature of God than about atheism versus theism. "A divine state cannot cause the universe to begin to exist" does not entail that God does not exist or that the big bang is not a logical result of a divine state. It merely entails that we cannot describe a divine state as the originating cause of the universe.

Nonetheless, there are important and perhaps decisive implications for the debate between theism and atheism, namely, that arguments from the necessary truth, a priori truth or empirical truth of some causal principle cannot be a relevant premise from which to deduce or induce that the big bang is the logical consequence of God standing in the relation R to the property being the big bang. Consider the following argument:


(4) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(5) The universe begins to exist.
Therefore,
(6) The universe has a cause.

This argument fails to support the theses that God exists or that there is a divine cause of the universe. Indeed, this argument entails that the universe's existence is the result of something other than a divine state, namely, a cause. Nor can any inductive argument based on the fact that every observed event has a cause be used to support the thesis that the big bang is the result of a divine state, since this inductive argument instead supports the thesis that the big bang is the effect of some cause.

I don't get it. Even if the big bang has a "cause", that doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist. It seems to me that this is a False Dilemma. Why God cannot cause the universe to exist?

Besides, we are not talking about a mere cause and effect problem here. Before the universe, there was no time or space to create any cause and effect. So the rules of cause and effect don't necessarily apply to this state. If you want to argue about the existance of God related to the beginning of the universe, you have to go into relative spatial-temporal situations that are quite hard to understand and discuss.

(4) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(5) The universe begins to exist.
Therefore,
(6) The universe has a cause.
(7) If the universe is the result of a cause, it is not the result of God standing to the universe in an R relation.
(8) It is an essential property of God that he Rs any universe that exists.
Therefore [from #7 and #8],
(9) There is no possible world in which it is true both that God exists and that there is a universe which is the result of a cause.
Therefore [from #6 and #9],
(10) God does not exist.

Why is #7 true at all?

(11) Artifacts are caused to exist by some intelligent being(s) with some purpose in mind.
(12) The universe resembles an artifact.
Therefore, it is probable that:
(13) The universe is caused to exist by some intelligent being(s) with some purpose in mind.

If this is an adequate argument from analogy, then it is probably true that the result-yielding relation that is involved in the explanation of why the universe exists is a causal relation in which some intelligent being(s) stand(s) to the universe. It follows (given propositions #7 and #9) that God probably does not exist.

That's why there are agnostics. This argument is an induced argument. It doesn't prove anything.

Still.... premise #7 doesn't seem right.


Aside from that, God seem to be only possible if there is an additional dimension where space-time does not exist, or at least not in the way we think of. That's the only way He can truly have the characteristics that are assigned to Him (i.e omipresent, omniscient and omnipotent). From that, it follows that the only characteristic of God that is debatable is the "omnipotent" one. That implies that there must be a connection between God's dimension and our 4 dimensions. There's some hint of that in quantum physics, with matter originating from the vaccum. But I'm still refraining myself from calling it "evidence".

 

[TruthSeeker]

Interesting site, nonetheless. I hope I will have lots of time soon to talk about those things...

 

[Poor Player]

Thank you to South, David, and Snake. I am enjoying the debate which is of immense importance in the world today. I will point out to you that although you believe in very different things, your similarities as people, judging from the posts, far exceed your differences given that you are both very intelligent and well educated, not to mention passionate, and have alot to offer the world. Both sides keeping it professional would make the thread a lot more appealing to a wider audience. You never know who is watching.

As far as the debate itself on DNA and evolution, Snake probably could have been an easy winner if he would have focused in on David's premise: That you need DNA with millions of base pairs to have life. David has pinned himself down to a very illogical position here scientifically. How do we know that is what is required for life? We simply don't. We don't have DNA samples from one billion years ago do we now? Would love to though!

Something much simpler could have arisen first. Then once life arises you no longer have a merely random process but a much more focused effort to survive which would dramatically cut the time periods required for evolution to take place. David's math is OK, but his logic is fatally flawed.

As for the age of the Earth and stars, the Spitzer telescope launched by NASA last year has more accurately dated many stars and other early solar sytems now and also discovered that planets form much earlier than previously known, as early as 100 million years from star birth. When NASA launches the Kepler, SIM, and Terrestrial Planet Finder telescopes in the next few years, we will have the capability of finding other Earth-like planets. It's only a matter of time and money now.

 

[§outh§tar]

TruthSeeker,

Why must a Divine Being (Personal God) be the prime mover? The are other articles on there about Aquina's argument but I picked that one just cause..

If you want to argue about the existance of God related to the beginning of the universe, you have to go into relative spatial-temporal situations that are quite hard to understand and discuss.

In other words, give up because it is too hard and say the great cop-out, "God is responsible".

Wonder how far we would have come if that mentality prevailed..

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

TruthSeeker,

Why must a Divine Being (Personal God) be the prime mover?

I would like to answer this one, if I may, SouthStar.

It has to do with the nature of being a prime mover. If there is to be a Prime Mover, the implication is that this mover is eternal, or, did not have a beginning itself. Furthermore, there is the implication that this Prime Mover has to be capable of causing simplicity to extend into potentially infinite complexity. It is believed that such an entity must be omnipotent for such a feat. These characteristics, as far as it is understood, apply only to that which is actually infinite, as opposed to simply being potentially infinite. If the Prime Mover itself were only potentially infinite, then this means that it, also, had a beginning, which would mean that it isn't really the Prime Mover. Another implication of such an entity being capable of creating the universe is that this Prime Mover is necessary for the universe to exist. As such, it would be the only necessary being, and all else is contingent. Again, this is a quality of an actual infinite, while contingency is a quality of the potentially infinite.

Why are these implications important? Because they point to the Prime Mover as being actually infinite. As such, it must necessarily be that the Prime Mover is a conscious entity, since otherwise it would not be infinte, being that it is lacking in a given quality. Actual infinity neccessitates that all potentiality is met out, fulfilled, and therefore no possibility exists within it. Therefore, since consciousness is a possibility, that may or may not be accessible to a potential infinite, it is necessarily a part of an actual infinite. By the same logic, intelligence and free will are possibilities of consciousness, and therefore are already met out within the actual infinite, meaning that the actual infinite is both intelligent and free of will, which also necessitates emotion, as emotion is a result of interaction between intellect and will.

Furthermore, any non-free willing entity could not be a prime mover, as any non-free willing entity is an effect of a cause, and therefore could never be the first cause. Therefore the Prime Mover must be a free willing entity, otherwise there could be no Prime Mover at all. As such, the Prime Mover must necessarily also be intelligent, and therefore must also experience emotion.

A free willing, intelligent, emotional, infinite entity, by the very nature of its being, is self-centered. This is because there can be nothing outside of itself that isn't made of up that which it is, since all possibility is met out within such an actual infinite. Therefore, such a Prime Mover would create that which is like unto itself, by necessity, since it could not create anything wholly unlike itself, since that would imply a contradiction. Ergo, in creating that which is, the Prime Mover would have understood what it was creating, would have fully willed what it was creating, and would have loved that which it was creating, since it was potentially able to grow infinitely and become more and more like unto the Prime Mover. It could not be any other way, since such a Prime Mover could not create anything destructive, by nature, since destruction is a movement away from the infinite, and toward nothingnes, which is entirely unlike the actual infinite, and therefore implies a contradiction.

Ergo, such a Prime Mover would necessarily care about that which it creates, as it would be unhappy to see its creations become unlike it, and tend toward destruction and nothingness. So, such a Prime Mover would necessarily be a Divine Being (having intellect and free will), and a personal God (caring for that which it creates).

 

[Jenyar]

It could not be any other way, since such a Prime Mover could not create anything destructive, by nature, since destruction is a movement away from the infinite, and toward nothingnes, which is entirely unlike the actual infinite, and therefore implies a contradiction.

I have to disagree on this point. You're arguing from extremes here. If God can move something forward, He can move it backward as well. Noah's flood is just one example. Where your reasoning might apply is when moving beyond the limits of extremes, such as that from which God created, or beyond God himself.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I have to disagree on this point. You're arguing from extremes here. If God can move something forward, He can move it backward as well. Noah's flood is just one example. Where your reasoning might apply is when moving beyond the limits of extremes, such as that from which God created, or beyond God himself.

You would have done well simply to say that "If God can move something forward, He can move it backward as well." The example concerning the flood isn't necessarily to be considered as an action performed by God. Rather, it is a mythological story, probably based in a historical event, in which an event occurring in nature is labelled by the perceivers of the event as occurring on account of a movement by God (namely, punishment for sin). I do not believe that God can deconstruct that which He designed for to be constructed, for I believe this to be the very meaning of good and evil. This is why God is said to be omnibenevolent, since no form of deconstruction can take place within an actual infinite, since even it it did take place no chaneg would actually occur within the actual infinite. Therefore, being all-good, it would be actually contradictory to perform an action that is non-good, or evil, namely a deconstructive, or negative action. Growth is a constant within the finite sphere, and growth is addition, rather than negation. Growth is a tending toward infinity, and therefore anything that grows is potentially infinite. This means that anything existing is potentially infinite, and therefore, structurally speaking, like unto the actual infinite in that it will forever become more and more like the actual infinite. For it to be any other way would be contrary to the nature of the actual infinite, since creating that which is unlike the actual infinite implies a contradiction, since such creation would be the creation of nothing.

 

[c20H25N3o]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html

Do it.

I said no source! pah!

 

[Jenyar]

Beyondtimeandspace,

Still, we must be able to ask like Job, "if we accept the good that comes from God, mustn't we also accept the bad?"

I agree that it's easy to attribute things to God that might not strictly come from Him - but the realization that God is present everywhere must outweigh our judgment whether what happens is "good" or "bad", relying on our limited and finite experience alone to decide if God is or isn't involved. The answer whether God is active must always be yes, because God is ultimately involved, whether we like it or not. Different people can have different perspectives of the same thing, but our contradictory experiences don't determine who God is, and can't be allowed to, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant. If we want to know God, it must be on His terms, and He will use our experiences if we allow Him to be present in them.

The flood is a good example because we know that the Biblical interpretation wasn't the only one. Everybody saw their own god in it, and their own sins. But we cannot extract God from what happened, because that means nature had the final word, and not Noah's faith. Noah built the ark out of obedience to God, and was saved because of that. If Noah for one moment thought that God "cannot deconstruct what He had created", that would have contradicted any reason for building an ark, and he would have drowned with everybody else.

Maybe no change occurred within the actual infinite, as you put it, but we are limited to experiencing the finite here on earth, you must remember that. If we trust too much on our knowledge and speculation of who God is or does, concern ourselves with things that have no relevance to our situation, we might miss the crucial experience of who God is, to *us*, at this *moment* and under *these* circumstances.

Don't be so confident in "sanitizing" God - removing Him from everything that happens - that you forget yourself and make Him irrelevant, or you might be left wondering who and where He is when you need Him most. God did not consider His holiness something to be held onto at our expense: He made himself nothing (Phil.2:7), suffering humiliation and death, so that we would not have to stare ourselves blind and be paralyzed in fear of imminent destruction.

After all, God or "infinity" is not in any way diminshed by man becoming dust again, even though He created us. We're not automatically guaranteed eternal life - we don't own the immanent force of existence that would make the First Mover redundant.

 

[David F.]

There is a key problem with your above quote. We could sit down for the next millennium, and debate all about whether DNA could form by chance. However, this isn't evolution, and as such asking me to abandon evolution based upon the hardship of DNA forming by chance is without merit.

I will get to the specific questions included in the above quote shortly, but for now it suffices to say that you have the wrong grasp as to what evolution is. Whether god created DNA, it came about by chance, or Lenny the Leprechaun did it does not in any way hinder evolution.



There are many that do, which shows that it's all about levels. These people have just stopped one level sooner than you have - but is that due to 'impossibility' of such a thing, or one's lack of understanding towards it?

Tell me David, what is it that would prevent macro evolution while allowing for micro evolution? Do the steps not increase?

For instance let's look once again at the dog. Current changes would include colour, bone structure, creature size, eye shape, biting ability- (soft-mouthed retrievers vs lockjaw rottweilers), different ears, noses, mouths and a million and one other things that make each dog incredibly different from one another.

If we kept at the process long into the distant future, what else might happen? Different claws, (retractable as opposed to fixed), and so on - until such time when it has become a classifiably different species. What exactly prevents this from happening?



I did answer it. What you're asking for however, is based upon an ideal that a frog instantly turns into a human - or a rat instantly turns into a giraffe. This is not how things work, and it would only be pertinent to state that change comes about slowly, piece by piece as opposed to one quick change into another species. Even if it did just change into another species overnight, how would you suggest one show that, unless you physically recorded a hedgehog giving birth to a llama?



The site given does provide transitionals, and as for evolution - I'm not sure you grasp what evolution actually is, so your statement is a bit presumptuous.

What I would ask though, is exactly what would suffice, (transitional wise). Are you asking for a half moth/half monkey or a half rabbit/half horse? At what level are you willing to say something is transitional?



But how easy is it to make up some numbers without having seen it happen? Not to mention that even faced with seemingly impossible numbers, the impossible can happen.

A long time ago I went to the pub with some friends. We ended up discussing movies, and about half way through an old movie popped into my head that I hadn't seen in years. I shouted out: "Oh yeah! Journey to the center of the earth with Pat Boone! Greatest movie ever". Now I'd thought about it, I decided I would have to go to a shop and see if I could buy it.

Later that night I left the pub and made my way home on foot. I was somewhat tipsy and ended up walking through a park. It was dark so I stayed on the path where the lights were. Eventually I walked past a park bench, and sitting upon it was a video tape. Of all the freaky shit in the world, the videotape just so happened to be a brand new, sealed copy of Journey to the center of the earth with Pat Boone.

What are the odds on that? Is it even calculable?

I'm sure most of us have tales just like this that describe something so far beyond possible odds, and yet happened all the same.

Perhaps what we should do now is look at the billions upon billions upon billions of planets where it didn't work out.

What your calculations don't show, is the point that "it can get lucky" anywhere within that mathematical mess - not that it must complete a specific set of digits. Sure, the chances are astronomical nonetheless, and that is clearly seen when looking at the cosmos, but it doesn't rule it out completely, as seen when looking at earth.

P.S I'm very interested to hear more about the new "hobbit" people that have been found recently, (featured on the news this evening). If you haven't seen it yet, try and find out about it, (I'll provide a link as soon as I find one).

A report done on Oct 27th by National Geographic: Here

Come on now... You're cheating. You asked me to frame the discussion and I did, and now you want to change to topic.

There is really only one question in Evolution - how did it all start. Evolution, as it is defined in your fantasy science, is about changes. Making bigger dogs or making them have specific characteristics is about breeding - getting the right genes together. There is no change here, only the mixing of desirable genes. The genes already exist so THERE IS NO EVOLUTION HERE. Stop changing the subject.

You asked me to define the discussion so I have. Now answer the questions.

1. How can DNA form initially - this is the heart of Evolution and without it Evolution is dead. You are asking us to believe in luck? Try again. This is like hitting the lottery every time, not once, not twice but trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions... of times in a row - without even one miss. Surely you can do better than that. We have no evidence that there are any other planets where life tried to start, but even if there were, that has absoultely nothing to do with life starting by chance on Earth. Do you understand anything about statistics. Other events have nothing to do with this event.

2. I asked you to show a change in Phylum, Class or Order. I did not ask you to show that a slug became a man. I asked you to show any transitional forms beteen Phylums. Evolutionists are funny people. They will glom onto anything which even remotely looks like a transitional form - like a platupus, since it has webbed feet and a bill it must be a transitional form between otters and ducks, right - WRONG. If there truely were transitional forms, there should be MILLIONS of steps between Phylums, yet there are NONE!!!

Yes, I found the story about little people skeletons fascinating. Evolutionists are saying on the news that these skeletons could change the whole story of Evolution??? What!!! You mean the Evolutionists have decided that all they have been telling us in the past is WRONG and these little skeletons are going to set us right??? Now, why should I believe them now when they are confessing they were wrong in the past?

Stop changing the subject and answer my questions about the origin of life! If there is no origin then the rest is just garbage. Why should I believe in your religion - Evolutionism?

 

[c20H25N3o]

It is like this with God. He would say something to you like "Be still and know I Am Who I Am!"
When you are still, you do not question His power. It is like a raging purifying fire that makes me feel like the smallest being ever to have lived. I am 'scared'! Trembling but I hear a voice which says "My grace is sufficient for thee" and whilst I do fear God I know it is He alone which sustains me. He that keeps me up and stops me from stumbling and falling. God is Mighty. Make no mistake! It is not for nothing that He is called Almighty God.
I have no idea at all how to express in words the mind of Christ to you. All I can say is that it is like a river that flows eternal and the depth of His love is unfathomable.
God is good and eternal and loves you jealously like a mother bird trying to protect her young before the cat has his fill

 

[SnakeLord]

Come on now... You're cheating. You asked me to frame the discussion and I did, and now you want to change to topic.

I haven't at any stage asked for a change of discussion. I have merely pointed out that our current topic does not leave you in a position to say "give up your religion - evolutionism", and other such sentences that are not what evolution is all about. As I said earlier, we can sit here and agree that "god" did it, but it would in no way hinder the science known as evolution.

You asked me to define the discussion so I have. Now answer the questions.

You'll find all your questions were answered in my last post. However, being the nice chap that I am, I'll go through it all again.

1. How can DNA form initially - this is the heart of Evolution and without it Evolution is dead.

Firstly let me reiterate that the original forming of DNA is not the heart of evolution, and without such does not render evolution dead, or even bruised for that matter.

You are asking us to believe in luck?

Why not, it happens all the time? No matter how many numbers you come up with, no matter how miniscule the chances are, it can still happen.

I have tried since the event I depicted, to somehow work out the odds for such a thing to happen. My maths is not awful, but it's not that good that I could successfully manage it - and yet I can only state it as a technical impossibility.

This is like hitting the lottery every time, not once, not twice but trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions... of times in a row - without even one miss. Surely you can do better than that.

I don't deny the serious task that would have to be achieved, or the numbers behind it - but there is nothing to show that freaky shit doesn't happen, even though a bunch of statisticians would claim it technically impossible. I have the feeling if I mentioned my event prior to it actually happening, a statistician would have given me the same odds.

Further to which, as another poster kindly mentioned, you cannot guarantee the requirements of DNA billions of years ago.

Do you understand anything about statistics.

Well, I read a statistic once that said 90% of statistics were wrong.

2. I asked you to show a change in Phylum, Class or Order. I did not ask you to show that a slug became a man.

Would you like to point out where I showed a slug became a man? You're the one that claimed we only differ by 10%, and as with most things you ever say, my questions concerning it have been ignored completely.. And now you have the audacity to try and turn it round to me.

However, a debate cannot go in this manner. I answer every single question you pose, (even the pointless ones), and yet to date you have not shown the decency to answer any that I have asked, instead preferring to just ignore them as with everything else. You make claims, and then when asked- ignore it. You make challenges, and then when accepted- ignore it, and you get asked questions which you then ignore.

This is pure rudeness. Call me as many names as you want, but this I do find rude.

On my last post, if you bother to look, you will see me asking exactly what is sufficient enough for you to consider something as a new phylum, class or species, and what will suffice as transitional.

Instead of answering, you just make some petty remarks against evolutionists saying they'll claim any old nonsense such as platypus. But then if you bothered answering the damn question, you wouldn't have to resort to baseless insults at evolutionists now would you?

I am asking you. What do you consider as sufficient enough evidence of a transitional?

I answered your question, you dismissed it.. so I gave you the choice to tell me what is sufficient enough for you, and you ignore it. That is dangerously ridiculous.

Why ask questions, ignore the answers, and say I didn't answer the questions?

As for new phylums, I informed you that you cannot expect these things to happen overnight. Changes are slight and gradual, and eventually over a long time amass into bigger things.

If there truely were transitional forms, there should be MILLIONS of steps between Phylums, yet there are NONE!!!

A good example would be passenger pigeons. They went extinct and yet previously there were billions of them. Tell me David, how many fossil remains do we have? Answer = 0.

Further to that, we don't just dig in a spot and find what we're looking for. I suggest you buy a metal detector and spend some time treasure hunting. It is an insanely long and laborious task that presents vastly more defeats than successes. Sometimes we just get lucky.

There is really only one question in Evolution - how did it all start.

You've got the wrong subject. That is not evolution.

Evolution, as it is defined in your fantasy science, is about changes. Making bigger dogs or making them have specific characteristics is about breeding - getting the right genes together. There is no change here, only the mixing of desirable genes.

Dog breeding would be considered as 'forced evolution', in that it has only happened due to the influences of man. I generally use dogs as an example merely because it is easier for people to understand and relate to. Dogs are well known, whereas many other animals are not, (especially insects). With evolution, insects are easier to study because of several reasons but mainly due to how quickly they pass through generations.

Yes, I found the story about little people skeletons fascinating. Evolutionists are saying on the news that these skeletons could change the whole story of Evolution??? What!!! You mean the Evolutionists have decided that all they have been telling us in the past is WRONG and these little skeletons are going to set us right??? Now, why should I believe them now when they are confessing they were wrong in the past?

I'm sorry, but this is typical "church induced paranoia". Although science is very willing to say it is wrong if it is, (unlike religion).. the term that would be more appropriate is "ammending". Further to which, the media are not the face or brains of science. The media tell a story as succinctly and simply as possible. If you want a more accurate telling of the events, you really would be wise to pick up a proper report as opposed to what CNN has to say on the matter.

Stop changing the subject and answer my questions about the origin of life!

I already have 50 times, you just keep ignoring it.

Why should I believe in your religion - Evolutionism?

What uneducated preist told you evolution was a religion?

 

[SnakeLord]

God is good and eternal and loves you jealously like a mother bird trying to protect her young before the cat has his fill

Unless he has just so happened to pre-plan you to a life of abject suffering. Or unless he's in a bad mood and strikes you to death with a lightning bolt because you're naughty.

 

[TruthSeeker]

In other words, give up because it is too hard and say the great cop-out, "God is responsible".

Not at all. I'm saying that if you want to discuss it, you will have tobe abl to dal with that, you know? Because most people don't dare go there.

Wonder how far we would have come if that mentality prevailed..

With the way you see it.... not far....

 

[TruthSeeker]

It has to do with the nature of being a prime mover. If there is to be a Prime Mover, the implication is that this mover is eternal, or, did not have a beginning itself. Furthermore, there is the implication that this Prime Mover has to be capable of causing simplicity to extend into potentially infinite complexity. It is believed that such an entity must be omnipotent for such a feat. These characteristics, as far as it is understood, apply only to that which is actually infinite, as opposed to simply being potentially infinite. If the Prime Mover itself were only potentially infinite, then this means that it, also, had a beginning, which would mean that it isn't really the Prime Mover. Another implication of such an entity being capable of creating the universe is that this Prime Mover is necessary for the universe to exist. As such, it would be the only necessary being, and all else is contingent. Again, this is a quality of an actual infinite, while contingency is a quality of the potentially infinite.

...

Thank you. I could never had said it better.

 

[David F.]

I haven't at any stage asked for a change of discussion. I have merely pointed out that our current topic does not leave you in a position to say "give up your religion - evolutionism", and other such sentences that are not what evolution is all about. As I said earlier, we can sit here and agree that "god" did it, but it would in no way hinder the science known as evolution.

You'll find all your questions were answered in my last post. However, being the nice chap that I am, I'll go through it all again.

Firstly let me reiterate that the original forming of DNA is not the heart of evolution, and without such does not render evolution dead, or even bruised for that matter.

Why not, it happens all the time? No matter how many numbers you come up with, no matter how miniscule the chances are, it can still happen.

I have tried since the event I depicted, to somehow work out the odds for such a thing to happen. My maths is not awful, but it's not that good that I could successfully manage it - and yet I can only state it as a technical impossibility.

I don't deny the serious task that would have to be achieved, or the numbers behind it - but there is nothing to show that freaky shit doesn't happen, even though a bunch of statisticians would claim it technically impossible. I have the feeling if I mentioned my event prior to it actually happening, a statistician would have given me the same odds.

Further to which, as another poster kindly mentioned, you cannot guarantee the requirements of DNA billions of years ago.

Well, I read a statistic once that said 90% of statistics were wrong.

Would you like to point out where I showed a slug became a man? You're the one that claimed we only differ by 10%, and as with most things you ever say, my questions concerning it have been ignored completely.. And now you have the audacity to try and turn it round to me.

However, a debate cannot go in this manner. I answer every single question you pose, (even the pointless ones), and yet to date you have not shown the decency to answer any that I have asked, instead preferring to just ignore them as with everything else. You make claims, and then when asked- ignore it. You make challenges, and then when accepted- ignore it, and you get asked questions which you then ignore.

This is pure rudeness. Call me as many names as you want, but this I do find rude.

On my last post, if you bother to look, you will see me asking exactly what is sufficient enough for you to consider something as a new phylum, class or species, and what will suffice as transitional.

Instead of answering, you just make some petty remarks against evolutionists saying they'll claim any old nonsense such as platypus. But then if you bothered answering the damn question, you wouldn't have to resort to baseless insults at evolutionists now would you?

I am asking you. What do you consider as sufficient enough evidence of a transitional?

I answered your question, you dismissed it.. so I gave you the choice to tell me what is sufficient enough for you, and you ignore it. That is dangerously ridiculous.

Why ask questions, ignore the answers, and say I didn't answer the questions?

As for new phylums, I informed you that you cannot expect these things to happen overnight. Changes are slight and gradual, and eventually over a long time amass into bigger things.

A good example would be passenger pigeons. They went extinct and yet previously there were billions of them. Tell me David, how many fossil remains do we have? Answer = 0.

Further to that, we don't just dig in a spot and find what we're looking for. I suggest you buy a metal detector and spend some time treasure hunting. It is an insanely long and laborious task that presents vastly more defeats than successes. Sometimes we just get lucky.

You've got the wrong subject. That is not evolution.

Dog breeding would be considered as 'forced evolution', in that it has only happened due to the influences of man. I generally use dogs as an example merely because it is easier for people to understand and relate to. Dogs are well known, whereas many other animals are not, (especially insects). With evolution, insects are easier to study because of several reasons but mainly due to how quickly they pass through generations.

I'm sorry, but this is typical "church induced paranoia". Although science is very willing to say it is wrong if it is, (unlike religion).. the term that would be more appropriate is "ammending". Further to which, the media are not the face or brains of science. The media tell a story as succinctly and simply as possible. If you want a more accurate telling of the events, you really would be wise to pick up a proper report as opposed to what CNN has to say on the matter.

I already have 50 times, you just keep ignoring it.

What uneducated preist told you evolution was a religion?

Come on now, you still won't answer my question. You are trying to frame Evolution as minor changes in DNA (actually copying errors) which is what science calls Micro-Evolution. Dog Breeding is NOT EVOLUTION. There are no changes in the genes. If you want to talk about how the genes got there in the first place, then that would be Evolution. Careful, you're showing your extreme ignorance.

Your little example is nothing like the coincidence you require to form DNA. They are not even close to the same magnitude. The attitutde that "we are here therefore it must have happened" is the tired old fall-back for evolutionists. No, our existance does NOT prove Evolution.

I have never asked you to consider that God did it. I have not at any time touted Creation as the answer (I think it probably is, but my inability to prove it means I can't ask you to believe such a thing.) Let's stick to Science here. You are asking me to believe in Incredible, Fastastic, Impossible Luck. Science is never based upon luck and your's is so incredulous as to draw on fantasy. You are always asking Theists to prove things and then mocking them when they can't so, I ask you again... PROVE IT OR SHUT UP. How can DNA form randomly?

 

[SnakeLord]

Come on now, you still won't answer my question.

And you have not answered a single one of mine. Up until now all you have done is quote my entire post and then ignore it all. C'mon, surely it's a little give and a little take? Frankly, you do not have the decency, manners or maturity to be engaged in a debate of this nature- as is shown by your one true consistency of ignoring everything in preference of just spouting your non-stop church propoganda, that isn't based upon any understanding whatsoever, but simple incompetence and ignorance.

I realise you have absolutely nothing of worth to say, and cannot debate the points I have raised, or indeed answer the questions I have posed, but then why waste my time? Why do I even bother asking when I already know you'll just ignore it so you can waffle some inane garbage for the next millennium?

When you want a debate, and are willing to conduct the debate in a manner that is appropriate, call me.

For the final time:

Come on now, you still won't answer my question.

Although answering a question to your satisfaction seems to be impossible, it would be made a lot easier for me to do if you'd pay attention to my fucking posts. Undoubtedly you'll now just cry over my use of a rude word, but I find it's usually a worthwhile method to use with people who cannot comprehend things of such simplicity. Further to which, it is quite hard to grasp exactly what you have problem with considering you just lumped my entire post into one big quote and then started up with your typical banter.

You are trying to frame Evolution as minor changes in DNA (actually copying errors) which is what science calls Micro-Evolution. Dog Breeding is NOT EVOLUTION.

The history of dogs is evolution, which you'd know if you knew anything about evolution - which you clearly do not. And I'm not trying to frame evolution as anything. I've asked you six fucking times what you would consider sufficient evidence of a transitional/new phylum etc, all to no avail and have merely explained to you 5 times that how it all began is not what evolution is about. The fact that you are blind or insanely incompetent is not my problem.

Your little example is nothing like the coincidence you require to form DNA. They are not even close to the same magnitude.

As you are clearly able to state such a thing, you must have calculated the odds concerning my example. Would you kindly provide them please? Guess this will be ignored aswell.

The attitutde that "we are here therefore it must have happened" is the tired old fall-back for evolutionists. No, our existance does NOT prove Evolution.

Here you go again with your boring little insults towards evolutionists, without even realising that how it all began is not evolution. The sooner you start paying attention to my posts, the sooner we can progress.

I have never asked you to consider that God did it. I have not at any time touted Creation as the answer (I think it probably is, but my inability to prove it means I can't ask you to believe such a thing.) Let's stick to Science here.

Yes lets. And the science known as evolution is not about who started it all, be that god or random fluke happening.

You are asking me to believe in Incredible, Fastastic, Impossible Luck.

I didn't ask you to believe anything, I merely provided a possible explanation that you can accept, deny, stick up your bum or throw out the window. I don't honestly care. What would be nice is if you'd take the time to read my posts and respond to them in proper manner - while paying attention to any return questions that I might ask.

How's our history challenge coming along btw?

You are always asking Theists to prove things and then mocking them when they can't so

As I've now explained 50,000 times - I never ask theists to prove anything. If you opened your eyes once in a while, you'd already know that.

I ask you again... PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

You're bizarrely amusing, and I personally consider YOU proof that we couldn't have been designed and that it must have been pure luck, (or bad luck).

How can DNA form randomly?

Luck of the draw I guess. How many more times do I need to say it before your ears start working?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Luck of the draw I guess. How many more times do I need to say it before your ears start working?

How many trillions of trillions of years would that take?

 

[§outh§tar]

Not at all. I'm saying that if you want to discuss it, you will have tobe abl to dal with that, you know? Because most people don't dare go there.


With the way you see it.... not far....

If that was the case this forum wouldn't survive very long, eh?

 

[§outh§tar]

I would like to answer this one, if I may, SouthStar.

It has to do with the nature of being a prime mover. If there is to be a Prime Mover, the implication is that this mover is eternal, or, did not have a beginning itself. Furthermore, there is the implication that this Prime Mover has to be capable of causing simplicity to extend into potentially infinite complexity. It is believed that such an entity must be omnipotent for such a feat. These characteristics, as far as it is understood, apply only to that which is actually infinite, as opposed to simply being potentially infinite. If the Prime Mover itself were only potentially infinite, then this means that it, also, had a beginning, which would mean that it isn't really the Prime Mover. Another implication of such an entity being capable of creating the universe is that this Prime Mover is necessary for the universe to exist. As such, it would be the only necessary being, and all else is contingent. Again, this is a quality of an actual infinite, while contingency is a quality of the potentially infinite.

Why are these implications important? Because they point to the Prime Mover as being actually infinite. As such, it must necessarily be that the Prime Mover is a conscious entity, since otherwise it would not be infinte, being that it is lacking in a given quality. Actual infinity neccessitates that all potentiality is met out, fulfilled, and therefore no possibility exists within it. Therefore, since consciousness is a possibility, that may or may not be accessible to a potential infinite, it is necessarily a part of an actual infinite. By the same logic, intelligence and free will are possibilities of consciousness, and therefore are already met out within the actual infinite, meaning that the actual infinite is both intelligent and free of will, which also necessitates emotion, as emotion is a result of interaction between intellect and will.

Furthermore, any non-free willing entity could not be a prime mover, as any non-free willing entity is an effect of a cause, and therefore could never be the first cause. Therefore the Prime Mover must be a free willing entity, otherwise there could be no Prime Mover at all. As such, the Prime Mover must necessarily also be intelligent, and therefore must also experience emotion.

A free willing, intelligent, emotional, infinite entity, by the very nature of its being, is self-centered. This is because there can be nothing outside of itself that isn't made of up that which it is, since all possibility is met out within such an actual infinite. Therefore, such a Prime Mover would create that which is like unto itself, by necessity, since it could not create anything wholly unlike itself, since that would imply a contradiction. Ergo, in creating that which is, the Prime Mover would have understood what it was creating, would have fully willed what it was creating, and would have loved that which it was creating, since it was potentially able to grow infinitely and become more and more like unto the Prime Mover. It could not be any other way, since such a Prime Mover could not create anything destructive, by nature, since destruction is a movement away from the infinite, and toward nothingnes, which is entirely unlike the actual infinite, and therefore implies a contradiction.

Ergo, such a Prime Mover would necessarily care about that which it creates, as it would be unhappy to see its creations become unlike it, and tend toward destruction and nothingness. So, such a Prime Mover would necessarily be a Divine Being (having intellect and free will), and a personal God (caring for that which it creates).

After defining the limits of God with man's terminology, we see that He must then be responsible for all evil directly. Looks like Satan is off the hook. Besides that, I believe the Bible has many instances of a destructive God so your definition must be flawed in some respect. Besides that, the "historical" God doesn't seem to be too interested in being confined to logic..