Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 136    Average: 4.1/5]
598 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 15272
Rating: 4.1
Category: Entertainment
Date: 02/27/08 12:03 AM

598 Responses to Atheism: Raw and Uncut

  1. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 26, 2008 at 7:09 pm
    Link: Atheism: Raw and Uncut - A phone-in discussion on knowledge and atheism. Great resolution by the caller at the end of the clip.
  2. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:09 am
    It`s not about faith >.<
    Faith is blind trust.

    But pretty much dead on.
    Nope, dead on.

  3. Profile photo of T3h-Wraith
    T3h-Wraith Male 13-17
    645 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:17 am
    Here we go again.

    Round 14.

  4. Profile photo of Nightshifter
    Nightshifter Male 18-29
    513 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:18 am

    Just posing a simple question here, and I`m not trying to start any long drawn out debates or anything... but with a yes or no answer only... do you, the IAB forum, believe in God??
  5. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:19 am
    14 - 0.
    That was exactly what I was talking about in the Oxford thread - about the asilums and fairy tales.
    IAB is inanimate.
  6. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:19 am
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Don`t get me started again on you chucky...

    We`ve already tried to have this conversation and you couldn`t hold up your end of the bargain.

  7. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:21 am
    The fact of the matter is, there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God; there is also not sufficient evidence to disregard belief in God. So this argument goes nowhere. I base my belief in God on educated logic, not personal experience. Atheists base their non-belief in God on logic. So the only thing we could really argue are logical arguments that we can`t prove.

    Outcome of this match? Draw....until we`re dead, and we could all figure it out for ourselves.

  8. Profile photo of DrkAng3LxNat
    DrkAng3LxNat Female 18-29
    1071 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:22 am
    i like the bald guy. he puts into words what ive been trying to explain to people for a loooong time. im just not good with words T_T
  9. Profile photo of elfwynrane
    elfwynrane Female 18-29
    11 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:22 am
    Wow, was that caller serious at the end? He did a good job of holding back if he was. Score 1 for the atheists.
  10. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:22 am
    Wait, who`s chucky?
  11. Profile photo of DrkAng3LxNat
    DrkAng3LxNat Female 18-29
    1071 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:23 am
    @ maddux32

    nice one =P

  12. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:24 am
    "Educational logic"
    Thats a new concept.
    Somebody tells you some -> you believe it. Thats not logic.

    And that *you* can`t prove as a Christian.
    We can.

  13. Profile photo of rdegertson
    rdegertson Male 18-29
    6 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:25 am
    That was one of the most reasonable cases for not believing in God that I have seen in my life. I don`t understand how so many people are still deluded with this guy out there. Disagree with me and I`ll punch you in your fat head.
  14. Profile photo of PierrotLeFou
    PierrotLeFou Male 18-29
    12 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:28 am
    Not trying to bash christians or anything, I have many close christian friends, but have you noticed that people who are highly religious tend to become extremely violent when someone tries to have a serious and intelligent conversation with them and they are backed into a corner.
  15. Profile photo of elfwynrane
    elfwynrane Female 18-29
    11 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:30 am
    Yeah, not to start a debate but that caller sums up most of the Christians I`ve ever met. They try to be calm, cool, collected, and it`s like watching a tea kettle boil. Eventually, it just boils and the steam comes out screaming.
  16. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:32 am
    Indeed, I to have christian friends.
    We just don`t talk about it.

    Ooo, anecdote.
    As part of the C-RAF we would go door to door before Christmas collecting canned goods.

    An old lady answer, Told her why where going door to door (Event called "La Guygnoller" (sp))

    She tells me "Un petit instant" (Wait for one small moment)
    I replie "Oui" (yes)
    She says "Je suis Catholic" (I am Catholic)Pauses, and closes the door.

    I walk down, figure out she tells me "Êtes-vous Protestant?" 9Are you Protestent?)

    Come on, wouldn`t give me canned goods for the needy.

  17. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:37 am
    @ maddux32 - Just because you can`t disprove something doesn`t mean it`s real.

    Suppose I`m a physicist and I claim to have discovered a new form of matter. If I offer absolutely no scientific evidence to justify my claim, certainly it must be reasonable to dismiss my alleged discovery as nonsense. A lack of evidence is a perfectly justifiable reason to hold disbelief in the existence of something. One does not need evidence to hold disbelief.

  18. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:41 am
    Hmm, wonder how many arguments would be absolved if everyone watched "Contact".

    To the end.
    Even after the trial.

  19. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:41 am
    " "Educational logic"
    Thats a new concept.
    Somebody tells you some -> you believe it. Thats not logic.

    And that *you* can`t prove as a Christian.
    We can."

    It is? My logic isn`t based on what someone told me, it`s based on what logic I`ve formed myself after studying the subjects for years (religion, science, physics...etc) But it doesn`t matter, because no matter what my logic is, you can`t disprove it, not anymore than I can prove it. So whats the point?

  20. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:45 am
    "@ maddux32 - Just because you can`t disprove something doesn`t mean it`s real.

    Suppose I`m a physicist and I claim to have discovered a new form of matter. If I offer absolutely no scientific evidence to justify my claim, certainly it must be reasonable to dismiss my alleged discovery as nonsense. A lack of evidence is a perfectly justifiable reason to hold disbelief in the existence of something. One does not need evidence to hold disbelief."

    Nobody ever said that...all I said was that you cannot prove that God exists, anymore than I can prove that he DOES exist. We both base our opinions on some form of logic, and nobody in all of history has ever been able to prove anything one way or another. If they have, we wouldn`t be having these silly religious wars.

  21. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:46 am
    "One does not need evidence to hold disbelief."

    Nor does one need evidence to hold belief.

  22. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:50 am
    Wait a minute Koala....so you`re telling me that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, definitively without a question that God doesn`t exist?

    I`d love to hear your argument...

    and if you can pull it off...I`ll never post on IAB ever again. But you better come with something real good. I`d love to hear what you have to say.

    Be prepared to defend yourself. Anyone who claims they could prove what Einstein, Da Vinci, Aristotle, and all the great physicists and scientists of all time could not prove has a lot of balls.

    You`re move

  23. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:51 am
    There`s insufficient evidence to believe in a god, there`s insufficient evidence to disbelieve in a god. So why involve a god at all and not just stick to what we know? That`s what I do.
  24. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:52 am
    No, no, no, this is intresting.
    You`re basing your beleif of god on logic.

    Many, many people would be responsive to that.
    very responsive, myself one of them.

    Clearly explain, spelling, grammar, spaced out, coherently (because others would ask the same of me) what is your logic behind your belief in god.

  25. Profile photo of rdegertson
    rdegertson Male 18-29
    6 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:53 am
    @maddux32- Belief in a certain God impacts the world we live in and has profound effect on our lives no matter whether we are religious or not. I think that religious people should at least offer proof for why they`re drating up so many lives. (Gays, for instance) So (wo)man up and fulfill the burden of proof that rests squarely upon your shoulders.
  26. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:53 am
    Sorry, I mean`t I can prove my beliefs.
    "You can`t prove yours, we can"
  27. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:58 am
    In other news, check out what I just won!

    WINNING NOTIFICATION LETTER.{[email protected]}
    We happily announce That the draw (#568) of UK Online Lottery Raffle
    Draw held on 20th Feb, 2008. Your e-mail address
    attached to ticket number: 2,09,14,20,32,02 which subsequently won you
    the Uk National Lottery cash Prizes.

    You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of £590,983.00
    (Great Britain Pounds Sterling) in cash credited
    to file KTU/9023118308/03.

    To file for your cl aim, please contact our
    Fiduciary Agent:DR DENIS ERNEST
    Email:[email protected]
    VERIFICATION FORM.(Fill and send to the fiduciary agent).
    1.FULLNAME:2.E-MAIL ADDRESS:3.FULL ADDRESS:4.SEX:5.AGE:6.OCCUPATION:7.TEL:8.COUNTRY:9.AMOUNT WON.
    Good luck from me and members of UK Online International Lottery

    Mrs. Dolly Ricky.
    Online Co-ordinator
    UK Online International Lottery

  28. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:59 am
    I`ll be owning you b°tches with my cool Million $. Haha, suckers! I rule, you drool!
    Wish you had my kind of luck eh? suckahs!
    I pwn!
    I am THE MAN!

    Yeah!

  29. Profile photo of faeleia
    faeleia Female 18-29
    36 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:59 am
    God`s ways are not man`s ways. Those who truly seek Him out will find Him. Those who do not care for Him will not understand the parables that Jesus told his disciples.

    The faith of man is this. It wavers, and can never sustain. It would take a God to be able to hold faith. Man can only look to substitutes for satisfying emotional needs. Whereas they try to demand them from another person, more often than not, they fall short of that expectation. This constant failure led some to believe that true love does not exist.

    Of course, only perfect love can come from God. Rejecting God rejects perfect love, to which one would have to rely on his own resource which is limited and not stable.

    As such, man has subordinated emotions to science and logic. But any person can know that science and reason do not fill all gaps of the heart. Dissatisfaction arises. Without God, nothing is perfect. The glory of God is to conceal, the righteous of man is to seek.

  30. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:00 am
    Rofl, notice how they send this to me but can`t be bothered to have the "E-mail" and "Amount won" things filled in for themselves.

    Who the hell falls for this crap?

  31. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:01 am
    Koala, I would love to, but here is the problem, because it`s a logical argument based loosely on science, it involves a lot of assumptions. I don`t claim that my assumptions are good enough to convert anybody, and I don`t try to convert anybody.

    All I`m saying is that in my mind, I can make a better logical argument as to why God DOES exist, than why God DOESN"T exists. An in my dualing views, I chose the one that made the most sense to me. I`m not claiming that my logic is any better than yours, I`m just saying that I`ve thought about it a lot, and I`m convinced there is a God based on the things that I`ve thought about and analyzed.

    If you still want to here my argument, ok, but I`m not gonna post it here, becuase I`m limited to 1000 character posts and that is no where near efficient. My Myspace page is in my profile, message me and I`ll carry on with you from there. It should be fun.

  32. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:01 am
    @ maddux32 - You said:
    "there is also not sufficient evidence to disregard belief in God. So this argument goes nowhere."

    I was addressing that point. You said that there is not sufficient evidence to disregard belief in God, implying that one needs evidence in order to lack belief. I was pointing out that, in fact, it is the opposite. One needs a LACK of evidence to disregard belief.

    @ rdegertson - I agree; in any religious debate, it is definitely up to the Theist to prove his/her belief to be true, not the Atheist to prove it false.

  33. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:01 am
    I feel bad for you faeleia. You`re a hallucinated human beyond repair.
  34. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:01 am
    Pointless debate, unless it is to refine our arguments in the future, or, as it is now, animal-like attempts at superiority.

    Certainly all evidence pointing towards a god is discounted by an atheist, whereas all evidence pointing towards there being no god is discounted by a believer. Different filters. Disregarding all objective evidence, of course, because we are not capable at this point, IMO, of the science or philosophy of determining whether god exists, or ultimately defining what god is. We can assume that god would use whatever methods s/he/it chooses to utilize, in perfect intelligence, to complement our development to its maximum potential while still retaining the reality of free will. This means that we may be totally unable to understand it, anyway. If existence does not meet your intellectual or emotional standards, then I hope you don`t look too stupid to our educated descendants as our ancestors appear to the "intellectuals" of this age.

    Pointless debate

  35. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:03 am
    faeleia said "Of course, only perfect love can come from God. Rejecting God rejects perfect love, to which one would have to rely on his own resource which is limited and not stable."

    I wank very well thank you. Years of practice.
    Practice makes perfect.

  36. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:03 am
    @Mjustin and rdegertson - Actually it`s the other way around. For a theist it`s easy to explain the natural or unnatural order of things using god. It is up to us atheists to come up with a sound explanation to disregard God.
  37. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:03 am
    ^^^

    Of course, this is taking into account that we are fully capable of understanding, but that we just have confused ourselves into what passes as evidence. Science is only reasonably applied to practical purposes, not life, emotion, belief, etc. Because all of those things that make life worth living are to be lived, not belittled or gotten rid of.

  38. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:05 am
    Ok Justin, but the problem is that I don`t hold a religious belief because I don`t believe in religion. I believe that God exists, Im not going to sit here and try to prove why any one religion is the true religion. I don`t have sufficient evidence to tell me there isn`t a God. I also don`t have sufficient evidence to suggest there is one.

    If that is the point we are arguing, then nobody can prove anything. You want me to give you sufficient evidence to prove that God exists...thats a mighty tall order considering that nobody in all of history has ever been able to do it.

    I place this task on your shoulders...give me sufficient evidence to prove that God doesn`t exists. Do it, and I`ll recant my belief in God.

    You see the trouble with atheists is that they always require people to prove things to them, without ever having to prove anything...what fun is that?

  39. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:05 am
    SpoonFork: no, not pointless.
    Debates like this not only force people to respond to arguments,making better and stronger ones each time, but also reafirm each person`s own beliefs.

    The Athiest will pride in other Athiest`s writtings, showing believers as Kooks the Believer will point out other believer`s (faeleia for example) virtuosity and the Athiest`s emptiness.

    This is good.

  40. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:07 am
    SpoonFork said: "Certainly all evidence pointing towards a god is discounted by an atheist"

    ok, evidence, this si what we have been asking for, what is it?

  41. Profile photo of Kaizer250
    Kaizer250 Male 18-29
    777 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:07 am
    That bald guy is the kind of person that I would enjoy sitting down with in a coffee shop and having a conversation.
    Nothing like a good bit of refreshing logic.
  42. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:08 am
    Koala, define virtuosity. I believe I`m a good person, if I see an old lady I will help her across the street, if someone asks something of me I always try to give to the best of my ability. I rarely ever curse and I love my family and friends. Am I any less virtuous because I don`t believe in God?
  43. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:10 am
    I`ll give you one hundred logical evidence supporting that God exists....and then I`ll give you all of the correct counter arguments.

    You can give me a thousand logical arguments of why God doesn`t exists, and I`ll counter every single one of them.

    The funny part is, neither one of us can prove anything so it`s a pointless debate. All the religious wars in the world will never solve the riddle of which religion is the "true" religion. And it will never answer the time honored question "is there a God".

    The fact that wars exists pertaining to the devine is a fallacy of man, not a talking point for why belief in the devine is pointless.

    You can say that and I`ll counter with..."yeah, but athiests kill people too, maybe they should have God in their life". You see how pointless this is.

  44. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:12 am
    "ok, evidence, this si what we have been asking for, what is it?"

    Koala, I`m asking from evidence from you...what is your evidence. I love how you keep avoiding the question.

  45. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:13 am
    Maybe we`re arguing about the wrong thing. Instead of arguing over evidence, shouldn`t we be arguing over what `reason` there is to believe or disbelieve in a god in the first place? Atheists have no reason so they don`t. What`s a good reason for Theists to believe in one? Maddux what`s yours? You seem like an intelligent person, I`d like to know.=)
  46. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:14 am
    Hey Koala, until you can prove that God doesn`t exists, your not allowed to call people "kooks"....except for those crazy southern baptists that "hate fags".
  47. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:14 am
    Johnny_Blaze:
    That was an example. Not saying Fae was virtuous.
    There are many virtuous (See the film "Warriors of Virtu") Her`s was ... er, faith? Can faith be a virtu?

    Anyways, you seem neew here, not many posts.
    A lot of these debates continue because of me. I`m Atheist. Just as much as the man in the video. If not more. Where he says maybe, I say "Iron clad yes".

    If there is an entity, somewhere in the universe, who is omniscient, I still won`t say it`s "god". Why? Because he did not create the universe, he is just all powerfull.

    People should read "The The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect" It`s a good example of what I mean.

    Book: (readable online)
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/...

    Wiki:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamor...

  48. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:16 am
    @ Johnny_Blaze - The fact that they explain things using God is precisely why the Theist must prove their point with real evidence. Additional beliefs require justification in order to be accepted.

    I think we can all agree that the universe exists, right? So, we can safely assume that the Theist and the Atheist both believe in the existence of at least 1 thing. The Theist also believes in God, which is one more thing. So, the Theist believes in 1 more thing than the Atheist. If all beliefs should be justified, then clearly the more one believes, the more justification one must produce.

  49. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:16 am
    maddux32:
    That was an example, I do not say they where Kooks.

    Secondly:
    http://www.i-am-bored.com/forums.asp?act...

  50. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:17 am
    "SpoonFork: no, not pointless."

    me: "unless it is to refine our arguments in the future"

    "ok, evidence, this si what we have been asking for, what is it?"

    A google search will bring up countless links that will provide evidence that will be countlessly dismissed by an unbeliever. A "logical" person of this day will on one hand understand that they know next to $hit about reality, but will then dismiss the notion of omniscience. Which brings up the ridiculousness of discounting omniscience with a tiny bit of knowledge of that omniscience. An intelligent fish may look at the fish bowl and assume that all things are fishbowls, because that`s all he knows, but the intelligent fish would also use his knowledge of fishbowls as a stepping stone towards understanding the bigger reality. The thing an intelligent fish would not do is to assume his opinion would not change based on his vantage point, effectively hindering his progression. Same go

  51. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:17 am
    Let`s use an illustration, shall we?

    Suppose there is a lawsuit in which I claim a written contract exists, while the other party denies its existence. Surely I must justify my claim of the existence of this alleged contract with evidence, perhaps physically showing the contract to the court myself. If I have no evidence and seek to provide none, the case will be dismissed because there is no evidence for such a contract, and as such there is no reason to believe that it exists.

    This isn`t to say, however, that it most certainly does not exist. There is, of course, a possibility that I told the truth about said contract, and I merely misplaced the contract and could find no evidence of its existence to show the court.

  52. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:17 am
    Koala:
    But you`re going off the definition of God that you know. There are many a religion that do believe that God created the universe, and that he is all powerful. Some even say he made the big bang. I was watching the Universe special today on History channel and they said that is the single biggest mystery of humans. What came before the big bang? Theists say god. What do we say? I don`t even know, because I can`t make that assumption.
  53. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:19 am
    Johnny: The reason I believe in God is because science dictates everything has a beginning and an end. It also states that everything must have a cause for it`s beginning. This means that the universe has a cause for it`s beginning that is not bound by the rules of our universe (because it was the cause for the existence of the universe). That leads me to two conclusions...either the cause was random, or intelligent. The fact that I have the ability to think, analyze, feel emotion, reason, argue, etc...leads me to believe that there is some intelligence behind the design of the universe. And I need more than 1000 characters to state all the reasons why...more like 20,000 words. But thats the gist....it`s either one or the other.

    I can poke 1 billion holes in this statement on it`s own, but this isn`t a complete argument. Simply put, it would be cool to talk about this with someone over coffee somewhere.

  54. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
    Mjustin, a more accurate lawsuit would be a party suing you on the basis that you don`t love your family, which you would then have to prove, somehow. When does love manifest enough to prove that it exists?
  55. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
    @Mjustin: Point well taken, but how would we counter to a Theist if they say that who knows the mind of a god except God himself? The only thing we can do is deny the existence of a God and the arguement starts over again.
  56. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
    SpoonFork:
    No, I want you to give me examples, not just "A google search" A Search of what? Keywords? While you`re finding that out, Why don`t you gibve me an example so we can both talk about the same thing.
  57. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:22 am
    Maddux32: I think you have a sound reason to believe in a God, but I think you believe in more of a creator than a god. But either way, if there`s a creator to the Universe...who created the creator? You yourself said everything has a beginning and an end? So where did the `Creator` start?
  58. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:23 am
    Johnny_Blaze: Usually the Debate is about Christianity and the Bible. Just Christianity, not Calvanism, Protestinism, Chrsitianity.
  59. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:24 am
    Google. Really, it`s not that hard, and it is a lot more capable and fulfilling of your request than I could ever be. If we`re arguing who is going to win in an argument, I`ve grown beyond the posturing needed to make me feel good about my position in life.
  60. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:24 am
    @ Johhny_Blaze - True, but what goes on in the mind of God does not affect whether he is real or not. I can prove that a person exists by using physical proof, such as photos, a birth certificate, the person itself, etc. I can`t prove someone`s existence just by saying they`re real; their mind has nothing to do with their reality.
  61. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:24 am
    Hey Koala, you are not really saying anything...you`re not responding to anything, and you`re not arguing anything. You`re making random statments without backing them up, and then claiming the reason we are having this discussion is because of you?

    If you want to make an intelligent argument, don`t post a link to one of your text books, tell it from the hip, otherwise I`d rather argue with your college professor...at least he`d have something to say.

    You claim to have all this evidence....SO WHAT IS IT? Put your money where your mouth is. What is this evidence you speak of. Inquiring minds want to know.

  62. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:26 am
    I`m calling you out...you claim to be intelligent, but you haven`t shown me anything. You`re like one of these college students who took their first debate class. You pick on all the little people and when it comes to really prove what your saying, you ignore the issue.
  63. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:26 am
    @Mjustin - Alright, but say you never knew about me before I posted on iab or joined. I still existed didn`t I? I knew I existed, people close to me knew I existed but you didn`t. And yet I may have altered something on iab`s website without you ever knowing. So the mind does have a lot to do with the reality. Where does that leave us?
  64. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:28 am
    Koala does seem to want to contain the argument in an environment s/he/it is comfortable with. Wait until you REALLY start questioning reality.
  65. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:30 am
    @ Spoonfork - That may work, but love is not physical, it is emotional, therefore only one can truly ever know of one`s own love, not the love of another.

    God is supposed to be a physical entity, not necessarily the way man is used to. Since we can`t know the mind of God (just as we can`t truly know the mind of anyone but ourselves), physical proof is required to prove his existence.

  66. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:32 am
    maddux32: I`m saying everything. it`s you who isn`t saying anything ffs, read your own writtings "because I`m intelligent, feel, etc there is a god".

    Ok, you`re asking me for evidence of what I believe in? I`ll use your above statement as a starting point.

    The professor would hand you a text book to read, or would say exactly what I have said, or the following.

    You said: "The fact that I have the ability to think, analyze, feel emotion, reason, argue, etc...leads me to believe that there is some intelligence behind the design of the universe."

    I say:

  67. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:32 am
    If Koala doesn`t come with something good he loses all credibility on IAB forever. I`m not just going to sit here and have him pretend like he`s got all the answers and not be able to deliver. He claimed he had evidence to prove God doesn`t exists. I`d love to hear it. Cmon Koala...you`re letting all of us down.

    Are you smart....or just another college smartass who appears smart in front of his/her friends and parents, but cowers in the midst of people with something to bring to the table.

  68. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:32 am
    But then what is God, exactly? When you say what God is supposed to be, that`s when it goes away from truth to just debate.
  69. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:34 am
    You said: "The fact that I have the ability to think, analyze, feel emotion, reason, argue, etc...leads me to believe that there is some intelligence behind the design of the universe."
    -------------------------------------------------
    Yeah...and I said you could poke a billion holes in that statement by itself... so I already told you that it`s not a logical argument, not without the necessary logical support, which I can`t fit into a 1000 character post.

    And I have I`ve been to college, matter of fact I`ve been to grad school, I`m pretty aware of what my professors would say, and neither one of them would have handed me a text book without first presenting their side of the story.

  70. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:34 am
    Just as a side note, it`s a natural tendency for the human mind to make an order of things so it`s better able to understand it. That`s one of the reasons many people believe in god, it`s help them give order and a pattern to the happenings around them.
  71. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:35 am
    Hey Spoon...who said that?
  72. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:35 am
    @ Johnny_Blaze - It far different to claim that a human being exists than that a god exists. We all know of the existence of other humans. There are over billions alive today. Yet, have you ever seen a God? I would have some reason to believe a human such as yourself exists through statement because it is a very reasonable claim, and is likely to be true. To claim that a god exists, however, is much more far-fetched because of the fact that no one has ever proven to have seen, heard, smelled, felt, or tasted a god.
  73. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:36 am
    But I could say the same about atheists as well. I don`t understand god, so I remove it from my order of life.
  74. Profile photo of drybleeder
    drybleeder Male 18-29
    30 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:37 am
    I don`t get why so many Atheists feel such a need to understand why Theists have faith and/or try to talk them out of it. What`s it to you? It`s as annoying as dick head theists trying to shove their religions down my throat. People need to worry about themselves and let everyone else deal with poo their own way. (side note: I`m an Atheist.)
  75. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:37 am
    @Mjustin - But about the many many testimonies of various religious people who say they`ve seen god or felt him, or sensed him in some form or another. These people go around in their daily life just like every one else, so can we call them crazy and dismiss their notions completely?
  76. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:38 am
    The theory of relativity proves that other dimensions exists that we cannot see...within our own universe. It exists in the same way that a 2 dimensional being could never understand the world of a three dimensional being. There are things we cannot explain...that doesn`t mean that they don`t exist.
  77. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:38 am
    To clarify, God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. If we are to define it as that, then we`re stuck with the notion that God is everything that exists, even yourself, and then you`d be arguing against your reality as well. And so on.

    If we are really going to pretend to understand reality by deluding ourselves to even imagine we have any authority on such a thing, then we`re being fools. Of course, if we are debating what our role in reality is, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, whatever, then we can get somewhere. I suppose that`s what people are REALLY arguing about when they THINK they`re arguing about God, but it really just gets pointless because everybody wants to define what reality is without any real authority on the subject, especially in this day and age when we have convinced ourselves that we are enlightened and intelligent. So did our ancestors, and look how we scoff at them.

  78. Profile photo of kongen
    kongen Male 18-29
    265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:39 am
    I dont get it...but then again I went stight to the end of the clip to hear the caller lose it and use a bad word or somethin`...my life is soo empty!
  79. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:39 am
    The reason you think/analyze/form abstract though is due to evolution, not intelligent design.

    How? christ this si going to be long due to the amount of information there is, also becasue that was one of the last things to evolve.

    So To save time I`m going to say this now: We got all the knowledge from what i am about to say from bones unearthed, carbon dating, tools laying around, scortch marks, psychology, case studies of feral children, foresic evidence of said bones and tools, Social Anthropological studies conducted threwout the world. Not to mention we have observed evolution today.

    So, we used to be Proto humans (ape-like beings) living among the trees of Africa (huge forest). When the climate changed and forests started to shrink, some of the population was forced to the edges of the forst where the trees where less dense and we had to walk on land more and more. (cont)

  80. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:39 am
    @ Johnny_Blaze - That`s true. In fact, I have heard of some new studies and hypotheses that suggest we are hardwired to believe in god(s).

    @ maddux32 - He was talking to me. That`s why I put those nifty @ so-and-so things in my posts; they avoid unnecessary confusion.

  81. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:39 am
    @drybleeder - The guy in the video explained that pretty well I thought. People care about whether or not their beliefs are true so they argue like we are right now=).
  82. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:40 am
    "Hey Spoon...who said that? "

    I made that up all by myself, lol. Sorry.

  83. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:42 am
    Ok, and then I could say that the reason for evolution was intelligent design. Our genes, molecules, etc., had to be perfected through the fire of evolution to be functionally correct...all by the design of the creator who by both of our logic exists outside of our universe. I can spin that and say the evidence of evolution is further evidence to support an intelligent God.

    Than you can say, well if he`s so smart, then why can`t he create us perfect right off the bat. And I`ll tell you that you can`t make a perfect homemade apple pie in 5 seconds...it has to be cooked.

  84. Profile photo of drybleeder
    drybleeder Male 18-29
    30 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:42 am
    Strange. I really can`t recall the last time I care about religion. Friends try to talk about it with me and end up getting mad when, instead of taking part in a sensless debate, get up and grab another beer. Same with politics. Guess I`m just a jerk. haha
  85. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:43 am
    @ JohnnyBlaze - My point is, yes we can. That is, if they can offer no proof. If they can offer some sort of proof that they sensed God, such as making other sense him as well, then they might not be so crazy after all.
  86. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:44 am
    @Maddux - If there are things that we can`t explain, then why do you use God as an explanation for something you can`t explain without the use of God? You`re saying things exist, without explanations sometimes. We`ve seen this throughout history with various events. But you explain those with God and say God doesn`t need an explanation. That`s just adding an extra element that doesn`t need to be added right? Sorry I`m not trying to offend anyone but I love to pick people`s brains =).
  87. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
    maddux32 said "If Koala doesn`t come with something good he loses all credibility on IAB forever"
    You know what? fu¢k you. not only can`t you say that, but you`re acting just like the ending opf the video, you`re P.O that I do have all the asnwers.

    You said you had a logical argument then went up to say "IN my mind I do" then "I can poke a billion hole sin that" then "i8t`s not logical"

    Don`t say otherwise, you just said it.

    You`re full of sh°t.

    I can come up with a good answer, and you know what? It would be what my text books say, which are tracable to other people, who traced it to digs.

    So here.

    Start by "googling" Paleoanthropology.

    IF you don`t it means you`re scared. (QQ Sarcaism)

    You want me to say it out of the hip? No on IAB, it,s just impracticle.

  88. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
    But then somebody would say, if you could just create an apple pie, why wouldn`t you? And then you would say, maybe it`s the process that makes it important. But then they could just say, couldn`t you just create the item with the benefit of the process, and then you could say, maybe we are created with the process, but this is how we experience that creation, and then and then and then.
  89. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:46 am
    @ maddux32 - "The theory of relativity proves..."

    Obviously, then, it offers something theism doesn`t. I believe in the existence of dimensions beyond what I can sense and explain because they have been proven to exist by math, which is concrete and doesn`t lie.

  90. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:46 am
    "Koala you`re not really saying anything" Umm, Yes, I am. You`re just shaking your head "no" and believing whatever you want to believe based on "logic" which can be poked threw a billion tmes over (like you said)

    That isn`t very logical.

  91. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:46 am
    @Mjustin - But there are people who say, these other people also sensed him, we all go to church together, etc. etc.. Are they all crazy? I can understand one or two, but all hundreds maybe thousands or even more of them are crazy? It`s quite possible but not very likely.
  92. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:48 am
    Koala, I hope that`s meant to be ironic.
  93. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:48 am
    When I shake my head "no" at what you say, I can point to a billion reasons WHY it`s wrong.

    When you shake your head "no" you can`t say anything against it.

    So I throw this back at you.

    Prove How evolution is wrong.
    Just as vague as you are.
    You did say you could poke a billion holes threw everything I say.

  94. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:49 am
    Johnny, thats not what I`m saying...I`m arguing that the only thing that we know is that the universe began, and that it will end.

    There is no getting around the the beginning of the universe was cause by something...and from here we have to options, either the cause was random, or the cause was intelligent.

    Im arguing that the cause was intelligent due to the complexity of the universe, the brilliance of evolution, the story line of history and the patterns that it follows, evidence that nobody wants to talk about regarding the afterlife, and a myriad of other things.

    I`m not saying things exists without explanation, I`m saying everything has an explanation, and if one doesn`t exists, we haven`t found it yet. But it`s there.

  95. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:50 am
    @ Johnny - Maybe I was a bit hasty in my answer about that. We don`t necessarily have to label believers as crazy and whatnot, but we have perfect justification in dismissing their beliefs as nonsense.
  96. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:50 am
    "Obviously, then, it offers something theism doesn`t. I believe in the existence of dimensions beyond what I can sense and explain because they have been proven to exist by math, which is concrete and doesn`t lie."

    I really wouldn`t be surprised if math someday "proves" God. The funny thing is is that people "knew" about other dimensions before math proved them. Which brings up the point that, before math proved them, dimensions existed, but just not in any way that we could mathematically prove.

  97. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:51 am
    maddux32: Mmm, no, the way we currently see it, the universe has no "end".

    Define what you mean by "end".

  98. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:51 am
    Which further proves that we could always prove them, we just didn`t know how.
  99. Profile photo of drybleeder
    drybleeder Male 18-29
    30 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:51 am
    Because this thread needs it.


    I like turtles.

  100. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:51 am
    I didn`t say evolution was wrong...try actually reading what I wrote and try again. I`m saying that I agree with evolution...and that it could be used as further evidence to suggest an intelligent creator.

    And when I say no to the things you say, I can absolutely say things against it...try me.

  101. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:52 am
    If we are going to start defining what "is" is, then we`re going to get nowhere. Again, we`d be just pointlessly debating. At least have the courtesy to realize that this is not debating truth at this point.
  102. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:53 am
    Define what you mean by "end".

    Science has proved that the universe is expanding, and the the speed of that expanse is slowing down, and that eventually the gravity of the universe will collapse on itself and there will be another "big bang". You really need to read up on your astronomy.

  103. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:53 am
    @ SpoonFork - If math does ever prove god to exist (in my lifetime, that is) then you have my word that I will convert and take back every blasphemous thing I ever said.
    Keep in mind that many things that people "knew" have been disproved. Geocentric theory, flat Earth, etc.
  104. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:55 am
    Spoon said: But then somebody would say, if you could just create an apple pie, why wouldn`t you? And then you would say, maybe it`s the process that makes it important. But then they could just say, couldn`t you just create the item with the benefit of the process, and then you could say, maybe we are created with the process, but this is how we experience that creation, and then and then and then.
    -------------------------------------

    Exactly

  105. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
    @Maddux32 - You sir, are an atheist. You said something created the universe, or something sparked it. I say the same thing. Everyone does. We haven`t found explanations to everything...yet, you said it, not me. Once we do, we`ll figure out whether there`s something intelligent or it was just random. Either way, you don`t think it was a `god.` Belief in god would imply more than just the need for an explanation, find me a religion where the only role of god was to start the universe and put a design behind it and let it go and I will say, there`s a very real possibility that there is a god. So far, those are your only reasons to believe in something.
  106. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
    maddux32 said: "Science has proved that the universe is expanding, and the the speed of that expanse is slowing down,"


    HAHAHAHAHA

    Oh boy.
    No, it`s speeding up.

  107. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:57 am
    No Johnny, I believe in God, therefore I`m not an atheist. I was illustrating a point on how there were only two options, and how I picked one.
  108. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:58 am
    Hey Koala, go tell that to Stephen Hawking.
  109. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:58 am
    And that was out of my hip.
    Want proof?

    thats what proof is, references.

    You can`t say "I want to see proof without you showing me a textbook, take it out of your hip"

    Thats not what proof is, proof is references.

    Here is Proof:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh...

  110. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:59 am
    http://www.space.com/universe/
  111. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:00 am
    @Mjustin - But Theists regard our thoughts as nonsense as well. We have no explanation for some questions that they offer, and therefore our disbelief means we may know a little less than they do. There are also more Theists in the world than there are Atheists, how do we regard all of that as nonsense?
  112. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:00 am
    More proof:
    http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/de_s...

    http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:7XNU...

    Thats the great thing about science, we obtain proof, evidence of contrary to what was beleived, and we hold it up to new light.

    While thiests, easpecially chirstians "No, thats the way it is because it was always that way"

  113. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 am
    You`re an idiot, your reference said that the popular opinion was that the universe was speeding up, but they didn`t take into account dark matter so now they think it`s slowing down.
  114. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 am
    @ maddux32 - Actually, science has proven that the expansion of the universe is accelerating for the time being.
  115. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 am
    @Maddux32 - Well what`s your other reasons to believe in God, other than the creation of the Universe and the chance of a design behind it?
  116. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 am
    @Mjustin- we are really at the point to living our lives practically, but we must also practically involve our emotions and such, which, to our minds, for the most part, is impractical as we`ve defined it. The ray of hope on the horizon is the study of psychology, not because psychology is so great at this point, but because it shows that we are integrating our realities into a single omniverse.
  117. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:02 am
    Your references are arguing against the norm, and are new arguments. They aren`t proving anything.
  118. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:03 am
    Yeah I got references too...

    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/accel...
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002...
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fund...

    as you were saying?....you know about science and all and all your evidence?

  119. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:04 am
    maddux32: My god you`re daft.

    I just showed you stone cold proof that the universe is expanding and you just said "They arn`t proving anything"

    It doesn`t go against the norm, it *is* the norm. And you know why? The universe slowing down has been disproven. Why? Becasue we have observed the contrary many times over and it`s testable.

  120. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:06 am
    Koala:
    "It`s not about faith >.<
    Faith is blind trust."

    That`s BLIND faith.
    Faith is trust.
    Blind faith is blind trust.

    Faith is inductive leaps based on evidence.
    Blind faith is without evidence.

    This is why people tell you you have faith. (Because they`re talking about Type 1).

    You disagree because you`re talking about blind faith (type 2).

    When they say "You have faith" or "It`s the same as your faith the sun will rise", stop saying "No it`s not" based on your mistaken definition of faith.

    The fact (absolute fact) is that I can sit here and deny that *you* exist, and continue to say "The burden of proof is on you", deny all evidence and claim "you have none!!!! I win!!!!", that`s why nobody bothers.

    That and the priori statements associated with God-Exists arguments are presently reasonable unknowns or subjective statements.

    As are certain anti-God arguments. (That start with &q

  121. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:07 am
    @Maddux32 and Koala - So...what does the universe expanding or slowing down have anything to do with God...?
  122. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:07 am
    Sorry Johnny, I`m trying to keep up, I don`t have time to give you my other reasons...but I`ll save you the suspense. They are not full proof.

    Neither are Koala`s, or yours or any other athiests to suggest that I`m wrong. Message me on my myspace page (its in my profile and I`ll respond to that. I really want to take this on...I`ve never written it out before. It will be fun.

  123. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am
    @ Johnny - Be that as it may, Theists still provide no justification for their additional beliefs. It is not nonsense to lack belief in something due to a lack of evidence. It is, in fact, completely logical, while holding a belief in something with no supporting evidence is very illogical.
  124. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am
    I`m daft? I just showed you "stone cold" evidence to go against your evidence....therefore the conclusion is....****drumroll**** science is still divided on the issue.
  125. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am
    @Baalthazag - Bad example. The sun will rise is proven, it`s a fact. Not belief. It`s proven by math and repetition. God`s faith is completely different, which is what Koala was talking about.
  126. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:09 am
    You said you have references to:

    1st one is 1999, thats before the discovery was mae.

    2nd one is in answersingenesis.org, which is a Catholic run website, not a scientificly run website, everything they say is disproven (refer yourself to me previous post on how something is disproven) using science. (For one thing, they where using Light near the event horizon of a black hole as a model for the entire universe, which is compleatly false for various reasons)

    3rd is about time slowing down, not the physical universe.

  127. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:09 am
    there, just debunked your sources.
  128. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:09 am
    @Maddux32 and Koala - So...what does the universe expanding or slowing down have anything to do with God...?

    Nothing....it`s another example of Koala avoiding the issue because he`s not up to the task of proving why God doesn`t exist.

  129. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:10 am
    @Maddux32 - Maybe tomorrow, I`m getting sleepy haha.
  130. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:11 am
    @ maddux - Your sources said that light, not the universe`s expansion, was slowing down.
  131. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:11 am
    maddux32, christ you`re full of sh°t.
    I`m not avoiding the issue, I even told you, you want Proof "out of my hip" in other words, "From my memory" thats not what Proof IS.
  132. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:12 am
    3rd is about time slowing down, not the physical universe.

    The expanse of the universe is governed by time...you debunked my resources huh? Lol, how cute.

  133. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:12 am
    I will end this now. I am god. Bow down ye puny mortals, and I will give you free reign of IAB. I created light and the universe is expanding in exact correlation to my Penis, and it is infact, starting to slow down its expansion.
  134. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:13 am
    maddux32, christ you`re full of sh°t.
    I`m not avoiding the issue, I even told you, you want Proof "out of my hip" in other words, "From my memory" thats not what Proof IS.

    So show me your PROOF....go ahead, reference the text book that debunks all claims that God exists....do it...I dare ya.

  135. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:13 am
    You said "without pointing to textbooks" Thats where the Proof IS. (which leads to more proof supporting it, which leads to digsites)

    Maddux32, you`re full of sh°t.

  136. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:13 am
    Maddux, it`s really boiling down to you fighting with somebody that isn`t really all that mature. You are at this point just de-evolving by continuing. I don`t think Koala is even interested in the veracity of his claims; only in being seen as intelligent. Insecurity.
  137. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:13 am
    @ maddux - It`s not Koala`s job to prove why God doesn`t exist. It`s your job to prove he does.
  138. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:14 am
    C`mon, you said you had stone cold proof...lets see it....or are you "full of sh*t"?
  139. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:14 am
    And FFS, not one of you has a clue what proof is.

    An article in a magazine, is not proof. Scientist rarely if ever say they`ve proven something. "There is evidence to suggest" is closer.

    Evidence: Something suggests it might be so.
    Proof: It must be so, there is nothing we do not understand, and nothing that can contradict this.

  140. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:15 am
    Hey spoon, thats what i`ve been saying since page 2...but what can you do...

    Hey Justin...no it isn`t. Thats only my job if I`m trying to make you believe God exists, in which case I`m not. I`m telling you to make me believe he doesn`t exists. So the burden of proof lies with Koala. I`m asking him to convert me...not the other way around.

  141. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
    And the prize for biggest ego goes to.....
  142. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
    That wasn`t at you, maddux.
  143. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:17 am
    You said "without pointing to textbooks" Thats where the Proof IS. (which leads to more proof supporting it, which leads to digsites)

    The fact of the matter is, you can`t do it either way....new rules, use whatever resources you like....

    Koala, you`re full of sh*t.

    C`mon kid, I have faith in you.

  144. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:17 am
    maddux32: "The expanse of the universe is governed by time"

    Not exactly, no.Time is measurment.


    Either the universe is getting widder, or the speed of light is slowing down. We use light to measure the distence of objects.

    If the speed of light where to slow down, everything would slow down at the same time.

    The only possible way for light and time to slow down would be if we are close to a black hole.

    Which we are not.

    Which is why such claims never go further then an obscure article.

  145. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
    @Baalthazag - Wrong again friend, This, taken directly from dictionary.com
    proof /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun
    1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
    2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
    3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
    4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
    5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
    6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

    Evidence *is* proof.

  146. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
    Cmon Koala, your making an ass out of yourself. Everyone thinks your an immature little kid at this point...proove em wrong....c`mon...for the gipper.
  147. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
    In which case, Maddux, everybody has to refer to your primary observation, it`s an "either-or" solution to the problem. If that is really the case, then yes, burden lays on whoever is making the claim of existence/non-existence. Yes, indeed, atheists are theists with different outfits.
  148. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:19 am
    agreed...

  149. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:20 am
    @Spoonfork - Exactly! Theists discount the possibility of all gods except theirs. We just don`t make an exception for the last one.
  150. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:20 am
    Koala: what does that have to do with whether or not God exists...focus....lets stay on topic.
  151. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    maddux32 said "The fact of the matter is, you can`t do it either way....new rules, use whatever resources you like...."

    Thats not the way it works. We can`t take whatever resources we like and say "Eureka! This means that!"

    No, it has to be physically observable. Universe slowing down was the best we had because thats the way we understood it. We then observed the opposit.

    It changed, yes, but only after carefull diliberation that the opposit wasn`t true at all, after eliminating all possibilities.

    Baal: Within the context of this argument.

  152. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    Baal: Within the context of this argument.
  153. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    Sidenote: Blackholes don`t slow down time. They just bend light and accelerate the gravity around them.
  154. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:21 am
    Which is why such claims never go further then an obscure article.

    So you agree then that it`s not a provable issue, therefore, not useful information, therefore not pertinent in the discussion of whether or not God exists.

  155. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:23 am
    @ maddux - Refer to my previous posts for why the Theist should prove his position in a religious debate.
  156. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:23 am
    Thats not the way it works. We can`t take whatever resources we like and say "Eureka! This means that!"

    Why not? You`re trying to convince me that God doesn`t exists, and your also claiming to have iron clad proof of that conclusion. I`m asking you to show me. Now your telling me that it doesn`t work that way.

    Wasn`t that my argument all along? You can`t prove God doesn`t exists, and I cant prove that he does?

  157. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:24 am
    @ maddux - Refer to my previous posts for why the Theist should prove his position in a religious debate.
    ------------------------------------------
    I agree with you when arguing religion, but thats not what I`m doing. I`m telling the athiest to prove to me why I`m wrong. In which case I can use your own arguments against you.
  158. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:25 am
    Wrong utterly.

    No, evidence is not proof, they are related words, but not the same thing.

    You can have evidence for a false conclusion.
    You cannot have proof of something false.

    "We found the murder weapon in your car" - Evidence.
    "We have videotape footage of you killing your wife" - Proof.

    That`s why you get "circumstantial evidence", but not "circumstantial proof".

    That`s why you don`t go to jail with a single piece of evidence. Although, I will be laughing my ass off if you ever do.

    "Well hey, I was in the area, I guess I must be guilty".

  159. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:26 am
    Is this a debate about religion? I say religion is an expression of our humanity as well as an approximation. I also say that if God were God, then God would do exactly as God says, "I am that I am." Meaning, God is whatever he chooses to be at that moment, but, further, God chooses to be what he is in his relationship to humans according to his omniscience.

    On and on.

  160. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:28 am
    Which illustrates that a child only knows one facet of his parents, and usually it is the child`s perception that is coloring his reality of his parents even if the child is flat out wrong.
  161. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:28 am
    @Baalthazag - No, I worded it wrong. Sufficient Evidence is proof. Last I recall, sufficient is just an adjective. Evidence is proof, period. You just need enough of it. The video tape would be counted as more evidence than the murder weapon.
  162. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:28 am
    Religion is EITHER the marked supplement for spirituality for the weak, a channel to divine revelation through habitual means, or an ingenious method of social manipulation.
  163. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:29 am
    maddux32: No, actually only you do.
    Several people have pointed out the mistakes within your ideology. Even you do.

    Let me rephrase what you said. Within this thread. What you just said.

    "My belief in god is based on logic"
    "In My head it`s logical"
    "I can poke a billion holes in it"

    That in it of itself isn`t logical.
    At all.

    I can`t point to a single textbook saying "god doesn`t exist, here`s why" I don`t know why you claim I *can* disprove the existence of god, I never said I can.

    Serisouly, look it up, I never said I can.
    I don`t know where you got that idea.

    I said I can justify and prove my own beliefs and you can`t.

    I said that even when presented with an Omnipotent entity I would not believe it created the universe, but rather that the universe created it.

    Why? Because there is Proof, evidence, thats that not the way it works.

    Where is my proof?

  164. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:30 am
    Thousands of textbooks spanning every scientific discipline.

    Millions of man hours of study, experiments, observations and research.

    All of this prooves that Even if there is a god, we do not need him. Never have, never will.

  165. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:30 am
    @ maddux - Telling someone to disprove God is completely unreasonable. Say, for example, that I claim there is a group of energy-based creatures living in the center of Uranus. It would be stupid for me to ask/tell you do disprove my claim, simply because there is no reason to believe the claim in the first place. It would be completely reasonable to tell me to justify my belief in these creatures because I assert such a belief and have shown no evidence justifying it.

    Besides, telling someone to disprove God is arguing religion, just backwards from the logical way to do so.

  166. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
    Baal, being in the area IS proof that you could possibly be guilty, but it is not enough proof yadda yadda yadda. A triangulation of evidence constitutes what proof is, not some masturbatory definition of proof that isn`t possible to fulfill.
  167. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:33 am
    Koala, that just shows that you have an emotional hang-up about God, and proves, as I said, that you have no real interest in the subject other than how it makes other people react to you.

    ME ME ME. No wonder there`s no room for God in your life. Even if he existed, you wouldn`t be able to fit him into your reality.

  168. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:34 am
    Summary: You asked me to show you all the evidence of my beliefs without referencing any textbook or study or research.

    I told you thats not what proof is.

    You then asked me to point to Whatever textbook I`d like proving that god doesn`t exist.

    That wasn`t what you asked.

    I said My beliefs are "Iron Clad" that there is no god, while the host said "Perhaps, but can`t be proven, so I chose no".

    I say it will never be proven, because he doesn`t exist.

  169. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:36 am
    Mjustin- you can argue details, but, at its core, it must be a debate about the truth of God, not what people append to that reality. That`s why I said, if, at it`s core, as Maddux said, it`s an either/or, then it would lay on an atheist`s shoulders to prove that reality is really not God manifesting or doing whatever it is that God does.
  170. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:37 am
    I said that I could poke a billion holes in that statement as is...I also said that I could fill those holes with, but I wouldn`t attempt it on this board. I also stated the method to get the filling to those wholes....(hahaha, that sounded funny...at 2:30 in the morning)

    And here is exactly what you said about you and your beliefs....

    "Sorry, I mean`t I CAN prove my beliefs."

    "And that *you* can`t prove as a Christian.
    We can."

    And if you`re saying that you can justify and PROVE your own beliefs...(which is pretty much saying the same thing), I`m saying...do it. Because I`m not making any such claims, because I can`t. The only proof that I can use is that there is NO proof to suggest otherwise.

  171. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:38 am
    Koala said: All of this prooves that Even if there is a god, we do not need him. Never have, never will.

    You could only prove that if you can prove that there is no afterlife, in which you can`t prove until you actually die.

  172. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:38 am
    SpoonFork: You`re putting words in my mouth, even when I said and feel the the opposit.

    I got tired of dealing with an annoying prick who doesn`t know what he wants when I keep trying to use logic, study, material.

    He even goes out and says that "Everyone here thinks you`re an worthless child" When I`ve been trying to live up to his demands, while he says things like:

    "If Koala doesn`t come with something good he loses all credibility on IAB forever."

    Which would be (in)appropriate for an elementary schoolyard.

    Cyberdishibition has gotten the best of him.
    place us in a room, face to face, we`ll see who holds up.

  173. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:39 am
    Koala`s proof is: Thousands of textbooks spanning every scientific discipline.

    Millions of man hours of study, experiments, observations and research.
    ------------------------------------------

    Yeah....all that and they have proven absolutely nothing...and if they have, show me.

  174. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:39 am
    @Spoonfork - Just out of curiosity, who is your favorite historical figure? If you have one, or a few.
  175. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:41 am
    maddux32: You could only prove that if you can prove that there is no afterlife, in which you can`t prove until you actually die.

    People have died many times over in a single "lifetime" and never have reported of any afterlife or god.

    They all say the same thing "A white light"
    Which is exactly what we would "see" when the brain loses oxygen and subsequently braincells.

    It has been tested.

  176. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:41 am
    MJusting said:

    @ maddux - Telling someone to disprove God is completely unreasonable. Say, for example, that I claim there is a group of energy-based creatures living in the center of Uranus. It would be stupid for me to ask/tell you do disprove my claim, simply because there is no reason to believe the claim in the first place. It would be completely reasonable to tell me to justify my belief in these creatures because I assert such a belief and have shown no evidence justifying it.

    Besides, telling someone to disprove God is arguing religion, just backwards from the logical way to do so.
    --------------------------------------------
    It`s no more unreasonable than you telling me to prove that God does exist. In your illustration, if there is no viable way to prove what may or may not exists, than it is an unreasonable request.

  177. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:41 am
    Sorry, but if somebody says that even if God exists, this proves we don`t need him is going to look childish and driven by other interests than truth or enlightenment.

    Now, if you mean that we don`t need God to continue existing because everything runs on its own, that might be like making the statement that we don`t need electricity because we have the light bulb.

  178. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:42 am
    @Maddux - On your last statement about afterlife...So you`re saying that you believe in a god simply because there are some things that you don`t know about. Like if there`s an afterlife or not.
  179. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:43 am
    Koala said: I say it will never be proven, because he doesn`t exist.

    Thats a hypocrytical statment. If you claim he doesn`t exist, and you want me to believe you, you have to prove it. And I didn`t say use whatever textbook you wanted. I said use whatever RESOURCE you wanted. The first part of your statement is all I`ve been saying all along...."I say it will never be proven" that god doesn`t or doesn`t exist, until we are dead. Until that happens, believe what you want.

  180. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:44 am
    maddux32said : "Yeah....all that and they have proven absolutely nothing...and if they have, show me. "

    What? show you what? According to what?
    Jesus christ you`re daft.

    I told you many times over that all that prooves my own beliefs.

    Concreatly.

    Backed up.

    Testable.

    You want me to show you? Show you what? what do you want me to show you?

  181. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:44 am
    Favorite historical figure? Never really thought about it, honestly. I`d say there as just as much good ideas today as there were back then, so it`d be a moot point. I don`t have a favorite person, I guess.
  182. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:45 am
    "People have died many times over in a single "lifetime" and never have reported of any afterlife or god.

    They all say the same thing "A white light"
    Which is exactly what we would "see" when the brain loses oxygen and subsequently braincells.

    It has been tested."

    Are you sure about that? Sure there are some common themes, but all the majority of them revolve around another world that they want to be a part of, but are not ready for. You can`t prove or disprove the afterlife, based on tales of near death experiences. Cmon Koala...you arguing against your self at this point. Your smart enough to know this. At this point it seems that your just trying to be right....and you can`t possibly due to the nature of what we are discussing.

  183. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
    And here`s the problem:

    1) How much is enough? 7? 7 what? It`s subjective as hell, and you get to choose. Hence I can deny YOUR existence by just going "Not enough", or more likely "Not good enough" every time you submit some evidence.

    2) Proof and evidence have distinct meanings. Trying to claim you have proof because you have evidence is like trying to claim you have a house because you have a brick.

    You do not have proof.

    3) Look up deductive reasoning. That constitutes proof, because it relies on pre-established priori. (Things that are already "known truths").

    4) Look up inductive reasoning. THAT is looking at more and more evidence until you are convinced of a conclusion. It is not however, proof.

    5) There is very little point in having "Proof of possibly". You being alive is "Proof of you possibly... having sex with your mom". Or insert any other action doable while alive.

  184. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
    Koala, you may be overlooking the fact that the brain is created in the closest way possible in order to experience reality. That is, if you stimulate certain areas, maybe you are really seeing God, no matter how we accomplish it, dying or in a laboratory. That doesn`t really further the argument of God. It proves we are experiencing something, and why we experience it, but nothing about what we are actually experiencing.
  185. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
    God is an explanation for the unexplained. Atheists refuse to let it rest and look further into it. Theists are content to believe in God and leave it at that.

    With that, I will go to bed. Goodnight everyone.

  186. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
    "They all say the same thing "A white light"
    Which is exactly what we would "see" when the brain loses oxygen and subsequently braincells.

    It has been tested."

    Show me the study that says this is the definitive conclusion, and I`ll show you the study that suggests otherwise. Cmon we have to wrap this up soon, it`s getting late.

  187. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:48 am
    I think Ball and I are on the same page, but I would further add that he`s placing his definition of proof in a larger reality, one in which we cannot perceive the house but we can perceive the brick, which I think would adequately describe our relationship to God or the universe as a whole.

    He just comes off as really obnoxious when doing it, is all.

  188. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:49 am
    @Maddux - On your last statement about afterlife...So you`re saying that you believe in a god simply because there are some things that you don`t know about. Like if there`s an afterlife or not.

    *sigh* No, I`ve said multiple times that I can`t fit my justification for Gods existence in the space of this message board. I can`t do that accurately at 3 in the morning. I said I`ll put it in a blog in my myspace sometime this week, because I am up to the task of building the argument in writing.

  189. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:50 am
    Maddux32: 1st of all, people have died and came back to life, view previous page.

    2nd of all, You know what I meant, You`re asking me to disprove god using whatever reseaource. Actualy, you never did, you asked me to prove my beliefs,

    Being that "Never have we ever needed god" other then for personal resons. We never needed him to develope our intellect, etc.

    We have proof of that. You want me to point it out for you?

    Ok.

    Go take an intro to Anthropology class.
    make sure Paleoanthropology is covered.

  190. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:51 am
    maddux32said : "Yeah....all that and they have proven absolutely nothing...and if they have, show me. "

    What? show you what? According to what?
    Jesus christ you`re daft.

    I told you many times over that all that prooves my own beliefs.

    Concreatly.

    Backed up.

    Testable.

    You want me to show you? Show you what? what do you want me to show you?

    You telling me I`m daft...and your answering a question I didn`t ask. I never asked you to give me the evidence that convinces YOU why there is no God. I asked you to convince ME there is not God. And I`m daft? Sorry Koala, I can`t do this anymore with you, your not mature enough to carry on this debate, and I`m wasting my time. Look me up after you graduate and take the personal stuff out of your arguments.

    You`ve shown me nothing so far other than your an immature boy arguing in the midst of giants...Who`ve already taken all the classes that you are currently enrolled in. Goodnight.

  191. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:51 am
    @Baalthazag - Proof is sufficient evidence to draw a logical and educated conclusion. If there is enough proof to come to that conclusion and a person still doesn`t, that person is just plain ignorant. If there isn`t enough proof, and the person doesn`t, it`s logical. That`s what Atheists do. Not enough evidence/proof, therefore not logical.
  192. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:51 am
    Sorry, this

    Koala, you may be overlooking the fact that the brain is created in the closest way possible in order to experience reality.

    should read

    Koala, you may be overlooking the fact that the brain MAY BE created to function to perceive reality in the closest way possible.

    Yeah, I drated that all up.

  193. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:54 am
    Maddux wins. :P
  194. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:54 am
    Koala said: Go take an intro to Anthropology class.
    make sure Paleoanthropology is covered.

    I took the class...thanks. It proved nothing for me. Go back and read what I wrote, I told you to use whatever resource you wanted. Once again...you are to "daft" to interpret the original question..

    "PROVE TO ME WHY GOD DOESN"T EXIST". I`m not interested in why you think he doesn`t exist and what makes sense to you. I`m interested in you "iron clad" proof. You keep dancing around the issue, or are unable to comprehend what I`m asking. Either way, this is pointless.

  195. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:55 am
    @Spoonfork - But the only point to any debate between two people is to prove a point in our reality, in our practical terms. Otherwise there`s no point for any person to state their opinion at any time.
  196. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:56 am
    "Go take an intro" whatever whatever

    Classic insult. Gawd, I`ve seen this from every person just getting his intellectual feet beneath him. Koala, if you really are interested in truth, it`s going to get a whole lot more interesting before you have your answer for yourself.

  197. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:57 am
    LOL....hilariously how that ended...just how I said it would. It was fun Koala, and to be clear I wasn`t bullying you. Although it was clear that is what you were attempting with me, as I`m sure you do with your friends and are able to get away with it because they can`t counter your arguments. Trouble is...I can. I wasn`t bullying you, just responding to what you were saying, you kept calling me daft and saying other personal things. You took this personal, I did not.

    It was fun none the less, and I`m sure we`ll do it again whenever they post another athiest vs. the world spot.

  198. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:58 am
    nobody won... relax Koala. Your ego is intact. And listen to Spoon, he speaks the truth.
  199. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:01 am
    URGHAH!!!
    I`ve had enough!!!

    No sh°t maddux32, No fu¢king flamming sack of compleat sh°t.

    You said "I took the class...thanks. It proved nothing for me."

    No sh°t. You`ve said the same thing about all the resources which ahve been put forward, all the proof, evidence.

    No. God damn Sh°t.

    If you keep ignoring all the facts, if you keep ignoring what is staring at you right in your face, ignoring what is placed right under your nose, no sh°t nothing could ever been proven *to you*

    And you know why?

    Because you`re stuck up.
    Your head is so far up your own ass that you can`t see anything for what it is.

    You might say the same thing about us, but as with "the universe is speeding up" We see things for what they are and change, adapt, Creating progress.

    Nothing can ever be proven to your kind because you chose to outright ignore it.

    And there you will remain.

    In Ignorance.

    Good night.

  200. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:03 am
    I like pie.
  201. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:03 am
    come on Koala, I`ll buy you a beer.
  202. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:05 am
    And the same charge could be leveled at you, Koala. You probably do like pie.

    I mean, you ignore what doesn`t meet your standards, and you seem to have your head up your ass. I think you project a lot. This is not the first time I`ve read something from you about somebody else that described exactly what you are like.

  203. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:05 am
    Relax Koala, that was totally unnecessary. There are no `facts` disproving god and none proving it. Goodnight everyone.
  204. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:06 am
    Wow, that was pretty deep Koala. I think your frustrated because your trying to do the impossible. All of the evidence that you have, can just as easily be turned around and claimed to be the devine intelligence of the creator...it`s maddening I know. But there is no proof that God doesn`t exist. The best brightest physicicst won`t tell you that there is, the top rocket scientists wouldn`t subscribe to the fact either. So why are you? Thats all I want to know.

    Can we be friends now?

  205. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:07 am
    Well, at least we had a somewhat intelligent conversation. I know I will not be participating in the monkey-crap-flinging-fest that his thread will turn into tomorrow.
  206. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:08 am
    Or, rather, later today.
  207. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:09 am
    And Ghost Rider sucked.

    :P

  208. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:11 am
    "I think your frustrated because your trying to do the impossible"

    No.

    I`m frustrated because you selectively believe in what prooves you right.

    And that is Wrong.

    Only when you take everything into concideration can any conclusion be made.

    Thats not what your doing.

    You`re selectivly chosing things based apon your own conclusion.

    SpoonFork, You don`t know me, you`ve never met me. You don`t know who I am. Those are, and will remain, you`re own beliefs.

    Just like god.
    Thats what you believe.

    I know that what you said is not true.
    I`m using words to describ myself when applied against others? You`d like that, because that would make me pretty pitifull.

    And maddux saying he wants proof there is no god, keeps asking for it, I tell him there is no proof, but there is proof that we don`t need god, god wasn`t necessairy for evolution, intellect adn the like. But ignores it.

  209. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:13 am
    I can`t prove anything to him, even if there was proof god didn`t exist, he would ignore it.

    If there was proof god did exist, I would believe it. Evidence.

    Johnny_Blaze, Telling people to "relax" is the best way to get them pissed f. Same as saying the person is Pissed off in the first place.

  210. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:15 am
    And in the middle of it Both SpoonFork and maddux32 twist my words and place words in my mouth scince the beginning and say I`m wrong when I have soo much backing me up.

    But then they say I don`t because they ignore it.

  211. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:16 am
    Keep ignoring.

    Keep ignoring everything I say, everything brought forth.

    Keep ignoring.

    Ignore me.

    And stay right there, in ignorance.

  212. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:17 am
    I cleared up what I said about what you said. I even presented an argument based on the rational thing I assumed you possibly could have said.
  213. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2582 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:17 am
    I am right, I know I am.
    Untill proven otherwise.
  214. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:18 am
    *rocks in corner, repeating phrase*
  215. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:21 am
    Johnny.
    "Proof is sufficient evidence to draw a logical and educated conclusion. If there is enough proof to come to that conclusion and a person still doesn`t, that person is just plain ignorant. If there isn`t enough proof, and the person doesn`t, it`s logical. That`s what Atheists do. Not enough evidence/proof, therefore not logical."


    1) No such thing as "enough" proof. Proof is by definition irrefutable. It is demonstrated fact. Demonstrating it irrefutably twice is pointless.

    2) You don`t get to decide how much evidence is enough for someone else. You don`t have a definition for "enough", it`s subjective, unless it`s proof.

    In other words, it makes it an opinion, and not scientific fact, so please quit with the "unholier than thou" act.

    Nihilism, denying the existence of everything, is easy. It makes Atheism easy. Sure it`s "logical", but then so is the belief that you don`t exist.

  216. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:23 am
    *Cough*

    *Pulls Koala to the side*
    *Pssssst* Your dogma is showing.

  217. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:24 am

    *rocks in corner, repeating phrase*

    LOL

  218. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:26 am
    Koala, I am perfectly capable of changing my mind about God. But we can`t do it on this message board. If we were face to face this would be much more productive. But unfortunately we aren`t so it is what it is.

    And it`s not fair to change your argument, in mid argument. First you were arguing the existence of NO GOD, and now your saying that you can`t and you are arguing that we don`t need God. Thats harder to prove than the first premise---there is no God. But it`s too late and I`ve got work in the morning. It was fun.

  219. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:38 am
    You don`t need to prove there is no god. You must prove that there is. You need no proof for the nonexistence of leprechauns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn, and similarly if you cannot prove God then it doesn`t exist.
  220. Profile photo of thanatos16
    thanatos16 Male 18-29
    291 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:41 am
    my god is pie. it is delicious, has multiple layers, and has many forms.

    mmmm.... pie god....

  221. Profile photo of powpowking
    powpowking Male 13-17
    551 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:53 am
    WHY?!?!?! WHY THE INSANITY?!?! STOP THE FIGHTING ALREADY!!!....heheh *caps lock on*...hehe......
  222. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:01 am
    Logical fallacy catbarf.

    Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    Incidentally, you are asking for 2 layers of complexity in one.

    Proving which God exists is different to proving God exists.

    To take an example, it is easier to prove there is a murderer, than to prove who the murderer is.

    That is in some cases why the argument for the IPU still works.

    Detective: "There was a Murderer here, there was a murder, murder weapon, footprints, obvious signs of a scuffle...".
    Skeptic: "Suuuuuure. That argument works for the Invisible Pink Unicorn too, therefore your conclusion must be false!!!".

    Similarly: "Kalam Cosmological Argument shows there is a God"
    Skeptic: "Suuuuuure...IPU.. etc"

    It makes a difference if you`re trying to prove "God" or a specific "God".

  223. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:03 am
    Incidentally, I`m not directly proposing the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
  224. Profile photo of Wey_Pooh
    Wey_Pooh Male 18-29
    1004 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:07 am
    I`d like to see where the Scientific Formula has failed, and when God has failed people (starving kids, rapes, w/e. etc). I think God has failed much more many times. So using the Scientific Formula, which is better than god, you can prove he doesn`t exist. Much like proving 2+2 is 4. But proving that takes a lot of math work, so I`m not going to bother. =)
  225. Profile photo of Declan191919
    Declan191919 Male 13-17
    1275 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:29 am
    Interesting points made from both partis
  226. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:40 am
    The problem of evil, is not so much of a problem. (Or the scientific problem as my obviously unaware friend on page 9 calls it).

    Type in "Problem of Evil" in wikipedia and pick one of the 30 odd responses to it. It is not very good.

    It`s the Pascal`s Wager of Atheism. (Look up Pascal`s wager too if you don`t know what it is, and the responses).

    Then stop making those arguments as if they`re new and you`ve just come up with them. seriously, some of these arguments are over a thousand years old. Stop making them.

    EVEN, and let me be clear here, EVEN if they were entirely correct, they`re obviously not working.

  227. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:21 am
    Please, only one religious link per week. If you post too many religious links in a short time span, the sun might explode.

    With that in mind, here`s another one: http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-...

    Happy Trolling!

  228. Profile photo of Phantom7
    Phantom7 Male 18-29
    944 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:24 am
    I THINK GOD is real...i just dont care, its like a weird halfway thing u know? hes there, but im all like..."psssh whatever God, im not ur little puppet to play with go find another action figure maaaaaan" so Gods all like..."yeah screw that man, ima keep messin up ur life and u ganna deal wif it!!!" so im all like " say something to my face God? why u always hidin!? yeah thats what i thought sukah!" and god is all like "Nigga please, you have no say in nothin, now i make you go die" so then im all like "....chill man u know i love you, peace"
  229. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:43 am
    ^ pretty honest and accurate general description of people`s personal relationships with God.
  230. Profile photo of Phantom7
    Phantom7 Male 18-29
    944 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:55 am
    ^ i know thanks!
  231. Profile photo of BikerTeen
    BikerTeen Male 13-17
    2113 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 6:03 am
    OK!!! these Atheism post are getting old and stupid
  232. Profile photo of Diddie
    Diddie Male 18-29
    218 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 6:07 am
    Got to love how such an articulate dialogue descends in to physical threats at the end.
  233. Profile photo of BABY_BEAR
    BABY_BEAR Female 18-29
    1396 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 6:41 am
    I maintain that spiritual faith is more of a feeling than an intellectual process. Its not something you can reason yourself into.
  234. Profile photo of paulmvr
    paulmvr Male 18-29
    89 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 6:42 am
    The atheist guy makes a great argument in my opinion. I consider myself an atheist... in a way I guess, but I refuse to argue about religion with anyone. I will never study any religion ever. I refuse to follow any religion. I will never go to church. I will never pray. Holy wars are pathetic. I will live my life moment to moment and do as I please while living by my personal morals.
  235. Profile photo of masterbob
    masterbob Male 13-17
    392 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 6:50 am
    oh god...i never post anything on these because i dont want to get caught up the discussion..
  236. Profile photo of llefflar
    llefflar Female 18-29
    43 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 7:03 am
    One point, if a person who believes in god is wrong then they basically wasted some portion of their life. If an atheist is wrong.....well...eternity is rough.

    While this is not sufficient motivation, it is food for thought.

    For those who want evidence of a guiding force, study organo- and bio- chemistry. Look at the composition of amino acids or how to make an enzyme. The old million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing a novel vs. the likelihood of the basic "primordial ooze" ever happening by chance. (BTW, monkeys win)

  237. Profile photo of Phantom7
    Phantom7 Male 18-29
    944 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 7:11 am
    masterbob u just posted....damn
  238. Profile photo of pixiechick81
    pixiechick81 Female 30-39
    838 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 7:34 am
    He (the host) contradicts himself almost the entire time. I was a little sad to hear the caller loss it at the end. I myself have no idea weather or not there is a "god". I am, however, not a fan of organized religion.
  239. Profile photo of jakeman203
    jakeman203 Male 18-29
    80 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 7:48 am
    The thing is that everything in the Old Testament Happened and history proves it so yeah i do have proof.
  240. Profile photo of Phantom7
    Phantom7 Male 18-29
    944 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 8:06 am
    Lets all hold hands, sing songs and love one another!
  241. Profile photo of Mjustin
    Mjustin Male 18-29
    335 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 8:25 am
    @ maddux - Oh really? And why would it be unreasonable to ask me to prove that something I claim exists does, in fact, exist? Remember my physicist illustration? Let`s add to it.

    Suppose I am a physicist and claim to have discovered a new form of matter. Surely I must offer some justification for my claim to hold any weight at all. My colleagues need not offer any evidence to suggest I have discovered nothing.

    In any argument about religion it is incumbent upon the Theist to provide justification for his/her beliefs, not the Atheist to justify his/her lack of belief.

  242. Profile photo of Diddie
    Diddie Male 18-29
    218 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 8:41 am
    Jakman203 - read this passage and then give me your proof (please):
    `Then He made light and called it day. In the waters He made land which He called earth; this was the third day. On the fourth, He made the stars, planets and the sun and the moon.`
    I`ve always wondered how he made the light before the stars (the sun being a star and all). Did he have a giant light bulb they omitted to mention?
  243. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:05 am
    For the record, this man is Matt Dillahunty and he hosts The Atheist Experience, a cable access television program in Austin, Texas produced by the Atheist Community of Austin. You can read more about the program here You can read more about Dillahunty here. I hope to see he and his group when I visit Austin myself this March to see Richard Dawkins give a lecture at UT.
  244. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:21 am
    The burden of proof is on believers. As an atheist I`m under no obligation to disprove your assertions that god exists, it is up to you to back up your claim with empirical evidence. If you haven`t already then read the god delusion and a christopher hitchens book like the portable atheist.
  245. Profile photo of Aimarge88
    Aimarge88 Female 18-29
    42 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:22 am
    I don`t know if theres a God out there but how dull do you have to be to be set down by laws of one religion who says yours is right! I mean to be honest its pretty certain that they all are wrong and if there is a reward at the end of your life your going to have to be a good nice person which most religions teach you to be I must admit. But the there are the extremes (eg Catholism) where women and gays and other cultures are seen to be below them. HOW THE HELL DOES THIS MAKE YOU A GOOD PERSON!!! If your not hurting anyone on a day to day basis with your religion then go ahead but if you judge people like the ones I`ve mentioned above (thou shall not judge christians!) then prepare to go to hell because ur not being a kind helpful human being. Paganism is a gd religion (even though im not one) u can say who and what u want to beleive and worship nature which we all no actually exists too bad the Catholics have taken over Druidism n r being discriminatory!
  246. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:23 am
    maddux32, you are correct in stating there is no evidence to support a deity, but then you say there is also no evidence to not support a deity. Evidence is not a requirement for rejecting seemingly unsubstantiated claims because evidence is always directed towards positive claims. The two approaches to claims is 1. accept the claim because it has met its burden of proof and sounds reasonable or 2. reject the claim because it has not met its burden of proof (hasn`t presented any evidence) and sounds unreasonable. Atheism is the rejection of the belief there is a deity, or deities, and therefore requires no evidence. Atheism is actually the default position, if you don`t want to be gulled into accepting false claims. If you wish to persuade me of something, you must meet your burden of proof. Seeing how even you admit there is no evidence of God, I cannot be persuaded, not that you are trying to persuade me.
  247. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:28 am
    "The reason I believe in God is because science dictates everything has a beginning and an end. It also states that everything must have a cause for it`s beginning."

    For one, you have an erroneous view of the applications of science. Picture this: the whole of science is an imaginary box in our minds. The relation between this box and the real world is evidence. Our perception of evidence, and our interpretation of this evidence, is introduced into the box of our minds via theories and the best explanation we can come up with at the time. It is considered the best explanation because although our science box is not super-imposable on reality, we can practically use the "knowledge" in our box and predict how the real world works. Nothing in science is therefore "fact" but merely the best explanation possible (which can change at any given time given new evidence).

  248. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:32 am
    As the amount of knowledge contained in our box approaches infinity, only *then* can we say science is fact and that that is exactly how the real world works.

    I bring this up because you have erroneously tried applying scientific results (which weren`t correct to begin with) as fact. In your quote:

    "The reason I believe in God is because science dictates everything has a beginning and an end. It also states that everything must have a cause for it`s beginning. This means that the universe has a cause for it`s beginning that is not bound by the rules of our universe,"

    you say science dictates everything has a beginning and an end. Not so. The laws of physics as we know them, including how we perceive time to work in our universe, break down a minute fraction of a second after the Big Bang. This means that the laws do not apply to any event before the Big Bang, and we are therefore not able to conceptualize anything before the Big Bang in terms of time.

  249. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:33 am
    Atheists who kill do not do so BECAUSE of their atheism, nor does atheism mean that you cannot have morals. Religious people kill because of their religion in 99% of cases. Therefore it is invalid to say that atheists kill more people than believers. Nobody has been killed because of atheism (Stalin was a dictator who removed god so he could take over the role of god in his society to achieve totalitarianism), but plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.
  250. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:36 am
    Continuing, science does not state "that everything must have a cause for its beginning". This falls under the realm of philosophy, and not natural philosophy, from which science claims its roots.

    You are probably right in assuming the universe has a cause for its beginning not bound by the rules of the universe. I`ve made this assumption and argument myself. And while I don`t know what this cause was, I have no reason to assume it was random versus non-random, intelligent or no. Therefore I make no decision on that because deciding that would inform my actions in such a way I cannot justify. Instead, I base my decision on the evidence that I can immediately see and which immediately influences mine and everyone else`s understanding of reality. That is the common, practical realm in which we play and discuss and argue, and that is the realm in which atheism is the stronger position. It is the default position.

  251. Profile photo of elHadji
    elHadji Male 70 & Over
    1456 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:42 am
    When it comes to these religous movies and stuff, they should limit the amount posts to one post per person. I wan`t to read everything everyones writes but 250 comments are just lame.
  252. Profile photo of khendri3
    khendri3 Female 18-29
    34 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 9:46 am
    I thought both sides were doing good until dude freaked out over the phone. Then I was like BOOYA!!!
  253. Profile photo of obe
    obe Female 18-29
    99 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 10:06 am
    I believe in Santa Claus.
  254. Profile photo of sendorm
    sendorm Male 18-29
    45 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 10:41 am
    That bald guy surely know how to talk:
    But there is an opening in his line of thinking.
    He says "i am claiming that there isnt sufficient evidence to justify belief." well that is the problem. There isnt sufficient evidence to justify atheism too. So why did he choose atheism?? He says he is a agnostic atheist. Well agnostism I can understand from his words. But he didnt manage to give any "evidence" to become an atheist.
  255. Profile photo of sendorm
    sendorm Male 18-29
    45 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:07 am
    @walrusgod, actually the burden of proof in on atheists` shoulders according to Precautionary principle, which states that "if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action".

    If god exists and you are an atheist, you will burn in hell for ever. Well in my book that is a big "harm". So an atheist should prove that "harm would not ensue" after one dies. So actually the burden of proof is on your shoulders mate. Have a good life :)

  256. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:15 am
    Sendorm: He chooses Atheism because there isn`t sufficient evidence to justify belief. I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the belief in gravity, I stick to the ground. I think there is insufficient evidence to justify the belief that I can fly by flapping my arms...I try and it doesn`t work. Same as if I pray I get no response, search for miracles but find nothing that defies physics, etc. There is insufficient evidence to justify the belief, but that is limited to my experience and the evidence provided to me by those around me, including those in this forum.
  257. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:17 am
    In other words get rid of the word Atheism, its a position taken due to a lack of evidence is all. Provide evidence and the position will change.
  258. Profile photo of RPossum
    RPossum Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:19 am
    Sendorm: He chooses Atheism because there isn`t sufficient evidence to justify belief. I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the belief in gravity, I stick to the ground. I think there is insufficient evidence to justify the belief that I can fly by flapping my arms...I try and it doesn`t work. Same as if I pray I get no response, search for miracles but find nothing that defies physics, etc. There is insufficient evidence to justify the belief, but that is limited to my experience and the evidence provided to me by those around me, including those in this forum.
  259. Profile photo of arddunaid
    arddunaid Female 18-29
    97 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:22 am
    I liked that guy! That was the kind of atheist I wanted to be as a child. I`m not an atheist anymore, but if I were, that would be a pretty good one to emulate.
  260. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:23 am
    sendorm, atheism is the lack of belief in god and needs no evidence to support. It is the rejection of a claim that *does* require support and nothing else. He said, however, that he *did* believe there was no god, but then he also said that that was a claim he had to justify. He didn`t justify it in that clip but that show has literally hundreds of programs on-line you can watch\listen to and decide for yourself whether he justified his belief there is no god.

    I say religionists are equally privy (if not more so) to being called out via this precautionary principle by virtue that religion has, demonstrably, put the public at far greater risk than has atheism. I could have done without 9/11, how about you? If atheism advocates the admonishment of such tangible, real violence, I say all the more power to atheism. You were joking, of course, but I don`t take kindly to a burden of proof being cast on atheism under the guise of Pascal`s Wager.

  261. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:28 am
    @Baalthazag - Earlier you used the example of a brick and a house. If I have a sufficient amount of bricks, I should be able to build a house, unless I don`t know how - Ignorance.
  262. Profile photo of turbotong
    turbotong Male 18-29
    600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:34 am
    I would say that there is sufficient evidence for a God simply through the chance of an inhabitable universe and life. Physical laws and rules from biology, physics, etc. provide a means for what we have today, but the chances for the universe to be inhabitable are astronomically small without an outside influence. There`s a pretty good book called "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel you can read if you`re interested.
  263. Profile photo of Johnny_Blaze
    Johnny_Blaze Male 18-29
    249 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:40 am
    @Turbotong - I don`t like to argue the existence of god because we don`t have enough evidence either way - in my opinion. I was just talking to Baalthazag over the definition of evidence and proof. Simply put, I just don`t feel the need for God so I don`t believe in him. That`s just me.
  264. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:44 am
    @sendorm. i would argue firstly that religion could cause more harm - one of the rebuttals to pascals wager is that how do you choose the right religion? believing in another god would be worse than not believing. indeed pascals wager has been thoroughly destroyed as a logical reason to believe in god. secondly, religion causes harm to the public by trying to prevent the advances of science, and by teaching people not to think rationally. thirdly, i would argue with the whole concept of the precautionary principle - it takes no account of probability and i would say that there is a scientific consensus that not believing in god won`t cause harm. FINALLY yet another argument against the precautionary principle - i could say that there is a giant dinosaur who will punish you for not worshipping him, thus transferring the burden of proof to you. ALso, see bertrand russell`s teapot and the flying spaghetti monster.
  265. Profile photo of Bekll
    Bekll Female 18-29
    1984 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:48 am
    *claps*

    Finally, someone out there EXPLAINS atheism/theism/agnosticm/gnosticm to the deluded public!

    I am 99.99% agnostic-atheist.

  266. Profile photo of imcoolyeah
    imcoolyeah Male 13-17
    747 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:49 am
    ALL OF RELIGONZ IS TUPID I BEKLEVFRE RIGHT >:( NUB NUB!!!!


    religion NFTW

  267. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:49 am
    @turbotong. sorry for the double post but the anthropic principle argument is flawed. firstly massive improbability is completely different to impossibility. secondly, surely the existence of a god who could design a universe is even MORE unlikely. also omniscience and omnipotenece are mutually exclusive. the universe is NOT friendly to life and the vast majority is uninhabitable (at least for us) even on our own planet. we adapt to the conditions not the other way around.
  268. Profile photo of Bekll
    Bekll Female 18-29
    1984 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:52 am
    "Of course, only perfect love can come from God. Rejecting God rejects perfect love, to which one would have to rely on his own resource which is limited and not stable."

    Typical theistic arrogance.

    So babies, who are atheists, can`t have `perfect` love until they`re indoctrinated in theists?

  269. Profile photo of Bekll
    Bekll Female 18-29
    1984 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 11:54 am
    "Certainly all evidence pointing towards a god is discounted by an atheist..."

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DISCOUNT! That`s the whole freakin` point.

  270. Profile photo of Dakkar
    Dakkar Male 18-29
    1256 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm
    Humans understand an extremely small fraction of all available knowledge and people from both sides parade around acting as if they hold the keys to all the knowledge in the universe.

    Concepts here are so abstract and beyond human thought that our current understanding, and most likely any understanding ever, will be insufficient to prove anything in this case one way or the other. On a level its trying to prove or disprove quantum mechanics solely with basic 1st grade arithmetic.

    We all can feel one way or another on this matter or any infinite number of intermediary ways. So please, we all don`t need to hear your thoughts, because it wont change whatever way people feel. Done and done.

  271. Profile photo of ClearSky87
    ClearSky87 Male 18-29
    227 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:05 pm
    i have proof that maddux32 touches children

    try 2 prove i don`t

  272. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:06 pm
    ^ maddux32 has no arms.
  273. Profile photo of elHadji
    elHadji Male 70 & Over
    1456 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm
    Speaking of 9/11, Slayers albums God Hates Us All was released at the same date.

    Is god trying to tell us something?

  274. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:10 pm
    wow.read that whole argument and i have to say, its redundant, at best. im agnostic. i dont believe in organized religion at all and the thought that i happened here by chance seems entirely egotistical. many of men have come to the conclusion that god is a crutch. others say no, he is because he is. alot of whats in between the argument is misconstrued by man...ie the bible, koran, torah, book of the dead...etc. personally i think god is something that cant be understood by the likes of our minds much like the 2d being would not be able to grasp the concept of 3d. know why? because we are limited to what we know and are able to understand. most people refute what is possible because it either scares them or they are not really able to understand it.
  275. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm
    ill leave you with a joke.
    a scientist walks to god and says, god, we dont need you. weve discovered a war to make people from nothing".
    god says to the scientist, "ok, show me".
    the scientist grabs a handful of dirt and god says, "WOAH! WOAH! WOAH!....get your own dirt"
  276. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:15 pm
    remember man wrote the bible, and man is prone to fault. people wrote atheism and well...they are people...
  277. Profile photo of llDayo
    llDayo Male 30-39
    144 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:23 pm
    Gods only exist in stories, never in real life.
  278. Profile photo of ClearSky87
    ClearSky87 Male 18-29
    227 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm
    but god told me maddux32 touches children.
  279. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm
    ^ He does with with his other appendage.
  280. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:46 pm
    Mikallang, please don`t be stupid. Nobody `wrote` atheism.

    Baalthazaq, I am not asking for the proof of a specific god at all. I am asking for proof of any. There is no proof or reasoning for God at all that cannot be dismissed by anyone reasonably well-versed in the topic in question.

  281. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm
    ^ Satan wrote atheism.
  282. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm
    ^hey you, get with the program..this whole conversation is atheism vs theism. finish school and comeback with something worth contributing.
  283. Profile photo of eklen
    eklen Male 18-29
    36 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    Watch The man from earth. A movie about a 14,000 year old immortal caveman, who confronts his friends with what he is and they spend the night interrogating him to no avail. They are unable to find out whether he is or not what he says he is, for he has an answer for everything. He even says one time he met someone else who he thought was immortal, but even he couldn`t tell if he was lying or not. Religion, with humankinds current state of opinion, cannot be debated with a winner whatsoever. It is a dead end with both people feeling they`re right.
  284. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    catbarf: contribute. dont insult. you just look like an ass that way.
  285. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
    Overmann said: You are probably right in assuming the universe has a cause for its beginning not bound by the rules of the universe. I`ve made this assumption and argument myself. And while I don`t know what this cause was, I have no reason to assume it was random versus non-random, intelligent or no. Therefore I make no decision on that because deciding that would inform my actions in such a way I cannot justify. Instead, I base my decision on the evidence that I can immediately see and which immediately influences mine and everyone else`s understanding of reality. That is the common, practical realm in which we play and discuss and argue, and that is the realm in which atheism is the stronger position. It is the default position.
    ---------------------------------
    Let me respond to this.....
  286. Profile photo of LemonTarte
    LemonTarte Female 18-29
    1441 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
    Koala you rock! I`m definatly with you on this one.
  287. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:15 pm
    There is no need to assume the creation (or beginning) of the universe was random or non random...those are the only two choices; as in there are no alternatives. It was either a random occurrence or it wasn`t.

    Making no decision because you cann`t justify you`re decision is in of itself...a decision. You are simply opting out. It is not the default position, the default position is whatever you learned first, and it`s not something that we can control. However if you make the decision to label yourself by an ideology, you are making the CHOICE to do so.

    The burden of proof lies on the party wishing to persuade the other. I`m not trying to persuade others in believing that a God exists, I`m asking athiests to give me a good reason not too. Do you see the difference? I`m placing the burden of proof on you.

    *continued*

  288. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm
    mikallang, Atheists believe there`s no God, but that doesn`t mean they don`t believe there`s no Satan.
  289. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm
    Basing evidence on what you can immediately see if a farce. You have no immediate evidence suggest that the Roman Empire existed, but you know that it did because of history. You have no evidence to suggest that alpha centauri is a star, but you assume so based on a series of circumstantial evidence. It could be a celestial hologram for all you know, but you take the scientists word for it.

    Athiesm is not the stronger position, it is simply the safer one. It`s like you telling me that Mars exists, and I saying bullsh*t, I have no immediate evidence to suggest that it does, bring me proof. Are you going to fly to mars and bring me back a rock? Until you do, my stance is the stronger position because you can`t IMMEDIATELY prove anything. You have to send some spacecraft out there, make the billion mile journey to get there (or however long it is), invest millions of dollars in doing so, and maybe then, I`ll have my proof.

  290. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm
    "mikallang, Atheists believe there`s no God"

    Wrong. This particular atheist believes there`s no God, but that doesn`t necessarily extend towards all atheists. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, while you are describing the active disbelief in a deity (which again some atheists do but not, by definition, all).

  291. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm
    Are you done, maddux32? I`d very much like to begin responding.
  292. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:23 pm
    Well, anyone can make any claim they want, no matter how utterly preposterous it is, and nobody will be able to disprove it. I could claim that`s and enormous piece of macaroni pasta that`s been using powerful psychic energy to keep grass from turning purple. You can`t really disprove that, in the same way I can`t disprove God. So the fact that something can not be disproved doesn`t mean anything.
  293. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:23 pm
    So, do some atheists believe there`s a Satan?
  294. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:24 pm
    The problem is, I, nor can anyone else, travel to the outer expanse of the universe and tell you whats outside. So the stronger position according to you is to stand pat and say, bullsh*t, nothing exists outside of the universe, there was no creator, and you can`t prove it, so I can`t be persuaded.

    Fair enough, but I`m not trying to persuade you. I`m saying that dually, you can`t tell me that NOTHING exists outside of the universe and that the universe wasn`t created by something.

    Then you could use the Koala argument and say, bullsh*t, take paleoantrhopology 101, there it is, proof, God doesn`t exists. Evolution happened, therefore God doesn`t exists. And Christians will say, bullsh*t we have the Bible, there it is proof that God does exists.

    Nobody knows the intentions of God, or the blueprints he used in designing the universe. So any scientific argument you can make supporting his non existsence can be turned on its head, as his intended intelligent design.

  295. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm
    sure Overmann, this will be fun. An actual intelligent dialogue regarding the subject. Keep in mind....I can be persuaded.
  296. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:30 pm
    And Maddox, you can prove Mars exists because we can see it, because a body of mass that size has a gravitational pull that we can detect and holds a few moons in orbit, and we have rovers on Mars taking pictures. If there was any empirical evidence that would support the belief in the existence of God, then the position of theism would be much more feasible. To ttsec, atheists, by definition, do not believe in Satan since Satan is a mythological creature with some god-like characteristics and the power to do physically impossible things. So no, if someone believes in Satan, then they aren`t technically an atheist.
  297. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm
    "There is no need to assume the creation (or beginning) of the universe was random or non random...those are the only two choices; as in there are no alternatives. It was either a random occurrence or it wasn`t."

    This is true, but that does not mean a non-random process was necessarily intelligent. Evolution is a non-random process (for the record, evolution has demonstrated itself to be rather predictable) that isn`t intelligent by any means, and yet it produces complexity beyond anything we can engineer.

    "Making no decision because you cann`t justify you`re decision is in of itself...a decision."

    True, but it in turn *is* a decision I can justify. I can justify my lack of belief in God because I am not aware of any evidence to support such a conclusion. Of course I am trusting the evidence I am aware of, but putting confidence in evidence I am aware of isn`t dismissing any evidence that we couldn`t be made aware of with better technology.

  298. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:34 pm
    Atheists don`t claim we KNOW there`s nothing outside of the universe. There could even be some cosmic intelligence, for all I know. Something that could be considered a God of sorts. But I will admit I don`t know. The truth is, none of us really know the secrets of the universe, atheists just admit it. I don`t know where we came from, how life began, or the answers to questions like that. But I don`t jump to irrational decisions because I don`t have any better ideas.
  299. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm
    ok boredfjord, I`ll give you mathematical evidence. The odds of the universe materializing out of nothing to form a perfect intelligent design of evolution and other things is greater than number of all the matter in the universe. That by our universal language of mathematics is impossible. That means that the design have to be intelligent, and something intelligent created it. Now what are the intentions of this creator? Thats a different topic altogether...but I have my theories :)
  300. Profile photo of ClearSky87
    ClearSky87 Male 18-29
    227 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
    maddux32 stop trying to argue this scientifically

    religion is not a science because by its very nature, and what you yourself said, it cannot be proven or disproven. scientific theories must be testable, they must be able to be proven true of false. there have been tests to prove mars exists, and we have sent crafts to mars.

    your argument for the existence of god cannot be taken as scientific because you put the burden of proof on others. in science,you must do the tests to prove your belief is fact.

    we cant prove or disprove existence of a god by definition, but we can`t prove or disprove the existence of an all-knowing pile of poo that created the universe.

    since ur argument can`t be proven or disproven, there is not point arguing with u since you base ur beliefs on things other than facts.

  301. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:37 pm
    No, atheists believe that no deities exist, that means, you`re saying you know enough to know that you can`t find a deity in the entire universe and beyond.
  302. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:37 pm
    "It is not the default position, the default position is whatever you learned first"

    Then perhaps I should clarify and say I feel it is the default position when one cares whether their belief is true and wishes to test their beliefs with the best methods we have of doing so, namely evidence and reasoned argument, but above all intellectual honesty.

    "I`m not trying to persuade others in believing that a God exists, I`m asking athiests to give me a good reason not too."

    A good reason not to believe in God? That`s an individual decision and one people either arrive at or not. My reason for not doing so is because no evidence supports it and I care (am willing to follow methods testing various beliefs) whether that belief is indeed justifiable. I claim that it is not for the very reason that it has no evidence, but not everyone cares as I do about evidence and that`s their decision.

  303. Profile photo of ClearSky87
    ClearSky87 Male 18-29
    227 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:37 pm
    and plz stop touchin the children...as we cant prove or disprove u do that either.
  304. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm
    I`m not saying the universe randomly materialized out of nothing, I`m saying I have no way of knowing what happened in the beginning the universe. Maybe the big bang happened, although that leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Maybe the multiverse theory has some merit. I don`t know, and I don`t pretend to. But your intelligent design theory has problems too. Was the creator created, or did it just randomly materialize?
  305. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm
    "This is true, but that does not mean a non-random process was necessarily intelligent. Evolution is a non-random process (for the record, evolution has demonstrated itself to be rather predictable) that isn`t intelligent by any means, and yet it produces complexity beyond anything we can engineer."

    Thats not intelligent? A species being able to adapt it`s genetic make up to it`s environment is not intelligent? According to who`s definition?

    "True, but it in turn *is* a decision I can justify. I can justify my lack of belief in God because I am not aware of any evidence to support such a conclusion. Of course I am trusting the evidence I am aware of."

    True, and in turn I can justify my belief in God. I am also trusting the evidence and things I know of to support my belief that a God exists. The problem is that it`s not that hard to justify something. In my mind, it`s harder for me to make an argument that opposes Gods existence.

  306. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm
    maddux`s mathematical argument is correct. It`s mathematically impossible that the the universe as it is today exists by random chance. Non-random implies intelligent design.

    Although this isn`t really maddux`s argument, it`s a well-known argument well-established long ago.

  307. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm
    "Do you see the difference? I`m placing the burden of proof on you."

    I do see the difference but that doesn`t mean I agree with it. If you need an excuse not to believe something that is not justifiable, I would question why you don`t believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting space.

    "Basing evidence on what you can immediately see if a farce."

    I never said only evidence that I can immediately see. The existence of evidence is flushed out with greater and greater technology, such that now we know of the existence of different, invisible wavelengths of light that we, quite literally, cannot see. There are many ways to discern the existence or mechanics of something without being able to immediately see it. This is entering the realm of practical knowledge versus absolute knowledge and why atheism\science is useful in terms of practical knowledge.

  308. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm
    I never said it originated by random chance. All I`m saying is there`s no evidence to suggest a god made it. And to ttsec, I`m not saying I know so much that I can say with absolute certainty that there is a God, I`m saying that no theistic theory has ever been backed by sufficient evidence to be considered scientifically valid.
  309. Profile photo of boredfjord
    boredfjord Male 13-17
    928 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm
    *isn`t
  310. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm
    "Atheists don`t claim we KNOW there`s nothing outside of the universe. There could even be some cosmic intelligence, for all I know. Something that could be considered a God of sorts. But I will admit I don`t know. The truth is, none of us really know the secrets of the universe, atheists just admit it. I don`t know where we came from, how life began, or the answers to questions like that. But I don`t jump to irrational decisions because I don`t have any better ideas."

    Thats fair, but there are some athiests, such as Koalla who claim to have definitive proof that a God doesn`t exists, and when you make statements like that, then you have something to prove. Neither of us can say we have definitive proof of anything, but we base our belief on some rationalization of one form or another. I base mind on logic, and perhaps so do you. The point is, that neither one of us will get anywhere trying to argue with each other about it. The burden or proof lies on the one trying to

  311. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm
    "You have no evidence to suggest that alpha centauri is a star, but you assume so based on a series of circumstantial evidence."

    Circumstantial evidence that has proven itself reliable here on Earth. How do you suppose astrophysicists discern what gasses make up a star? By the wavelength of light projected from the star that is the result of electron absorption and emission as is seen here on Earth. There is no reason to doubt atoms and light behaves differently in space because we have simulated space conditions and tested each, measuring no discernible unpredictable changes.

    I do take the scientists` word for it because, from a philosophical standpoint, they`re no closer to "knowing" any more than I am. But I know what they`re doing through the process of peer review and the disclosure of their experiments\results on what they`re basing their conclusions. They`re at least justifying their beliefs with observable evidence here on Earth.

  312. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm
    boredfjord, science has not advanced far enough yet to be able to study God. It`s like, before the telescope, no body knew about certain planets and stars, but that doesn`t mean they don`t exist.

    Before we could scientifically study gravity, gravity existed, but we didn`t know what it was. Likewise, God`s influence affects us, but we haven`t advanced enough to scientifically study it.

  313. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    "A good reason not to believe in God? That`s an individual decision and one people either arrive at or not. My reason for not doing so is because no evidence supports it and I care (am willing to follow methods testing various beliefs) whether that belief is indeed justifiable. I claim that it is not for the very reason that it has no evidence, but not everyone cares as I do about evidence and that`s their decision."

    Exactly, my belief is due to the fact that I can`t get past the mathmatical argument I presented earlier. Because of that, I cannot write off a creator. Furthermore, it`s a sound argument, and a fair one. For me to not believe in God, I`d have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn`t exist. I haven`t been able to accomplish that. Therefore, based on the laws of physics and the probabilty of random vs. intelligent design, I say that God exists.

  314. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm
    "I`m not saying the universe randomly materialized out of nothing, I`m saying I have no way of knowing what happened in the beginning the universe. Maybe the big bang happened, although that leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Maybe the multiverse theory has some merit. I don`t know, and I don`t pretend to. But your intelligent design theory has problems too. Was the creator created, or did it just randomly materialize?".

    As a rule, whatever or whoever created the universe is not bound by the rules of our universe. Therefore they do not necessarily have to have a beginning, and an end. At least not in the way that we understand it. Our creator would not be bound by our rules of time.

  315. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm
    Overmann, from observable evidence, I can, through circumstantial evidence, also believe God exists. The difference between you believing what scientists say and my evidence? I am primary source. I have seen and experienced these evidence my self. You have to take someone else word. Yours is the one with the greater leap of faith.
  316. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm
    "I do see the difference but that doesn`t mean I agree with it. If you need an excuse not to believe something that is not justifiable, I would question why you don`t believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting space."

    I would argue the existence of pink unicorns and teapots orbiting somewhere in space would be the direct result of a creator or random design (which is currently what we are arguing, making THAT discussion the more pertinent discussion...not pink unicorns), therefore irrelevant to my need to understand them.

  317. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm
    "It`s like you telling me that Mars exists, and I saying bullsh*t, I have no immediate evidence to suggest that it does, bring me proof."

    But I don`t base my decisions on what is immediately available to me as an individual, I base it on what the body of humanity and scientists have concluded because they`ve seen Mars through telescopes. They`ve taken and distributed pictures. I`m not so strenuous in making my decisions that I completely reject all that isn`t immediately available to me, and to do so, by my estimation, would be a miserable existence. Do you doubt you were born? How can you know the process of your conception was any different than anyone else`s? See, no one`s demanding that kind of proof.

  318. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:53 pm
    Overmann, so if you lived back in the olden days, you would believe the world is flat, and you would just be as happy, as that`s what the scientific community believed back then.
  319. Profile photo of ANCB
    ANCB Male 18-29
    176 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
    "Well then... How `bout I come over there and punch your face for Jesu-"

    Funniest video I`ve seen all week! Thank you Overmann.

  320. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm
    Overmann, simply, the scientific community, as of current time, doesn`t have the tools and capacity to understand God, just like how the olden day scientist couldn`t understand the earth is round.
  321. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:56 pm
    "The problem is, I, nor can anyone else, travel to the outer expanse of the universe and tell you whats outside. So the stronger position according to you is to stand pat and say, bullsh*t, nothing exists outside of the universe, there was no creator, and you can`t prove it, so I can`t be persuaded."

    I`m not excluding the possibility of something existing outside our universe. I don`t know what`s outside, but that`s also why I don`t make claims to know. You established a caricature of how I make decisions and in turn chose to interpret how I think in terms of that caricature, which is false. Regarding whether that thing outside the universe is God or not, I don`t know. Unlike some religionists, I don`t claim to know. In addition, I find that my life hasn`t drastically changed in any negative way by my assuming there is no God, which makes the most sense based on the evidence available to me.

  322. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm
    "I do take the scientists` word for it because, from a philosophical standpoint, they`re no closer to "knowing" any more than I am. But I know what they`re doing through the process of peer review and the disclosure of their experiments\results on what they`re basing their conclusions. They`re at least justifying their beliefs with observable evidence here on Earth."

    I know what you`re saying Overmann, but the problem is that we are nowhere near advanced to be able to test in a reasonable setting whether or not God exists, therefore we are left to our own devices. The fact of the matter is MANY scientists that I`ve heard interviewed in the subject do believe in God...and the ones that don`t say that if you put a gun to their head, they are not prepared to say that God doesn`t exist. It`s not something that can be proven. Therefore we can only use logic at this point...as unfortunate as that may be.

  323. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm
    Overmann, if you lived back it the olden days, before science discovered micro-organisms, you would`ve happily let them drain your blood for no reason, to your own detriment, as that was what the scientific community believed back then. So much for faith in the scientific community.
  324. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm
    "But I don`t base my decisions on what is immediately available to me as an individual, I base it on what the body of humanity and scientists have concluded because they`ve seen Mars through telescopes. They`ve taken and distributed pictures. I`m not so strenuous in making my decisions that I completely reject all that isn`t immediately available to me, and to do so, by my estimation, would be a miserable existence. Do you doubt you were born? How can you know the process of your conception was any different than anyone else`s? See, no one`s demanding that kind of proof."

    Thats fair...

  325. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
    "`m saying that dually, you can`t tell me that NOTHING exists outside of the universe and that the universe wasn`t created by something."

    Just for emphasis, I`m not trying to persuade you that nothing exists outside the universe.

    "So any scientific argument you can make supporting his non existsence can be turned on its head, as his intended intelligent design."

    Science doesn`t support God`s non-existence, it just doesn`t support his existence in any direct, overt or subtle way.

    "The odds of the universe materializing out of nothing to form a perfect intelligent design of evolution and other things is greater than number of all the matter in the universe."

    I would like to know how you`re calculating these odds. I`m a math tutor and so I think I would especially, above some others, be able to appreciate the math you`re using.

    I would have preferred you waited patiently as I did for me to stop posting my response.

  326. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
    Ok my turn to join. First off that guy was an idiot.

    Second, science main flaw is that it is based and can not extend past the senses. The Big Bangs flaw is that it doesnt explain how matter came to be. At this point we have to leave science and go to philosophy. Thats where I think a God has to come into play. As for the question where did God come from, you have to ask whether there really was a beginning? Time is a scientifical human concept which might not extend to other things.

    The leprechaun and Bigfoot examples don`t make sense because they are related to earthly things and therefore can be tested.

    Also the man didn`t quite understand what a miracle is. A miracle doesn`t mean it contradicts science but rather an extremely unlikely event. If someone has a tumor with a .25% chance to live and he survives, thats a miracle and still scientifically possible.

  327. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm
    Overmann, what if I know something, have seen something, has experienced something, that no body else knows, no scientist (except for me) has seen, heard, or experienced this. Should I disregard my own evidence for the sake of going with the scientific community?
  328. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm
    "Regarding whether that thing outside the universe is God or not, I don`t know. Unlike some religionists, I don`t claim to know. In addition, I find that my life hasn`t drastically changed in any negative way by my assuming there is no God, which makes the most sense based on the evidence available to me."

    That is true, and keep in mind that I`m not having a religious argument. I don`t claim a religion, but I believe in God. The only thing I`m arguing it whether or not A God exists.

    The fact that your life hasn`t changed in any significant way because you choose not to know or believe in God is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the fact that you HAVE life.

  329. Profile photo of angelicamber
    angelicamber Female 18-29
    1573 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm
    I do believe in god
  330. Profile photo of obello
    obello Male 18-29
    30 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm
    (to clarify logic)I was recently taught in my Critical Thinking lecture about "proof" by failure to find a counterexample to a general statement. "Proof" is in quotations because it shows that the word is not being used properly. They show that someone calls something a proof which isnt proof at all. (Just because you call something a cat does not mean it is a cat.) Ex: Person1 "all birds can fly" Person 2 replies, "Ive never seen a bird that couldnt fly, so you must be right." I`m not tryng to argue with anyone here, just showing what I think (not trying to change someone`s thoughts) so this comment is merely at a disagreement (using my critical thinking class teacher`s logic)
  331. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:05 pm
    Overmann, the odds he speaks off is an argument that existed a long time ago. He didn`t calculate it himself.

    Look at this: http://www.icr.org/article/155/

  332. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm
    I would like to know how you`re calculating these odds. I`m a math tutor and so I think I would especially, above some others, be able to appreciate the math you`re using.

    I`m using simple statistics. Probabilities to be exact. If you could...just for fun... identify all the variables involved in that probability, find the probabilities of each individual outcome that would make the universe a success, and then tell me what the probability is that all of those things happen in alignment with each other to make it a success...what would that number be. Do you see what I`m getting at?

  333. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
    I would have preferred you waited patiently as I did for me to stop posting my response.

    Sorry...how bout as a rule from now on when we are done making our points we say

    over...

    Fair enough? Until I see that I won`t post anything further.

  334. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
    "No, atheists believe that no deities exist, that means, you`re saying you know enough to know that you can`t find a deity in the entire universe and beyond."

    I`m not going to argue back and forth over the differential interpretation of a word. All I ask instead is that you learn to recognize the difference between an active belief and the lack of an active belief, and that it is the latter to which I attribute atheism. You don`t have to agree with me if you do not wish, but understand what I`m saying.

    "Thats not intelligent? A species being able to adapt it`s genetic make up to it`s environment is not intelligent? According to who`s definition?"

    It`s actually more accurate to say it`s the other way around: that the genetic make-up determines the species` degree of adaptation to its environment rather than the other way around. This is not intelligent in that there is no conscious decision-making involved in which mutations are favorable.

  335. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm
    "Overmann, what if I know something, have seen something, has experienced something, that no body else knows, no scientist (except for me) has seen, heard, or experienced this. Should I disregard my own evidence for the sake of going with the scientific community?"

    Sorry to chime in TT....they`d tell you that was the GOD portion of your brain.

  336. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm
    "maddux`s mathematical argument is correct. It`s mathematically impossible that the the universe as it is today exists by random chance. Non-random implies intelligent design."

    It`s not mathematically impossible, but rather statistically impossible. I whole heartedly agree. But the process that made the universe today is not random, and yet is not intelligent. Again I go back to my example of evolution. Something that is not intelligent involves no conscious decision-making. The difference between you and me, ttsec, is that I don`t see the orbits of planets or whether stars will explode or not as random processes. They are influenced by events that are further influenced by events, such that a chain is built of progression from a single incidence to many. This is known as cumulative change, or change that builds on itself.

  337. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm
    "Overmann, the odds he speaks off is an argument that existed a long time ago. He didn`t calculate it himself.

    Look at this: http://www.icr.org/article/155/"

    Thanks TT, I was looking for that.

  338. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:15 pm
    "It`s actually more accurate to say it`s the other way around: that the genetic make-up determines the species` degree of adaptation to its environment rather than the other way around. This is not intelligent in that there is no conscious decision-making involved in which mutations are favorable."

    Even though there was no conscious decision making, SOMETHING made the correct decision. It could be argued that the fact that there was no conscious decision making is further evidence to suggest an intelligent creator.

  339. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:16 pm
    Overmann, so, if everything is as deterministic as you believe, do you have free will?
  340. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
    "boredfjord, science has not advanced far enough yet to be able to study God. It`s like, before the telescope, no body knew about certain planets and stars, but that doesn`t mean they don`t exist."

    Science doesn`t have the means to study God, that is true. But that doesn`t mean the question of God cannot be addressed scientifically, which is to say that lacking any evidence to the contrary, science must by default reject the hypothesis of the notion of God. This will continue to be the case until sufficient technology allows us to return to that hypothesis.

  341. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:19 pm
    "Overmann, from observable evidence, I can, through circumstantial evidence, also believe God exists."

    Except that I cited circumstantial evidence that has proven itself reliable on Earth and is applied to phenomena which exists in a realm where they are known to apply, namely the universe. You are making the greater leap in assuming something outside the known universe, for which there is no circumstantial evidence.

    "I would argue the existence of pink unicorns and teapots orbiting somewhere in space would be the direct result of a creator..."

    I didn`t ask how you suppose they got there, I asked if you believed they existed. And if you believe they exist, why would you? And if you believe they don`t exist, how do you know? Why do you reject the claim that they exist?

  342. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm
    "Science doesn`t have the means to study God, that is true. But that doesn`t mean the question of God cannot be addressed scientifically, which is to say that lacking any evidence to the contrary, science must by default reject the hypothesis of the notion of God. This will continue to be the case until sufficient technology allows us to return to that hypothesis."

    Overmann, this is true, but it`s not fair to say that because we can`t test it, it must be rejected. All science can do at this point is say that its an incomplete argument on both sides.

    Much like chess...the outcome is a draw...either way you look at it.

  343. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm
    Overmann, you say there is no circumstantial evidence to prove something outside the universe exists, but that`s because you haven`t seen it. I have seen it, but I just can`t record it because science hasn`t advanced far enough to create technology that allows me to record that evidence. The only thing you can rely on is my testimony, just as you rely on the testimony of other scientists.

    However, I can create events that reproduce the results I experienced, and I will tell you how, but you have to go try it yourself.

    This is how you reproduce it: Pray to God with wholehearted willingness to accept whatever outcome that may happen, including His interaction with you. You have to be willing to interact with him.

  344. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm
    "Overmann, so if you lived back in the olden days, you would believe the world is flat, and you would just be as happy, as that`s what the scientific community believed back then."

    The notion that people in the Middle Ages (at which time there was no scientific community yet) believed in a flat Earth is a myth. Do some research and come back, thanks.

    "Overmann, if you lived back it the olden days, before science discovered micro-organisms, you would`ve happily let them drain your blood for no reason, to your own detriment, as that was what the scientific community believed back then. So much for faith in the scientific community."

    Indeed I would, because that was the best explanation back then. Thankfully science has progressed and adopted more accurate treatments, which is why I trust it - I am safe in assuming I am operating on the best possible knowledge available.

  345. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:26 pm
    "Overmann, simply, the scientific community, as of current time, doesn`t have the tools and capacity to understand God, just like how the olden day scientist couldn`t understand the earth is round."

    Again, the consensus back then was that the Earth was spherical, not flat.

  346. Profile photo of maddux32
    maddux32 Male 30-39
    926 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm
    "I didn`t ask how you suppose they got there, I asked if you believed they existed. And if you believe they exist, why would you? And if you believe they don`t exist, how do you know? Why do you reject the claim that they exist?"

    And my argument it that it`s irrelevant, and thats not what we`re discussion. You could make the same argument about vampires and werewolves. There are sea-creatures that exists that we haven`t discovered yet, and there existence has no relevance on who created me or not.

    The 1st question is always going to be, what made us. What you are asking is a subset to that question. Until we could answer question number one, it`s not worth debating irrelevant subset questions.

  347. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm
    "Should I disregard my own evidence for the sake of going with the scientific community?"

    This is talking about anecdotal evidence, which hardly constitutes evidence by virtue of it merely being personal. I would ask what you experienced and then gauge that with what I perceive as possible. If it clearly violates the laws of physics that have up to now proven reliable, I`ll reject it.

    "I don`t claim a religion, but I believe in God. The only thing I`m arguing it whether or not A God exists."

    Religionists is my word for faithheads, which is Dawkins` word. I don`t mean to exclude those who merely have a belief in God and don`t actively participate in the corresponding religion by my use of the word. I am aware of what we are debating.

    "The only thing that is relevant is the fact that you HAVE life."

    Are we speaking of the origins of life now?

  348. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm
    Overmann, lets discuss your belief in determinism (with no intelligent source). This would imply that you have no free will, as everything you have ever done, will do, and will do in the future has been unintelligently predetermined through chain of events. After all, I can say you are typing here because certain photons hit certain electrons, went back into your eyes, causing electric impulse to fire in your brain, causing your finger muscles to start moving. Then you have no free will. If you wish to believe you have free will, you must deny unintelligent determinism. However, if you don`t accept randomness, and you don`t accept unintelligent determinism, then you must accept intelligent determinism, which implies you believe there is a diety.
  349. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm
    Overmann, the law of physics cannot explain my person experiences, because the law of physics is inadequately determined by limited and imperfect humans who have not yet advanced enough to describe God using mathematical equations.

    Also, like I said, I can`t record it either because of limited technology. However, I can teach you how to reproduce the results.

    Neurology doesn`t understand how a lot of what the brain does works, but they know if they give certain medicine, certain results will occur, even though they don`t know what`s really going on. In a lot of things, they rely on reproducible results. Likewise, my belief in God relies on reproducible results. Why not try reproducing them yourself?

  350. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm
    ttsec, I won`t subscribe to a creationist website, one that demonstrably and proudly carries an agenda. Find a scientific website (good luck) containing the statistics you provide and I`ll look into it.

    "If you could...just for fun... identify all the variables involved in that probability, find the probabilities of each individual outcome that would make the universe a success..."

    Stop right there. How do you define a "successful" universe?

    "Even though there was no conscious decision making, SOMETHING made the correct decision..."

    Yes, namely natural selection, the other half to evolution. First, not all gene mutations are beneficial - most of them are detrimental. What determines whether a gene mutation is beneficial o not is its influence on an organisms ability to survives. If it survives and reproduces, that gene mutation is transmitted. If it doesn`t survive, that gene mutation dies with the organism.

  351. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm
    And again I`d appreciate it if you would wait patiently for me to stop posting - I`m having discussions with two different people.
  352. Profile photo of Cheese84o6
    Cheese84o6 Male 13-17
    394 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm
    You cannot prove the existence of God based on logic

    Logic is pretty useless btw, all logic is, is the biological processing of our minds. We are not perfect, therefor logic is far from perfect. If you think about it, you can use logic to prove anything, you just have to be smarter then the other person, although many times, an honest person will lose because they are not manipulative.

    A real Christian does not attack people like that, that was not a real Christian.

    I love how everyone keeps saying that it`s proven God doesn`t exist, you haven`t proven anything..lol

    I have the same experience with the other side, *boiling over* it`s really not just fake Christians. The only thing i really hate is when i get preached at for an hour about open-mindedness and then im told that im wrong.

  353. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:45 pm
    Overmann, yet you subscribe to websites with an evolutionary agenda? If you won`t even entertain an idea, even knowing that it may be wrong, then that is intellectually dishonest, and it is against scientific virtues. Even the most proud scientist, if he keeps his scientific integrity, would be willing to hear and debunk absurd claims. You should at least read the website thoroughly and openly consider what it says, before automatically shunning it. If you are so confident in your beliefs, then what are you afraid of?
  354. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:45 pm
    "Overmann, so, if everything is as deterministic as you believe, do you have free will?"

    Yes, to the degree that I can choose what I wish to do next. I choose to continue with my posts.

    "Overmann, this is true, but it`s not fair to say that because we can`t test it, it must be rejected."

    No, it must be rejected in the time being in order to preserve the credibility of science and its reputation for seeking truth. If science sought to make assumptions in the realm of the unknowable, and then decided to teach whatever conclusions to future generations, it risks teaching them false assumptions. This is why scientific findings are reliable. Rejection, in the meantime, is necessary and sufficient for the survival of science. Science will undoubtedly return to that hypothesis once sufficient technology is developed to address it.

  355. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm
    Cheese84o6, specify who and what you`re referring to in your post.
  356. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:54 pm
    ttsec, by investing prayer with an ability to perceive God, you are setting yourself up to believe he actually exists via power of persuasion. In any case, God actually being there is thus indistinguishable from being persuaded he`s there and thus renders the whole experience worthless in terms of evaluating whether God exists. Repeat to yourself often that atheists are out to kill you and the same effect will be produced.

    "And my argument it that it`s irrelevant, and thats not what we`re discussion."

    Actually it is what we are discussing, only you don`t perceive it as such. My reasoning for rejecting God follows the same reasoning for why I reject invisible pink unicorns and teapots in space. As soon as you understand why you reject these two claims as well (whether indeed you reject them, you`ve proven obscure and a hindrance to the point I`m making), you`ll understand why I reject God.

  357. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    "Overmann, lets discuss your belief in determinism (with no intelligent source). This would imply that you have no free will, as everything you have ever done, will do, and will do in the future has been unintelligently predetermined through chain of events."

    Predetermined? Tell me, in what way do the movement of planets or the position of our Earth`s orbit around the sun have to do with determining what I decide to do in my own time? Nothing, if you correctly reject the superstition of astrology, which for all I know you may not. I am not deterministic, I simply think that the universe is in the shape that it`s in because the individual steps in its formation relied upon the previous steps and so on and so forth. No where did I imply I had no free will because of it.

  358. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:01 pm
    Overmann, by investing reading a scientific journal considering what they say can be given by evidence, you are setting yourself up to believe via power of persuasion....

    If you are so confident in your beliefs Overmann, and if you are intellectually honest, honest with YOURSELF, you would not be susceptible to the power of persuasion, and therefore wouldn`t mind reading and considering the website I linked to, nor would you mind praying to God and considering the results.

    After all, if everyone automatically disregarded claims that didn`t adhered to their beliefs before even testing such claims, science would never advance.

    I wasn`t always a firm believer Overmann, there were times I was a skeptic like you, and I didn`t go to God expecting anything to happen, but something did, and I was intellectually honest enough with myself to realize and accept what happened. What are you afraid of Overmann? It wouldn`t hurt to try.

  359. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm
    Overmann, I don`t need to believe in Astrology to believe in the Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect.
  360. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:04 pm
    "Overmann, the law of physics cannot explain my person experiences, because the law of physics is inadequately determined by limited and imperfect humans who have not yet advanced enough to describe God using mathematical equations."

    Okay. I don`t agree with you, but I`ll play along with your point to make a point in turn. If you believe physics is flawed in terms of your belief because humans are limited and imperfect, what reason do you have to believe that your "communications" with God are not the result of imperfections in your brain telling you something exists that may or may not exist? How can you tell the difference and, more importantly, by what criteria are you choosing to disregard imperfections in the foundation of physics over possible imperfections in the foundation of your beliefs?

  361. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm
    Overmann, I can know my communications with God is not my own hallucinations because, like I said, the results are reproducible by other people, not just me. If you believe in the scientific community, then it is the same amount of faith, as the scientific community also relies on reproducible results.
  362. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm
    "If you are so confident in your beliefs, then what are you afraid of?"

    Nothing, I just really don`t want to delve into an article obviously biased towards creationism. What you are failing to understand is that the body of science does not have an agenda - it only seeks to find truth via evidence. Ergo, if no scientific website has stumbled upon the statistics the creationist article describes, what conclusion do you reasonably expect me to draw? Experience says creationist websites reveal nothing unless on is set up to believe they reveal something. Overwhelmingly, the creationist arguments I`ve heard have been satisfactorily debunked by science and if you wish to go over those... *sigh* I guess we`ll go over those. Again.

  363. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:14 pm
    Overmann, so, even when creationist uses VALID mathematics, you refuse to consider it and test it, just because he`s a creationist with a creationist agenda?

    Your faith in the scientific body is quite impressive. You have yet to know and meet (I`m in a scientific field) all the agenda-filled scientist out there who skew their results and spin their reports to their own agenda.

    I have delved into many articles biased towards many many things, even having a predisposition against those things, because I believe in being open-minded and considering what others have to say -- to test their claims, line by line, statement by statement. The fact that you refuse to even read it...is just plain arrogance.

  364. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm
    "If you won`t even entertain an idea, even knowing that it may be wrong, then that is intellectually dishonest, and it is against scientific virtues."

    No, scientific virtues mean adhering to science. Creationism is not science.

    I`m afraid I`m going to have to tell you to keep your suggestions of prayer to yourself. You assume I do not know what effect you are trying to describe but I can safely justify my rejection of that effect based on experience and knowing that it produces no satisfactory conclusion (or one that can be distinguished from self-delusion) regarding the existence of God. I`d greatly appreciate it if you would politely abstain from making this suggestion further.

  365. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm
    "Overmann, I can know my communications with God is not my own hallucinations because, like I said, the results are reproducible by other people, not just me."

    That doesn`t mean you are not all deluding yourselves simultaneously. The point I`m seeking to make is that when delusion and confident belief become indistinguishable, it is the default and stronger move (if one actually cares about whether their beliefs are true) to reject the belief.

    "by investing reading a scientific journal considering what they say can be given by evidence, you are setting yourself up to believe via power of persuasion..."

    No, I consider what they have to say with my own reason and reject it if it sounds too unreasonable. The reason why I`m willing to read a scientific journal as opposed to a creationist one is because peer review does not have a bias or an agenda. Creationist magazines and articles are not even peer reviewed.

  366. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:23 pm
    Overmann, I can see that, even presented with reproducible results (<-- this is scientific, as that is a scientific method), and mathematically valid proofs (<-- again, scientific methodology), you refuse to even consider them, you are just refusing out of pride, unwilling to test your own beliefs.

    I have tested mine, but you refuse to test yours. That`s intellectually dishonest.

    I am purposefully not describing the reproducible parts of prayer, because if I did, that would create the power of persuasion should you decide to try it.

    You base your rejection based on experience. You really have tried this method already? Please do tell me what happened.

    If you ask for burden of proof, and when I have shown you how to see the evidence, through reproducible results (<-- scientific method), you ask me to abstain from those suggestions, then you have just shown that you don`t really believe in the scientific method after all.

  367. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:23 pm
    Overmann, You ask for proof, but when given an article, you won`t even read. This shows me you realrly have no interest in a logical and intellectula discussion. You are here just to let loose your anger or something, I don`t know what.
  368. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:25 pm
    "Overmann, so, even when creationist uses VALID mathematics, you refuse to consider it and test it, just because he`s a creationist with a creationist agenda?"

    Who says they are valid? You? They? God? The point is, I`m not going to trust them to be valid unless it is published in a peer reviewed scientific article or journal. They establish the criteria by which something is proven valid, which is also the criteria I use, namely reason and the evidence of all that has come before into consideration. Creationists seek to by-pass this process, which explains why they`re yet able to delude further masses. There`s no limit on the freedom of speech, but there is an accepted limit on what is regarded, by the scientific community, as factual. If your statistics are real, there is no reason why they *wouldn`t* be published in a scientific magazine. You should have no trouble finding me a link I consider credible.

  369. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm
    Overmann, you are math tutor, why don`t you read the article and tell me if the proofs are valid. Instead of trusting your "peers," why don`t you read it yourself and determine it yourself! Think for yourself for once!

    The reason they aren`t published in magazines, is because magazine peolpe ar just like you, they won`t even considre reading it.

    (I have a degree in mathematics).

  370. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm
    "Your faith in the scientific body is quite impressive. You have yet to know and meet (I`m in a scientific field) all the agenda-filled scientist out there who skew their results and spin their reports to their own agenda."

    Indeed, I said the scientific body is unbiased. That doesn`t mean individual scientists are not. But that is indeed the beauty of science - it seeks to determine and investigate bias, in which cases it completely disregards the experiment. If an experiment is found to be biased to the degree that it affected the results, the results are rejected, just to be safe. It is this precise bias that the peer review process eliminates, such that not just anything is published in those journals.

  371. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm
    ttsec, ever heard of the great prayer experiment? Also, even if yuo COULD prove the exitence of god that in no way implies that there is a personal god (who would answer prayers). When multiplying so many facotrs together, especially ones that aren`t 100% accurate, the result becomes skewed so much that the conclusion cannot be trusted.
  372. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm
    Overmann, here you go, this is an excerpt from a science magazine:

    www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

  373. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm
    "I can see that, even presented with reproducible results (<-- this is scientific, as that is a scientific method), and mathematically valid proofs (<-- again, scientific methodology), you refuse to even consider them, you are just refusing out of pride, unwilling to test your own beliefs."

    Reproducible results are a necessary condition for science but by no means a sufficient condition. It must also be objective, which your personal experiences or communications are not. They are subjective, and I suggest you learn the difference.

    I am not against testing my conclusions, but you have to present valid evidence that I can use. If you weren`t afraid your statistics couldn`t hold up their credibility in the scientific community, you`d look for your statistics there. You should consider yourself before accusing me of fear, ttsec.

  374. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:33 pm
    walrusgod, the great prayer experiment isn`t the type of prayer I`m talking about. If you read the thread and all my posts, you`d know it`s not the same thing. And yes, I know about the great prayer experiment.
  375. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm
    Overmann, nothing is objective except math.
  376. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm
    "The reason they aren`t published in magazines, is because magazine peolpe ar just like you, they won`t even considre reading it."

    And I can`t help but wonder why.

    "You base your rejection based on experience. You really have tried this method already? Please do tell me what happened."

    No. The details are frankly none of your business and I only mentioned it so that you would be content knowing I could justify from experience why I am how I am. Please do not pursue the matter further, or I will be unable to continue a polite discussion.

    "If you ask for burden of proof, and when I have shown you how to see the evidence, through reproducible results (<-- scientific method), you ask me to abstain from those suggestions, then you have just shown that you don`t really believe in the scientific method after all."

    I do adhere to the scientific method, but it also requires *objective* testing. Prayer is not objective, it is subjective.

  377. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm
    Overmann, just so you know, not accepting evidence other than that in a scientifically peer reviewed magazine is like me not accepting evidence for evolution unless it`s in the Bible.
  378. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm
    Overmann, if you don`t want to talk about your personal experiences regarding belief in God, then why are you debating in a public forum of theism vs atheism?
  379. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm
    debates dont consist solely of personal experience, presenting clear, empirical evidence and logical arguments are the basis of debate. personal experiences are by definition subjective and subjective evidence is not reliable.
  380. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm
    walrusgod, a lot of psychiatric medical research relies on reports of personal experience from drug testing. You should not trust psychiatry then.
  381. Profile photo of slushy50254
    slushy50254 Male 13-17
    151 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm
    "so your saying there isn`t enough evidence to prove a god?"

    "yep"

    "how about i come over hear and punch your fat head."

  382. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm
    "Overmann, you are math tutor, why don`t you read the article and tell me if the proofs are valid. Instead of trusting your `peers,` why don`t you read it yourself and determine it yourself! Think for yourself for once!"

    If it`ll put your claims of my intellectual honesty to rest, I`ll read your article, but this is the only non-scientific article I`ll read.

    Okay... the article makes the mistake of assuming the development of DNA happened by pure chance. While I myself do not claim to know how DNA was developed (there is no consensus on this in science), I would argue that it is far more likely DNA was constructed gradually and in steps. This is known as cumulative development, as opposed to single-step development. The article is talking only about single-step development, which assumes that DNA spontaneously came into being when all the necessary particles reacted in the same instant. I ask you, which is more likely?

  383. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm
    "You have yet to know and meet (I`m in a scientific field) all the agenda-filled scientist out there who skew their results and spin their reports to their own agenda."

    I made this point on another thread and people accused me of being a stupid 16 year old who believed anything.

  384. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:46 pm
    personal experience is the only method of getting the results from psychiatry that i am aware of (possibly brain scans?). IN psychiatry it is the best evidence we have. ALso, one of psychiatry`s main aims is to improve people`s personal experiences, so in this case it may be considered a more appropriate form of evidence. You feed in empirical data to get empirical results.
  385. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm
    Overmann, how much evolutionary biology have you studied? Cumulative development is just a bunch of steps, each of which, is affected largely by random chance. If at least one steps has randomcy, then the whole thing has randomcy. The simplification the article made is valid.
  386. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm
    walrusgod, in Christianity, it (personal experience) is the best evidence we have. ALso, one of Christianity`s main aims is to improve people`s personal experiences, so in this case, it may be considered a more appropriate form of evidence.
  387. Profile photo of shizzamX
    shizzamX Female 18-29
    2697 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm
    haha, that`s awesome.
  388. Profile photo of shamille
    shamille Female 18-29
    831 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm
    Thank God for I-A-B.
  389. Profile photo of SnToe
    SnToe Female 30-39
    104 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm
    Fabulous clip.
  390. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:53 pm
    Yes, but the existence of god could be considered as an empirical question, with a definite answer, yes or no. We weren`t discussing christianity in particular either, we were debating creationism vs evolution. "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators" Dawkins.
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/...
    this link might of of interest.
  391. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm
    Overmann, by the way, if you want to know which specific step in cumulative development has, think of the most smallest step, which is reproduction. According to evolution, many many life forms keep reproducing and the small variations is what causes the overall product (cumulative steps causing overall product). Now, in each individual reproduction, there is inherent randomcy built into the haploid (sperm/egg) formations, which occurs during meiosis. In binary fission reproduction (cloninng, practically), variation still occurs due to RANDOM mutations. Since each reproduction has randomcy, and the cumulative of billions of reproductions over billions of years form stuff, then the over all product is formed via randomcy, as the steps of formation each have randomcy. This is a SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED view.
  392. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm
    "walrusgod, in Christianity, it (personal experience) is the best evidence we have. "

    You are not debating some facet of Christianity. You are debating theism as a whole, in which case science is the best evidence we have.

  393. Profile photo of Ruswut
    Ruswut Male 18-29
    1266 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm
    LOL I love that the athiest made the guy practically say he believed in faries and lepricaurns and aliens and end up resorting to insults and violence which totally goes against chrisitanity.
  394. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm
    Watched the video, it was all right. Some interesting points made, but this is one of my favorites:

    ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

    “‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

    “‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

  395. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm
    I just read your other article, ttsec, and I found that it actually advises caution in trying to use probability to assess impossibilities. Take this excerpt, which precisely describes what I`ve been calling cumulative development:

    "What is wrong with the above line of reasoning? It is the fundamental assumption that a snowflake forms all at once as a random roll-of-the-dice conglomeration of water molecules. It does not. It is the product of a long series of aggregations, each acting under known physical laws of atomic interactions, forming much as a crystal of salt forms."

    Way to submit an article that ended up not supporting your statistics. Try again, ttsec. You`re reinforcing my argument.

  396. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm
    "Overmann, just so you know, not accepting evidence other than that in a scientifically peer reviewed magazine is like me not accepting evidence for evolution unless it`s in the Bible."

    Not true at all. As you`ve noted yourself, the body of science as is reflected in science journals is continually being rewritten while the Bible is merely being transcribed. My sources evolve - yours do not.

    "if you don`t want to talk about your personal experiences regarding belief in God, then why are you debating in a public forum of theism vs atheism?"

    Unlike you, I can freely debate the merits of belief or unbelief in a deity while not getting personally involved. I only mentioned my past experience to hopefully convey to you that I can justify, from experience, why I suspect prayer is not evidence of anything. Now that I`ve mentioned it, you stopped suggesting I resort to prayer and I appreciate it. End of personal discussion.

  397. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm
    walrusgod, how do you measure some things empirically without the proper tools? Much less knowing what to measure? We know a lot of stuff that`s true today wasn`t true in the olden days, because they didn`t have the technology to measure certain things. But just because they couldn`t measure it, doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.

    The argument I stated is that humans lack the technological and scientific tools to empirically measure God, so they can only deduce through circumstantial evidence provided in personal experience. So far, these personal experiences lean towards theism, and these experiences are reliably reproducible. Even if you don`t believe in reproducible evidence, the most you can say about the God question using science is "I don`t know." Since you can`t measure it, you can`t say it does or doesn`t exist.

    I used the example of micro-organisms discovery, and how before that, doctors stuck leeches on you in an earlier post.

  398. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm
    You`re jsut emphasising our point. science constantly improves itself: a doctor from 100 years ago wouldn`t recognise what we do today as medicine. if there is a flaw in science it is fixed, if theres a flaw in the bible its there forever. Also, to measure god god must exist, which you just said might or might not exist. The burden of proof is still on you, and no matter how unlikely the universe is, that doesn`t mean it is impossible (self evidently).
  399. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
    also, could you please clarify exactly what you mean by personal experiences. i mentioned the great prayer experiment, but what other kind of prayer do you believe in?
  400. Profile photo of ajr2006
    ajr2006 Male 18-29
    943 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm
    HAHA! Loved it, the ending was too funny.
    *breaks out twang* Well How `bout I just come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus!
  401. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm
    "...how much evolutionary biology have you studied?"

    Enough to give me a more accurate idea than the general public, apparently.

    "Cumulative development is just a bunch of steps, each of which, is affected largely by random chance..."

    Not so. If you are talking about genetic mutations being random, how are you defining random? Let`s say a genetic mutation is induced by a UV ray hitting a particular nucleotide, pairing it chemically with another nucleotide. Is this random? Well, no. The UV light was traveling in a particular direction because it relied on an earlier process, and so on and so forth, and that nucleotide was hit. That would be the only random part of evolution, because natural selection takes up the job of "determining" (unintelligently, mind you) whether that mutation is beneficial or not if it helps in the organism`s survival and ability to reproduce. If it does, the organism reproduces and the gene mutation is preserved.

  402. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm
    Overmann, um, no, I have no statics (that I calculate myself), because my statistics are taken from those articles. The danger he stated is true and existent, and that is the application of such statistic.

    I wasn`t applying the statistic towards the area he warned. I was merely using it to show that it`s statistically impossible for the world to be the way it is today via random chance. Furthermore, a snow flake, DNA, or whatever, forms via small steps, yes. The randomcy in each small step multiplied together equals the total randomcy of the entire process, so the statistics is still valid.

    Ang again, I wasn`t using the statistic towards the thing the article was warning me against. You totally quoted it out of context and applied it towards stuff I`m not even arguing.

  403. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm
    Overmann, if you want to talk about rays and stuff making things deterministic, I can use the same thing to prove you have no free will. But you already said you do have free will, so then you would be contradicting yourself.
  404. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm
    Overmann, also if you want to talk about rays and stuff, we can say everything, all rays and whatnot, came from the big bang, and in order for the big bang to occur in a perfect way so that many billion years later, the world it is as is today, requires the big bang to be in an exact and precise configuration. This configuration is either RANDOM, or intelligently determined, it cannot possible be caused by something else (determinism-wise), as there`s nothing before the big bang (or nothing science has found yet).
  405. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm
    "...by the way, if you want to know which specific step in cumulative development has..."

    Again you are confusing single-step development and cumulative development. It is true that cumulative development has randomness associated with it, but that is not the *only* condition that builds structures via cumulative development. In the case of evolution, these cumulative mutations are still selected based on efficiency. What you are describing, which is to say development that relies *strictly* on chance alone, is single-step development. If I may recommend a book for you to read, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins` The Blind Watchmaker. He talks specifically about the differences between single-step and cumulative selection, as he calls it.

  406. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm
    walrusgod, the prayer experiment has scripted prayers, which limits free interactivity with God, if God exits. I was talking about praying and asking God about His own existence, and seeing if you get an answer, and interacting freely according to your choice (not script).
  407. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm
    k i have to go now, but i`d love to continue this debate tomorrow. I`ll come back to this comments section tomorrow, to see what`s happened. If it fizzles out here, perhaps we could move the debate to a more convenient format, like IM or a forum. Go Overmann!
  408. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm
    Overmann, I am not confusing it. Cumulative development is tho cumulation of many very small single steps, even if these steps are infinitesimal! And I never said it STRICTLY relies on CHANCE alone. Just so you know, I don`t even believe in randomcy, I believe everything is affected sovereignly by God, I was just stating the theory that people say about randomness in development.
  409. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm
    "The randomcy in each small step multiplied together equals the total randomcy of the entire process"

    No it *doesn`t*. The only time, in statistics, that one can multiply the probabilities of independent events to achieve an overall likelihood of that whole series of events is when those independent events *happens at the same time*. This is the Product Law in Statistics. The chances of me rolling three sixes on three six-sided dice is equal to (1/6)(1/6)(1/6), which is 1/216. Events happening at the same time are *inherently* single-step development.

    "...if you want to talk about rays and stuff making things deterministic, I can use the same thing to prove you have no free will. But you already said you do have free will, so then you would be contradicting yourself."

    Indeed, let`s talk about how processes we are only beginning to glimpse in neurology automatically translate to me having no freewill. Be my guest.

  410. Profile photo of walrusgod
    walrusgod Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    last point: ok thanks for clarifying that. Personally i wouldnt accept that, id be more likely to think id gone crazy than that god had communicated with me! that method just seems really stupid (no offence!) to me though.
  411. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
    maddux32, if you are still following along, I`d appreciate it if you could refrain from posting until I`ve done away with ttsec. His stupidity demands my complete attention for the time being.

    And thanks, walrusgod. I appreciate your support.

  412. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
    Overmann, anyways, my point with the whole statistics thing and what not, is to show that the world as it is could day couldn`t have happened by random chance, which you already tell me you agree because you believe in determinism, so I don`t know why your nitpicking at the numbers. However, the main point is, even if everything was set in motion and not touched, at one point, way in the beginning, the big bang, something must have touch it, and that is either RANDOM or NON-RANDOM. And that possible couldn`t have been effected deterministically, because there was nothing before it. It can`t be RANDOM, because the world we know right now can`t be formed from such statistical impossibility. Therefore it`s NON-RANDOM. Since it`s not deterministically affected (nothing before it), then it has to be intelligent design!
  413. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm
    "anyways, my point with the whole statistics thing and what not, is to show that the world as it is could day couldn`t have happened by random chance, which you already tell me you agree because you believe in determinism, so I don`t know why your nitpicking at the numbers."

    I`m a math tutor - when a student makes a mistake, I correct them to prevent them from making the same mistake again and proceed to do well on the exam.

    I accept cumulative development as the process by which our universe as we know it was formed, and if you call it determinism then that is what I accept. But cumulative development has no bearing on what I *choose* to do next. The universe didn`t have the luxury of *choosing* what it did next.

    "something must have touch it, and that is either RANDOM or NON-RANDOM."

    So long as you agree non-random can still be unintelligent, I`ll agree with you on this point.

  414. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm
    Overmann, I don`t think you know probabilistic theory. They don`t have to happen at the same time and be independent to be multiplied together, you just have to multiply different numbers as opposed to if they were independent and simultaneous. I have studied combinatorics extensively and have written papers on it, I know what I`m talking about. What do you study? Are you even out of school yet?

    I already described to you in an earlier post about rays hitting electrons and activating brain impulses that activate others, ultimately leading to physical action.

    Furthermore, you calling me stupid shows you have no respect for this discussion. So, my participation ends here.

  415. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm
    "...because there was nothing before it"

    Are you claiming to possess knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang, knowledge that not even scientists have been able to describe? On what authority? How do we know the Big Bang was not caused by some other process?

  416. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm
    "I don`t think you know probabilistic theory."

    I know the Product Law and that that is what you are referring to when you attempt to multiply the probability of, say, DNA coming into existence or of the universe being as it is. You are describing single-step development, which you seem to not yet be able to grasp. Again I recommend the book The Blind Watchmaker - I have indulged your sources, now show me the same courtesy and indulge mine.

    "Are you even out of school yet?"

    No, and I hope to never be out of school. Why are you so eager to exit an academic environment and cease your learning from the best sources possible?

    "I already described to you in an earlier post about rays hitting electrons and activating brain impulses that activate others, ultimately leading to physical action."

    Okay, but what determines those initial rays?

  417. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm
    Overmann, I was using the big bang as an example of a beginning point, it very well may not be the big bang, but such a point exists. You don`t really understand my point, you are interpreting stuff that`s not what I mean, maybe that`s why you think I`m stupid, because you choose to interpret through that filter.
  418. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm
    "you calling me stupid shows you have no respect for this discussion. So, my participation ends here."

    I have plenty of respect for the discussion and will continue to indulge in it with all manner of theists. As far as me calling you stupid? Uh, eh heh, you weren`t supposed to read that. Not that I`m lamenting your overdue departure from the discussion, mind you. Don`t go away mad, just go away!

  419. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm
    Overmann, if you know math, you know anything can be divided into smaller pieces. These pieces is what I`m talking bout, and you are referring to as "single step."

    The product law is a lot more complicated than you think. There are stuff in the product law you don`t even learn until Graduate school level.

    So, you want to remain in school forever and not apply what you learn to the real world, only learn, and not use what you learn? Wow, good luck with living with yourself. And the best sources aren`t in school, they`re in the field, of course you wouldn`t know because you haven`t been in the field, so all you know is school and have nothing to compare with.

  420. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm
    "I was using the big bang as an example of a beginning point, it very well may not be the big bang, but such a point exists."

    Says who? On what authority do you claim there is a point before which there was nothing when the concept of time doesn`t apply, and therefore the notion of a beginning doesn`t apply? It is the very principle that I`m arguing. You are delving further and further into philosophy, a realm into which I will not pursue you.

  421. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm
    Overmann, the rays are determined by other rays and so on and so forth, by other brain waves, by other waves determined by other vacuum tubes, electrodes, computer chip, internet feed, other people`s typing, blah blah blah, trace back to beginning of time. So everything you "choose" has been determined since the beginning of time, so you have no free will.
  422. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:47 pm
    im just waiting for someone to join overmann or for ttsec to get tired. I dont want to make it 2 vs. 1.
  423. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:48 pm
    "So, you want to remain in school forever and not apply what you learn to the real world, only learn, and not use what you learn?"

    Who the hell said I couldn`t do both? What is to prevent me from taking internet classes, as does my father, to better my understanding and increase my resume? And who is to say I cannot conduct pioneering research in a laboratory? You seem to make an awful lot of assumptions on so little evidence. In more ways than one, it seems.

    By the way, when you talk about infinitely small steps, that is still cumulative development. Single-step happens in an instant, which, until now, is what you were describing. I`m glad you agree that it is indeed cumulative development which builds complexity and not single-step. But because of that, your wont to apply probability in the form of multiplying probabilities doesn`t apply.

  424. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:49 pm
    Overmann, the very beginning of time IS that point. Even the fastest thing, light, is subject to time, and therefore if light exists, so does time, and no matter can go faster than light, so all matter is governed by time. By saying there is a point where time doesn`t apply implies there`s a point when all matter and light didn`t exist!


    Atheism vs theism is all about philosophy, and logic of philosophy. The scientific method in itself is philosohpically determined.

  425. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:50 pm
    Overmann, I was talking about remaining physically in school. Of course, school is everywhere if you want to talk about it in the abstract sense.
  426. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm
    Overmann, so you admit I`m NOT talking about single step, because I`ve always been talking about the smallest increment, as I clearly described in earlier posts, you just choose to misinterpret me so you can refute me using irrelevant arguments.
  427. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm
    Overmann, it`s possible to multiply probabilities of infinitesimal events. It`s called calculus.
  428. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm
    Except, ttsec, that we don`t need to go to the beginning of time in order to define from whence free will comes. If I decide what electrons fire and ultimately move my arm, I have the free will to move my arm in such a way that any processes in the beginning of time could not anticipate. I don`t consciously transmit signals between cells (define consciously however you wish), but the effect is the same - that *I* have to first want to move my arm before it happens. Nothing that came before decided at what particular instant I choose to do something.

    I`m afraid you`ll have to wait your turn, primetimekin. maddux32 was next in line.

  429. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm
    Overmann, how do you "decide" the decision itself is generated by stimulus, which is according to determinism is pre-determined. According to such theory, if I could completely understand your brain, I could make you do anything I want using stimulus alone.
  430. Profile photo of Red5TheFinn
    Red5TheFinn Male 13-17
    1559 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:54 pm
    Ok ive said this before but listen. Something has to have mass to have an effect on another object, organic ect. So heaven is "supposedly" located in space?. Well how does a celestial being "god" have mass and not drift through space endlessly. Only being able to answer a few `prayers" before drifting out of range of his "arms" away from Earth. Now you can say that the Earths gravitational pull keeps him still but then wouldnt he be visible to the eye?
  431. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:54 pm
    "By saying there is a point where time doesn`t apply implies there`s a point when all matter and light didn`t exist!"

    True, but that doesn`t exclude the possibility of something else being in their place. My point is that you, nor anyone else alive, can`t make claims about what happened before the Big Bang with any degree of certainty.

    "The scientific method in itself is philosohpically determined."

    It has its roots in natural philosophy, yes, but it`s been developed into a form of its own. I should specify that I won`t chase you into the realm of non-natural philosophy.

  432. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:55 pm
    Red5TheFinn, who told you heaven was in space? Who says God is made of matter, and not energy? There`s a whole string theory going on about energy from other dimensions and whatnot, but that`s still all in development.
  433. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:56 pm
    Ceiling cat created the Universe and all that is...


    but since, he`s seemed to have other things on his agenda.

    Logically, all that is must have started somewhere. An end has a start, and at some point, the Universe will end. God is the only sufficient explanation for the creation of either the Universe itself, or whatever spawned the creation of the Universe, i.e., super-dense particles that led to the big bang, as I understand.

    Realistically, it seems foolish to believe a supernatural being watches over our actions, but it is a very comforting feeling. Having faith in a supernatural being is almost always a healthy thing, until some people start preaching that the God likes certain things you do, and dislikes other things you do, and will only have it one way.

  434. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm
    Red5TheFinn, I stand for everyone when I say WHAT?!?!?
  435. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm
    Oh I forgot... the argument was boring and didn`t come to many points, but I loved the caller`s statement at the end.

    Punching athiests in the face FTW!!!!!1

  436. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm
    Overmann, so you are saying, something existed before, not governed by time, able to affect all future events by itself, but since there`s no time, there`s nothing "before" it (since "before" implies something prior in time, but there is no time, so there is no before), so therefore, that itself is the beginning point.
  437. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm
    primetimekin, string theory is the current frontier of theoretical physics. You can look up "string theory" if you like on Google.
  438. Profile photo of blackbird7
    blackbird7 Female 18-29
    238 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm
    So anybody solved the centuries-old argument yet? Love how these posts spark huge debates. IAB ought to just open up a forum where people can eternally debate god`s existence/non-existence. What it comes down to is that each person makes their own choices about what to believe, even in light of the same evidence/arguments/etc. Have fun debating, I don`t even want to get involved on this one. Had enought of these arguments in high school.
  439. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    Just live your f cking lives the way you see morally fit, and you`ll die happy.
  440. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    No I know the string theory (I just dont understand it) what I dont get is what Red5thefinn said.
  441. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    "so you admit I`m NOT talking about single step, because I`ve always been talking about the smallest increment, as I clearly described in earlier posts, you just choose to misinterpret me so you can refute me using irrelevant arguments."

    Not *now* but you *were* then.

    "It`s called calculus."

    Indeed? I`m only familiar with the addition of infinite sums in the form of the integral. Even so, you can multiply to your heart`s content but that bears no relevance, nor gives any indication of likely events, on the probability of happened events having happened - for their probability is 1.

    The stimulus is pre-determined? I can be determined to be a certain element, sure. But only so far back, and it doesn`t bear any relevance doing so because I can "choose" which stimulus to fire. Look, I`m turning my head, an action not determined by atoms flowing freely through space or planets moving in orbit according to gravity!

  442. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    "Overmann, so you are saying, something existed before, not governed by time, able to affect all future events by itself, but since there`s no time, there`s nothing "before" it (since "before" implies something prior in time, but there is no time, so there is no before), so therefore, that itself is the beginning point."

    What makes you think the Big Bang was the beginning of time?

  443. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:02 pm
    Is maddux here?
  444. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm
    Overmann, what is multiplication? Guess what? It`s just a bunch of additions.

    And I`m not talking about probability of stuff that`s happened from hindsight, I`m talking about it`s probability before it all happened, at the begining of time and space.

  445. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm
    Overmann, I`m saying the "choosing" you do in your brain in caused by EXTERNAL stimulus, the properties of which can be cause/effect traced back to the beginning of time and space. Your turnig your head was determined ultimately by you reading my posts, which was typed by me, which was determined by me reading your post, so on and so forth, which was determined by someone calling a radio station and threatening to kill him, which was so an and so forth, determined in the beginning of time. If determinism is true, you have no free will.
  446. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm
    "so you are saying, something existed before, not governed by time, able to affect all future events by itself, but since there`s no time, there`s nothing "before" it (since "before" implies something prior in time, but there is no time, so there is no before), so therefore, that itself is the beginning point."

    When there`s no such concept of time, words like "beginning" and "end" and "future" become useless. You go on to correctly assume before has no place in a realm without time, but then you claim that something is the beginning! As far as that something determining all future events, it didn`t. I don`t believe in fate. If in turn *that* is what you refer to when you speak of determinism, I am fervently opposed to the term.

  447. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
    catbarf, did I mention the phrase "big bang" anywhere in the text you quoted?
  448. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
    Just live your f cking lives the way you see morally fit, and you`ll die happy.
  449. Profile photo of EstiloPanama
    EstiloPanama Female 18-29
    2074 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:09 pm
    Belief in God needs no logic. Only faith. That is the beauty of it.

    All I know is that one day, some of what is said here against God...well..it will be regretfully remembered....

  450. Profile photo of Red5TheFinn
    Red5TheFinn Male 13-17
    1559 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm
    ok primetime here it goes "All right bitches that madrata up in space cant touch us he bounced along time go cause he aint get pulled!"
  451. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm
    Overmann, it is the beginning relative to the era of time`s existence. It is the beginning OF TIME, which is valid to say, because once time starts there`s stuff after that point, since there`s time to measure it, but there`s nothing before time starts because it can`t be measured by time, hence, no "before." I`m talking precisely the moment of the first effect of time (first can be measure relative to all points after time starts, which can be measured because there is time). <-- just so you know, this is philosophy.

    You are fervently opposed to the term, yet that is what you described to me what you believe.

  452. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm
    "what is multiplication? Guess what? It`s just a bunch of additions."

    A smart-ass to boot, hm? Except that multiplication is the repeated addition of the same number, which cannot be the case when discussing the probability of a multi-step process involved in turn several independent events... the point is, statistics is useless in determining the likelihood of any such large event, as your second article cautioned against. You cannot claim knowledge of all the factors and their probabilities, which is irrelevant anyway in any context not related to single-step development.

    "I`m talking about it`s probability before it all happened, at the begining of time and space."

    Ah, the theoretical probability! Yes, what *is* the probability of several atoms colliding to form DNA when NO ATOMS EXIST? Hmm.

  453. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm
    1. Who said he is in space?
    2. Who said it is matter but rather a force?
    3. What does gravity have to do with it?
  454. Profile photo of Red5TheFinn
    Red5TheFinn Male 13-17
    1559 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm
    oh a ttsec i go on what is known and the farthest reaches we have is ,and according to theory "which is still in devolopment" space is endless so if it "is endless not saying it is then heaven would have to be located somewhere in its area.
  455. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm
    You keep assuming heaven is physical.
  456. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm
    "Is maddux here?"

    He`s here somewhere, or at least he was. I`ve no doubt he`ll return though, so you should allow him his turn before you butt into line. Forum etiquette and all that.

    "Your turnig your head was determined ultimately by you reading my posts"

    Except that I could equally have chosen to do something else. Your posts didn`t determine that I should turn my head. If anything, your posts induced me to commit an action without specifying what that action was, and to that degree I have free will. Try to make me jump once and you`ll fail miserably.

  457. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
    Overmann, the product of numbers can be represented as summation of other numbers, it is irrelevant what those individual numbers are, and such summation is not limited to identical numbers, and there are actually an infinite permutation of such numbers, the important thing is those numbers themselves represent the factors of the product. And no again, statistics is not limited to large events, it can be applied to infinitesimal events, go take a course on stochastic process. You don`t need to claim all factors of their probabilities, you can never claim all factors of probability, that`s why probability is always an ESTIMATE.
  458. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
    There are several concepts humans will NEVER understand. The limit of the Universe is an example. Both it ending and going on forever don`t make sense. The beginning of time is something else that can`t be understood with Science. Thats where philosophy takes place. You have to reason that something started the big bang that is not related to matter. Now what created matter is not limited to time. And that is in a sense God. Now thats when other aspects kick in such as, is there a heaven? Does he impact us now? Does he control everything we do? etc. etc.
  459. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
    "You are fervently opposed to the term, yet that is what you described to me what you believe."

    Oh? When? Provide me with an exact quotation and I`ll do everything in my power to illuminate your false accusation of me believing in determinism.

    "it is the beginning relative to the era of time`s existence."

    But see, "before" time, the word "before" has no meaning.

  460. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm
    Overmann, no, I`m not talking about the probability of nothing forming into DNA. I`m talking about the probability of physical properties of such matter and waves at the beginning. You are again, putting words in my mouth.
  461. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm
    Overmann, I would fail because I don`t understand your brain completely and perfectly, but if I did, according to your beliefs, I could make you jump.
  462. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:24 pm
    and if he arrives i`ll get out. Someone else entered the discussion it would be a waste for me not to input my time.

    And from a strictly scientific viewpoint, humans actions are a combination of genetics and nature. So in theory it is the nature of ttsec posting and your genetics which told you what to do. Even though it seems like a choice, its not really. I always thought that there was a third option that just can`t be explained. Why are some people smarter than others? Genetics plays a part but is that the only reason why? If genetics tell you how successful you are, then people with a lower IQ (lets say 90) are technically mentally handicapped. Doesn`t make sense? I like my third option theory (might be something that could be researched, might not)

  463. Profile photo of Red5TheFinn
    Red5TheFinn Male 13-17
    1559 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:24 pm
    Ok so i think heaven is physical because space is and everthing in it is. and like i said before so far space is endless and for soemthing to exist anywhere it has to be physical otherwise it couldnt be reached. Now through the past weeks i have become interested in Necromancy, so from what i have learned that wehn i person dies they lose their binds to earth and can travel through time, so possibly time travel is physical but we havnt tapped it yet and maybe heaven too but right now that has not had ANY evidence so far.
  464. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:25 pm
    Overmann, I didn`t say before time, I said the beginnig of time, I`m talking about that exact point. The only reason why i said "before time" earlier is to address your claim that stuff existed before time (which I already said doesn`t, based on the nonexistence of time), so you actually just proved what I was trying to show you all along.

    You are just nitpicking semantics, you don`t really know waht you`re arguing anymore, as shown by the fact that you just proved my point for me.

  465. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm
    Red5TheFinn, heaven could exist in another dimension, reachable by cross-dimensional openings, again, look up string theory. String Theory itself shows there could be forms of energy and substances physics doesn`t even know about and can`t measure, such as the graviton and whatnot, this only shows there could exist who knows what posibilities beyond current physics` reach, including God Himelf.
  466. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:30 pm
    "...the product of numbers can be represented as summation of other numbers..."

    Explain. I`ve not the time to take a class (suggesting an article or book would be another matter) and come back and debate you on the finer points. I want to know how you, personally, justify multiplying probabilities to achieve an estimate (as you are now calling it) on the likelihood of a series of events that are cumulative and not occurring in the same instance. Further, I want you to elaborate on how this is is reflected in the statistics in the first article you suggested and obsessively wanted me to read.

  467. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:35 pm
    "no, I`m not talking about the probability of nothing forming into DNA. I`m talking about the probability of physical properties of such matter and waves at the beginning. You are again, putting words in my mouth."

    Then why submit an article mentioning the impossibility of the formation of DNA? By the way, I contend that there is no way to evaluate the probability of matter and waves and such like. Are you able to demonstrate the math on this?

    "I would fail because I don`t understand your brain completely and perfectly, but if I did, according to your beliefs, I could make you jump."

    For all I know you could. The brain is ultimately founded in the physical realm and dependent upon chemical reactions. But in what way did events prior to the formation of my brain determine what I do with my free time?

  468. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:36 pm
    Overmann, all probabilities are estimations, due the fact that you can never know every factor with certainty. For example, I can observe than from a group of 1000 electons, 99 of them gained one energy level, so then I estimate the probability of that is 99/1000, but that is only an estimate because my sample size is finite. Now, if I were to use Schroedinger`s equation to calculate the probability of electron level jumping, it will still be estimation, because the moment I can calculate it, the variables change (Heisenberg`s Uncertainty), and my calculation is no longer valid, so I can only take an average over multiple calculations to get an estimation. If I use the 99/1000 observation method, once the 99 electrons jump level, the system properties change, so the other (1000-99) electrons will be following different properties than the original 1000, and the calculation again is made into an estimation.
  469. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:37 pm
    Overmann, I wanted you to read the article to see how the statistics were calculated. I could care less about how the author applied the numbers. The way he applied it, is as you said, biased. I only care about the pure mathematical part, the non-biased part.
  470. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:39 pm
    Overmann, I don`t know the specifics of what made your brain do what, and what events caused what, but according to what you believe, the causation does indeed exist.

    The numbers the articles calculates are based on estimations (like all statistics is estimated).

  471. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm
    heaven isn`t limited to physical.

    And I think this is what he means overmann (wouldnt be entirely sure since math not dealing with a "$" sign in front of it scares me)

    Lets say i roll a dice, the chance of it rolling a particular number is 1/6.
    Lets say each represents a color of a shirt. then i roll a dice and that decides pants color
    Lets say each shirt/pant combination influences a different girl which would later impact whether you get married and genetics then influence how your kids look like

    The roll of the dice doesn`t directly influence whether I have kids (that the single step thing) but as itself it is a ratio and probability. And each one of those will combine to determine the probability of what your kids looks like. Did it make sense, I dont know? I`m going to watch the hockey game and dispute simpler points that doesnt require a knowledge of math

  472. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:45 pm
    Overmann:

    2 * 6 = 6 + 6 = 6 + 2 * 3 = 6 + 3 + 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 1/3 * 9 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 1/12 * 4 * 9 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 9/12 + 9/12 + 9/12 + 9/12 + 3 + 3 + 3 = ... (I can go on and on). There are ways in calculus to do these things very fast by describing the product as infinitesimal factors and taking line integrals or double integrals or (integral method of your choice) over those infinitesimal factors. If you choose different integration methods, you`ll have to change integrands and the area/line/range of integration.

  473. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:50 pm
    @Overmann

    uhmm no..the very definition of atheism is the belief that god does not exist/ there is no proof sayin he does. your argument is moot. anything else is agnostic or theism.

  474. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:51 pm
    milkallang we went through this in another thread. There is the literal usage and the english is a crappy language and you can change it how you like usage. He was using a different context
  475. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm
    "I said the beginnig of time, I`m talking about that exact point. The only reason why i said `before time` earlier is to address your claim that stuff existed before time (which I already said doesn`t, based on the nonexistence of time), so you actually just proved what I was trying to show you all along."

    This is what you said, for those paying attention:

    "at one point, way in the beginning, the big bang, something must have touch it, and that is either RANDOM or NON-RANDOM. And that possible couldn`t have been effected deterministically, because there was nothing before it."

    If there was nothing before it, which you say you don`t believe there was, then how can anything have "touched" it? I don`t claim to know what initiated the Big Bang and that is where the distinction between you and I lies.

  476. Profile photo of hampoofegg
    hampoofegg Male 18-29
    337 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm
    OK, while we`re on the subject, don`t get HEAVENS and HEAVEN mixed up, the heavens are used to describe space in a basically poetic sense, while heaven is where God and Jesus are. Also, if you think about everything science has said, all theories, and experiments, ect... have been either disproved or rejected because of more fact based on another experiment or observation. All science has tried to disprove God and His existence. So, why do many more people accept God than any scientific experiment, theory, ect. that has ever been conducted? Your move atheists.
  477. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm
    "Belief in God needs no logic."

    Actually, the term is `follows no logic`.

  478. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
    @primetimekin

    dislike the language as much as you please but its whats being used. use it properly or refrain from adding to the conversation.

  479. Profile photo of ttsec
    ttsec Male 18-29
    666 posts
    February 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm
    Overmann, like I said Overmann, there`s nothing BEFORE it, but there`s something RIGHT at the starting point, it`s not before the starting point, it`s precisely at the starting point, and it`s always been at that point, because it` can`t be at any other point, since there is not before. Anything after (stuff that happens once time starts) isn`t at that point, because once time starts, everything that happens is at least infinitesimally past the beginning point. In terms of mathematics, let the beginning point be 0. Let no numbers exist before zero, and let Time be the set of all numbers greater than zero but not equal to zero.
  480. Profile photo of Overmann