therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Amazing how many posts a person not making any more posts is making. It is _one piece_ yes. But not enough to substantiate the claim alone. You need to do more work than that to substantiate the existence of unicorns. But just because one piece of data alone can not do it - that does not mean it is not relevant or applicable data. All I am saying is that straight away - before even beginning - you already have _one piece_ of data substantiating the credibility of one claims - while thus far no one has even the first shred of an iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that substantiates the claim there is a god. Which is why your poor analogy fails. And your ability to type the word "pathetic" does not resurrect it. Ok, let me do the claim in your scientific way :lmao: There is scientific evidence that there is intelligence ... thus the existence of any kind of intelligence can be justified (even a superior one)
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 There is scientific evidence that there is intelligence ... thus the existence of any kind of intelligence can be justified (even a superior one) Not the same thing at all because the claim you are making - related to a god - would be an intelligence outside our universe - a massively difference claim to saying that because people here on this planet exist then the claim that one specific person existed is not incredible. I DO find it likely that non human intelligence exist. It is highly likely there is other life in the universe that has attained sentience. What you are doing above supports THAT claim. However with the "god" claim people are generally claiming that the intelligence is either outside our universe or IS the universe - neither of which is supported by the mis-application of my posts that you have engaged in here while - once again - posting to a person you declared you would not be posting to any more.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Not the same thing at all because the claim you are making - related to a god - would be an intelligence outside our universe - a massively difference claim to saying that because people here on this planet exist then the claim that one specific person existed is not incredible. I DO find it likely that non human intelligence exist. It is highly likely there is other life in the universe that has attained sentience. What you are doing above supports THAT claim. However with the "god" claim people are generally claiming that the intelligence is either outside our universe or IS the universe - neither of which is supported by the mis-application of my posts that you have engaged in here while - once again - posting to a person you declared you would not be posting to any more. Ok... in he universe there is intelligence hence is justified to believe that any kind of intelligence (even a superior one) exists I actually love this scientific proof of yours :lmao::lmao:
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Again you are misapplying it so it is not mine. Your application of what I am saying is as accurate (and honest) as your claims you will not be replying to my posts any more. I suppose if you can not even be honest with yourself - about yourself - and what you say - I can not expect you to be honest about what anyone else says or does either. Science is a methodology applicable to this universe. If you are applying what I say to something outside it - then you are misapplying it - then trying to place that misapplication into my mouth as if I said it.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Again you are misapplying it so it is not mine. Your application of what I am saying is as accurate (and honest) as your claims you will not be replying to my posts any more. I suppose if you can not even be honest with yourself - about yourself - and what you say - I can not expect you to be honest about what anyone else says or does either. Science is a methodology applicable to this universe. If you are applying what I say to something outside it - then you are misapplying it - then trying to place that misapplication into my mouth as if I said it. I've never heard any claim that God is something outside of the universe... that is entirely your claim... I guess you have realized your arguments are lame and easily reversible against your own points ... that has to hurt so much as to have to remember me so often how I told you I would not answer you anymore I guess you would prefer me not to answer right?
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I've never heard any claim that God is something outside of the universe... that is entirely your claim...[/QUOTe] Then you simply have not been listening. Theists often claim god is outside the universe by necessity. After all if it created it then it could not have been IN it when it created it. Also they declare god is "outside time" (this is how many theists attempt to terminate the infinite regress problem) which by necessity also precludes it from being an intra-universe consciousness. I guess you have realized your arguments are lame and easily reversible against your own points Not recently - certainly not on this thread - and most certainly not because of anything from you. I guess you would prefer me not to answer right? I could not care less if you do or not. However I do see utility in pointing out blatant dishonesty in people. You said one thing and then did another - and in my opinion you said it for no other reason than to cop out of answering - and skipping over - posts from me you could not handle. Your lie about posting to me allowed you to skip over stuff you could not deal with and pick up replying to me later in the thread.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Then you simply have not been listening. Theists often claim god is outside the universe by necessity. After all if it created it then it could not have been IN it when it created it. Also they declare god is "outside time" (this is how many theists attempt to terminate the infinite regress problem) which by necessity also precludes it from being an intra-universe consciousness. I guess you are the one who won't listen... I have said many times that every person has their own definition of God... and many people believe that God is the universe itself and we are part of it too ... I don't support that claim but I don't think it is better or worse than any other... God is a superior intelligence and that is the only common factor between theists when they define their God outside of the religion definitions which is a total different topic. I could not care less if you do or not. However I do see utility in pointing out blatant dishonesty in people. You said one thing and then did another - and in my opinion you said it for no other reason than to cop out of answering - and skipping over - posts from me you could not handle. Your lie about posting to me allowed you to skip over stuff you could not deal with and pick up replying to me later in the thread There is a huge difference between being dishonest and changing your mind about something... but I don't know if I can explain you scientifically the difference;)
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I guess you are the one who won't listen... I have said many times that every person has their own definition of God How can I be not listening when I have agreed with you on that point in the past? You seem desperate to make anything up now just to get some kind of dig in. I am not sure what this pissing contest you are having is but be aware you are the only one partaking. We are talking in general terms however and not about any one specific definition of the term "god". As such I am perfectly warranted to comment on commonly held theist notions in a general sense. If YOU want to limit the discussion to one single particular definition of "god" such as your own then by all means present such a definition and we can proceed with the conversation from there. Since you have not however - you can pocket the attempt to use that fact to score points on this imaginary score board in your head. and many people believe that God is the universe itself and we are part of it too And you accuse ME of not listening? The gall. Please re-read post #247 above where I included that belief too. You really need to stop projecting your own failings and dishonesty on to others. Accusing others of doing what only you are actually doing is pretty low. I don't think it is better or worse than any other... No entirely unsubstantiated claim is any better or worse than any other entirely unsubstantiated claim - I certainly agree on that. The claim there is a god is no better or worse than my claim that you are going to die in the next 20 years when a pink VW microbus with purple pokka dots materializes above your head and falls on you. While the latter claim sounds more ridiculous - upon thinking about it you will realize they each have exactly the same about of substantiation. None. God is a superior intelligence and that is the only common factor between theists Even that is not universally common among the "god is just nature" enthusiasts for example. There is a huge difference between being dishonest and changing your mind about something... Indeed - but you used the lie to skip over replying to some of my posts - and those posts still remain un-replied to. Which makes me strongly suspect dishonesty over a simple mind change.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 How can I be not listening when I have agreed with you on that point in the past? You seem desperate to make anything up now just to get some kind of dig in. I am not sure what this pissing contest you are having is but be aware you are the only one partaking. We are talking in general terms however and not about any one specific definition of the term "god". As such I am perfectly warranted to comment on commonly held theist notions in a general sense. If YOU want to limit the discussion to one single particular definition of "god" such as your own then by all means present such a definition and we can proceed with the conversation from there. Since you have not however - you can pocket the attempt to use that fact to score points on this imaginary score board in your head. It is not my definition nor yours, just every possibility needs to be taken in consideration... if there is evidence of any kind of God then there is evidence of God... right? Therefore my claim using your scientific proof that Julius Caesar existed to a superior intelligence existing is still valid No entirely unsubstantiated claim is any better or worse than any other entirely unsubstantiated claim - I certainly agree on that. The claim there is a god is no better or worse than my claim that you are going to die in the next 20 years when a pink VW microbus with purple pokka dots materializes above your head and falls on you. While the latter claim sounds more ridiculous - upon thinking about it you will realize they each have exactly the same about of substantiation. None. I am a total agnostic but even I can say that there is substantiation of the existence of a God (while not final evidence or proof)... just not a scientific one.. but many men in the history claimed to have experienced contact with Him in any or other way... while that is not a scientific evidence even in a law court wideness would be admitted to substantiate a claim. Even that is not universally common among the "god is just nature" enthusiasts for example. Even in there Nature is a superior intelligence... just not as we define intelligence Indeed - but you used the lie to skip over replying to some of my posts - and those posts still remain un-replied to. Which makes me strongly suspect dishonesty over a simple mind change. There was nothing but the offensiveness and narrow minded approach on those posts that made me reject them... if you want to make a point from those posts that you think deserves an answer go ahead... as long as you don't do it as an attack to my person I will be more than happy to answer.
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 It is not my definition nor yours, just every possibility needs to be taken in consideration... if there is evidence of any kind of God then there is evidence of God... right? I know we are talking in general terms but that is even too general for me. Agreement or disagreement with the above statement says almost nothing. "Any kind of god" is simply too vague. For example people in CERN right now are playing with producing singularities and the like. Things pop into and out of existence there quicker than the blink of an eye. It is interesting stuff. However our universe also started in a singularity it seems. Who is to say that when one pops in and out of existence in real time for us - that "within" it a whole universe did not explode - expand - die out - and dissolve - and sentient beings did not arise and look at the sky and wonder at who their "god" was - not suspecting she was a geeky middle aged professor playing with a machine at her desk. Who is to say therefore that we are not a project on someones desktop that for them only lasted a split second - but for us encompassed our entire universes existence and all the billions of years related to it? Is that geeky professor "god"? By some definitions yes and belief in it would make you a deist. None of this validates the use of your analogy or your crass application of my words to it. even I can say that there is substantiation of the existence of a God (while not final evidence or proof)... just not a scientific one.. I can "say" it too. That does not make it true. If you know any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating the claim there is a god then by all means present it. I have many times explained how I do not limit myself to "scientific ones" either. I have lost track in my life of how many people SAY there is substantiation but then go on to not actually saying what it is. while that is not a scientific evidence even in a law court wideness would be admitted to substantiate a claim. I am not sure how wideness can be admitted to anything. However people saying they have had contact with a god is not evidence. That is unsupportable and unverifiable anecdote. Testimony is not taken even in a court of law in isolation. It is taken to substantiate and corroborate other claims. You do not find too many court cases mediated on testimony alone. Even in there Nature is a superior intelligence... just not as we define intelligence No idea to what you refer here. There was nothing but the offensiveness and narrow minded approach on those posts that made me reject them... Pretending offence to explain away your skipping over it is no more honest than pretending you were not replying to me when you were. Fact remains - I made posts - you skipped them - you made up lies about why and continue to do so. as long as you don't do it as an attack to my person Yet I have done no such thing. You claimed I did once when you claimed I commented on your stupidity. I note however we are still waiting for you to quote/cite where I did any such thing. More lies I guess.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I know we are talking in general terms but that is even too general for me. Agreement or disagreement with the above statement says almost nothing. "Any kind of god" is simply too vague. For example people in CERN right now are playing with producing singularities and the like. Things pop into and out of existence there quicker than the blink of an eye. It is interesting stuff. However our universe also started in a singularity it seems. Who is to say that when one pops in and out of existence in real time for us - that "within" it a whole universe did not explode - expand - die out - and dissolve - and sentient beings did not arise and look at the sky and wonder at who their "god" was - not suspecting she was a geeky middle aged professor playing with a machine at her desk. Who is to say therefore that we are not a project on someones desktop that for them only lasted a split second - but for us encompassed our entire universes existence and all the billions of years related to it? Is that geeky professor "god"? By some definitions yes and belief in it would make you a deist. None of this validates the use of your analogy or your crass application of my words to it. I can "say" it too. That does not make it true. If you know any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating the claim there is a god then by all means present it. I have many times explained how I do not limit myself to "scientific ones" either. I have lost track in my life of how many people SAY there is substantiation but then go on to not actually saying what it is. I am not sure how wideness can be admitted to anything. However people saying they have had contact with a god is not evidence. That is unsupportable and unverifiable anecdote. Testimony is not taken even in a court of law in isolation. It is taken to substantiate and corroborate other claims. You do not find too many court cases mediated on testimony alone. No idea to what you refer here. Pretending offence to explain away your skipping over it is no more honest than pretending you were not replying to me when you were. Fact remains - I made posts - you skipped them - you made up lies about why and continue to do so. Yet I have done no such thing. You claimed I did once when you claimed I commented on your stupidity. I note however we are still waiting for you to quote/cite where I did any such thing. More lies I guess. You keep calling me a liar and then pretending you are not offensive or narrow minded... great way to go
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 You keep calling me a liar and then pretending you are not offensive or narrow minded... Calling you a liar and pointing out a lie are different things. I have lied on occasion myself - though my ideal is not to do so - and I appreciate it when someone points it out. Saying "That is a lie" is not the same as saying "You are a liar" nor is saying for example "That was a stupid idea you just had" the same as if I were to say "You are stupid". You are basically just inventing offence where none was intended in order to skip over the parts of my post you can not answer. See how you have now dodged the vast majority of a very long post? Your entire modus operandi on this thread has been to play trick after trick to avoid the majority of the ON TOPIC stuff I have been saying. So yes I think you lied. You said I made a comment about your stupidity. I however did not. I asked you to quote where I had said it - you did not - but instead dodged, changed the subject, ran off, ran back again. I caught you lying - called you on it - and the honest thing would be to retract the lie. You have just dug the hole deeper however. Bad show. For shame. 1
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Calling you a liar and pointing out a lie are different things. I have lied on occasion myself - though my ideal is not to do so - and I appreciate it when someone points it out. Saying "That is a lie" is not the same as saying "You are a liar" nor is saying for example "That was a stupid idea you just had" the same as if I were to say "You are stupid". You are basically just inventing offence where none was intended in order to skip over the parts of my post you can not answer. See how you have now dodged the vast majority of a very long post? Your entire modus operandi on this thread has been to play trick after trick to avoid the majority of the ON TOPIC stuff I have been saying. So yes I think you lied. You said I made a comment about your stupidity. I however did not. I asked you to quote where I had said it - you did not - but instead dodged, changed the subject, ran off, ran back again. I caught you lying - called you on it - and the honest thing would be to retract the lie. You have just dug the hole deeper however. Bad show. For shame. When you asked me to quote you I told you already you didn't say I was stupid but the whole pedantic tone of your answer imply it.. Can you give me the definition of a liar? I would say that a liar is people who say lies, but maybe you have another way to define them?
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Regarding your request to present you evidences (non scientific) of the exixtence of God. Please see bellow 5. The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover. Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused. The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God. I don't think any of those statements proof that God exists but they all are evidences that God may exist
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 When you asked me to quote you I told you already you didn't say I was stupid but the whole pedantic tone of your answer imply it.. And I explained how you were in error in that thinking. Yet here you are using the same nonsense to skip over whole sections of my reply. Can you give me the definition of a liar? Why should I answer your questions when you fail to answer mine - and ignore the vast majority of long posts? However some level of consistency in your lying would certainly be required to meet any definition. One or two lies will not do it. That just tells me I backed you into an intellectual corner and you got desperate. I think the bridge between "You just did X" and "You are a person who does X" requires some level of consistency to build.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) And I explained how you were in error in that thinking. Yet here you are using the same nonsense to skip over whole sections of my reply. Why should I answer your questions when you fail to answer mine - and ignore the vast majority of long posts? However some level of consistency in your lying would certainly be required to meet any definition. One or two lies will not do it. That just tells me I backed you into an intellectual corner and you got desperate. I think the bridge between "You just did X" and "You are a person who does X" requires some level of consistency to build. and again you pick in the personal attacks and ignore my whole post with the evidences that you requested ... is funny how most people try to define others in the same way they act Edited June 25, 2013 by therhythm
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Regarding your request to present you evidences (non scientific) of the exixtence of God. Please see bellow 5. Well after over 250 posts it is about time someone attempted this. So lets evaluate your offerings openly and honestly: The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover. Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused. I will take these two together because they both fail for the same reasons which I list below: 1) Firstly focus on the word "asserts". An assertion does not a valid argument make. Nor does backing up one assertion with another. So if we are going to go around asserting things then we will get nowhere. I am seeking substantiations not assertions. 2) The infinite regress issue is here. You are terminating the regress with an "unmoved mover" but that termination is also only done by assertion. It requires special pleading which gets us nowhere. 3) The observations relate to the laws of the universe as we currently know them. Astronomers and Astrophysicists all acknowledge however that those laws break down at Planck time after the Big Bang. Hence using current laws at that point is meaningless. So asserting there "Must" be an unmoved mover is done on a basis that might not be valid at the point one is doing it. 4) The idea there must be a "first cause" also fails for the same reasons as above given that we are referring here also to causality. And causality is time based. And time is an attribute of this universe in it's current form. And as acknowledged already these attributes break down at Planck time. So whether "first mover" or "first cause" the assertion fails for identical reasons. 5) Occams razor also comes into effect. One is asserting based on nothing that there must be a "first cause" that was itself uncaused. Why could the universe itself not be such? Why could it not "always" (whatever that means in the absence of time) have existed in one form or another? THIS all being the current form. Essentially fitting "god" into this gap is just special pleading by moving all the questions we have about the universe - moving them to "god" - and then terminating them by definition, declaration, and assertion. All baseless. The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God. The same issue here. You are talking about things like causality and time and so forth and these are all attributes of our universe in it's current form. Applying them universally to other states and conditions is just done by baseless assertion. There is no "must" about non-existence. See point 5) above. All we are doing is taking one possible notion about the universe - declaring by fiat it can not possibly apply to the universe (it has always existed) - and then declaring again by fiat that therefore god always has. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. So poor is the argument from morality that this is actually the first time I have seen it trotted out on a forum for well over 2 years. The problem with this point is again that it is declared by assertion that there "must" be some objective standard of good. Why "must" there be aside from his assertion? In fact there is no reason I know of to think there is any objective standard of good and bad - right and wrong - evil - and so forth. We just imagine that it seems and it is in fact as subjective as any human standard of taste - pleasure - beauty and so forth. Your list is Aquinas heavy I note. Did you copy and paste it off a site at all? The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God. Oh joy. Another assertion. Why and how did he "argue" this? Did he just assert it because it fit his desired ends? Also what "purpose" is he talking about? I rather fear it is a circular argument of assuming that we are the purpose of the universe - therefore the universe has a purpose - because we are the purpose of the universe. I don't think any of those statements proof that God exists but they all are evidences that God may exist Nope. They are a list of assertions - all baseless from what you have presented here at least. No evidence for a god or the credibility of the claim for a god here at all. But I do appreciate the attempt - even if it failed - even the theists couldnt be bothered on this thread it seems. Well done son. 1
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 and again you pick in the personal attacks and ignore my whole post with the evidences that you requested False. I replied to both posts seperately. You just rushed in before I could post it to try and score points again. Still engaged in that pissing contest it seems. So far the only person avoiding anything is you. Only you. And you alone. Which just adds to your dishonesty as your inclusion of "again" in the above text is an outright lie given I have done no such thing before or now. is funny how most people try to define others in the same way they act No - it is funny how you rushed with fetid and dire need into make the above post before I could reply to the second one - in order to score a cheap point - but now look ridiculous because all the while I was actually typing the reply - a reply that decimated entirely all you plagiarized from the Aquinas "Five Ways" as they are known.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Well after over 250 posts it is about time someone attempted this. So lets evaluate your offerings openly and honestly: I will take these two together because they both fail for the same reasons which I list below: 1) Firstly focus on the word "asserts". An assertion does not a valid argument make. Nor does backing up one assertion with another. So if we are going to go around asserting things then we will get nowhere. I am seeking substantiations not assertions. 2) The infinite regress issue is here. You are terminating the regress with an "unmoved mover" but that termination is also only done by assertion. It requires special pleading which gets us nowhere. 3) The observations relate to the laws of the universe as we currently know them. Astronomers and Astrophysicists all acknowledge however that those laws break down at Planck time after the Big Bang. Hence using current laws at that point is meaningless. So asserting there "Must" be an unmoved mover is done on a basis that might not be valid at the point one is doing it. 4) The idea there must be a "first cause" also fails for the same reasons as above given that we are referring here also to causality. And causality is time based. And time is an attribute of this universe in it's current form. And as acknowledged already these attributes break down at Planck time. So whether "first mover" or "first cause" the assertion fails for identical reasons. 5) Occams razor also comes into effect. One is asserting based on nothing that there must be a "first cause" that was itself uncaused. Why could the universe itself not be such? Why could it not "always" (whatever that means in the absence of time) have existed in one form or another? THIS all being the current form. Essentially fitting "god" into this gap is just special pleading by moving all the questions we have about the universe - moving them to "god" - and then terminating them by definition, declaration, and assertion. All baseless. The same issue here. You are talking about things like causality and time and so forth and these are all attributes of our universe in it's current form. Applying them universally to other states and conditions is just done by baseless assertion. There is no "must" about non-existence. See point 5) above. All we are doing is taking one possible notion about the universe - declaring by fiat it can not possibly apply to the universe (it has always existed) - and then declaring again by fiat that therefore god always has. So poor is the argument from morality that this is actually the first time I have seen it trotted out on a forum for well over 2 years. The problem with this point is again that it is declared by assertion that there "must" be some objective standard of good. Why "must" there be aside from his assertion? In fact there is no reason I know of to think there is any objective standard of good and bad - right and wrong - evil - and so forth. We just imagine that it seems and it is in fact as subjective as any human standard of taste - pleasure - beauty and so forth. Your list is Aquinas heavy I note. Did you copy and paste it off a site at all? Oh joy. Another assertion. Why and how did he "argue" this? Did he just assert it because it fit his desired ends? Also what "purpose" is he talking about? I rather fear it is a circular argument of assuming that we are the purpose of the universe - therefore the universe has a purpose - because we are the purpose of the universe. Nope. They are a list of assertions - all baseless from what you have presented here at least. No evidence for a god or the credibility of the claim for a god here at all. But I do appreciate the attempt - even if it failed - even the theists couldnt be bothered on this thread it seems. Well done son. Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. Can you explain me how those five assertions do not fit in the bold marked part of the evidence definition? Your points are valid but are not more than assertions themselves that proof nothing of what I wrote wrong
TaxAHCruel Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. Yes and since the above were _themselves_ assertions - they did not support the base assertion. And each of them failed on their own merits too as I described. The support therefore is not strong OR weak. It was nonexistent. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. Again if they themselves are assertions then that does not help. Anyone can assert something that is consistent with something else they asserted. Observe: 1) There is a god. 2) Apples could only be green if there was a god. 3) Apples are green. 4) There therefore is a god. QED. See? I simply assert 1 and 2 and therefore 4. Assertions are not evidence for other assertions. Again this (along with burden of proof - and argumentum ad populum) is core philosophy 101 stuff here. Can you explain me how those five assertions do not fit in the bold marked part of the evidence definition? Yeah. Just did.
TaraMaiden Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Regarding your request to present you evidences (non scientific) of the exixtence of God. Please see bellow 5. The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover. Yes, but it doesn't have to be 'God', does it? An earthquake sets off a tsunami, but an earthquake is not God.... Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused. Yes, but again, he then ruins the whole thing by assuming it's an omnipotent deity. What does he base this assertion on? The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God. Why? Why should it be 'God'? Why can it not be some scientific physical phenomenon caused by planetary gravitational triggers? An assertion is an assumption. An assertion is not evidence. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. Where is this mean level of goodness, by which Aquinas measured Goodness? What is its original level? Where is the 0% degree, and the 100% degree? How did he work this out? From what? When? And in comparison to....what? (in and of itself subject to the same criteria of measurements) The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God. This has to be one of the most unintelligent things he ever posited.... I don't think any of those statements proof that God exists but they all are evidences that God may exist Only in Aquinas' head, that is...... 1
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Let me give you another evidences based in a scientific theory although they are not scientific evidences.. they probably can be refuted as the unmoved mover I guess but it has been more thoroughly studied and presented . The source is very interesting Does God Exist? there are many other evidences there but I will concentrate in these two. (copied and pasted). The First Law of Thermodynamics What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true? The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful. With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years. What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed! This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF! Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from NOTHING! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator! The Second Law of Thermodynamics The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples. Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse. If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use. When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is WINDING DOWN! Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35). Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!
TaraMaiden Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 <snip> Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator! Nope. You're just adding banana to science and making fantasy. Such scientific discussion does not lead to there HAVING to be a creator, at all. That's just a leap YOU have decided to make in your mind. <Snip> Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God! Why? Where do you arrive at this conclusion? Show me where the Law of Thermodynamics suddenly, after going through reams of scientific and mathematical calculations, suddenly and illogically arrives at the conclusion, anywhere that *Boom!* Must be God at work!! 1
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Nope. You're just adding banana to science and making fantasy. Such scientific discussion does not lead to there HAVING to be a creator, at all. That's just a leap YOU have decided to make in your mind. Why? Where do you arrive at this conclusion? Show me where the Law of Thermodynamics suddenly, after going through reams of scientific and mathematical calculations, suddenly and illogically arrives at the conclusion, anywhere that *Boom!* Must be God at work!! Taramaiden... I guess you missed the part where I said it was copied and pasted ... not my own words. But I guess the assumption that God was the initial creator of the mater or the one who winded up the universe is as valid as any other one since there is no scientific explanation for those facts ... scientific minded people take the leap of faith to believe that there is a scientific explanation for it and Theists take the same leap of faith as to think it is the hand of God. I actually don't believe or disbeilive in the existence of God.. I don't care... I just find presumptuous for any of both sides to claim they are right as there are no proofs to base any of both claims both are based on their own faith either in God or in Science.
therhythm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Lets take other three theories to study, I am very curious (honestly curious) about what you guys would say about these expositions. Please note that this is copied and pasted from Does God Exist? not my own words. Amino Acids, Proteins and DNA Let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before. Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture. Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine). A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver. This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed. “It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.” (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29). Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]). Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10). In conclusion, regarding DNA, nothing works unless EVERYTHING works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation is required for DNA to exist! “Tiny Engines” Inside Cells We need to look at one more example of molecular machines to better appreciate the complexity of cells. Japanese and German scientists have now discovered the smallest of nature’s machines, called “tiny engines.” Consider this advanced research on these remarkable little engines. As you read this quote, ask yourself where they came from: “A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature’s own rotary engine—no bigger than ten billionths by ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. The tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0 revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow. “In Germany, a research team used the new instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. Though not the largest molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a ‘wonder.’ It serves as an intracellular waste-disposal and recycling system” (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Small-scale Evidence of Grand Scale Design). These organisms could never have evolved gradually. No wonder God says of those who do not believe in His existence, “The fool has said…There is no God.” Life Requires a LIFEGIVER What about the presence of all life on earth today? Where did it come from? How did it get here? The Bible states that God created all life during the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 1. Is this true, or did life come into existence by itself? As with Uranium 238, and its provable moment of beginning, the great pattern of all life is that it can only come from other pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. All first-year biology students know it. When examining tiny organisms, such as protozoa and bacteria, it can be demonstrated that life only comes from life. There are many kinds of life, but each continues to reproduce the same kind over and over. This is indisputable. Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. This presents enormous problems for anyone familiar with the nature and complexity of simple cells. Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Here is why. Cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: “The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech” (Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p. 102). The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G., p. 15). Will skeptics ignore the truth that it is impossible to have life without a LIFEGIVER? Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. But is this God merely some kind of blind power, some kind of dumb “first force?” Let’s reason together.
Recommended Posts