Logic dictates that there is a God!

[vtmarik]

f*ck Shermer, I don't need his help to debate you fundies.

The logic that is being applied to 'prove' God is known as Occam's Razor. The principle is that 'all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the correct one.'

According to the Fundie-path an omnipotent godform creating everything from nothing is a simpler explanation then the gradual process of variation and genetic drift as presented in the modern theory of evolution.

Scientists refute this because A) You cannot create something from nothing and B) Matter is never destroyed or created, merely transformed (this is known as the Law of Conservation of Matter). Fundies refute evolution because its easier to accept that all the complexities in the world were designed rather then came together by chance.

Unfortuately, to prove this using Occam's Razor, all things must be equal. Which means that both premises must have a possibility of being correct. Unfortunately, the fundie premise that God exists and created everything is unprovable since God cannot be proven scientifically.

If a premise is unprovable, using basic logic, then it is invalid. An argument cannot be sound with an invalid premise. Therefore, logic does not explicitly dictate that there is a God. Putting all faith and bias aside, one must come to this conclusion simply by following the premises.


Alright Jay, there you go. An unbiased, logical evaluation of the premises. You may now go back to watching the 700 club and eating your nice foods.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I was just wondering, do you take the whole Bible literally, or do you know that many parts are symbolistic?


If you do take the whole bible literally, then; do you think that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans? Because werent adam and eve supposedly created very soon after the earth was, leaving no time for the dinosaurs to Rome for Millions of years?

Most can be taken literally. However, there are places where parables are used or someone is describing something they see (in a vision) and using words they can relate it to. Like in Revelation John see's "giant locusts", this may be refering to helicopters as John would not know what a helicopter is. (but to him he may have used locusts to describe them)

As far as dinosaurs and man. Man was created on the 6th day. A day to God is "like 1000 years". Dinosaurs were probably created on the 5th day, before humans and we can not be sure of how long these "days" are but we can almost be certain it was not a 24 hour period.

[jay_a2j]

f*ck Shermer, I don't need his help to debate you fundies.

The logic that is being applied to 'prove' God is known as Occam's Razor. The principle is that 'all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the correct one.'

According to the Fundie-path an omnipotent godform creating everything from nothing is a simpler explanation then the gradual process of variation and genetic drift as presented in the modern theory of evolution.

Scientists refute this because A) You cannot create something from nothing and B) Matter is never destroyed or created, merely transformed (this is known as the Law of Conservation of Matter). Fundies refute evolution because its easier to accept that all the complexities in the world were designed rather then came together by chance.

Unfortuately, to prove this using Occam's Razor, all things must be equal. Which means that both premises must have a possibility of being correct. Unfortunately, the fundie premise that God exists and created everything is unprovable since God cannot be proven scientifically.

If a premise is unprovable, using basic logic, then it is invalid. An argument cannot be sound with an invalid premise. Therefore, logic does not explicitly dictate that there is a God. Putting all faith and bias aside, one must come to this conclusion simply by following the premises.


Alright Jay, there you go. An unbiased, logical evaluation of the premises. You may now go back to watching the 700 club and eating your nice foods.

WOW! For a second I thought vtmarik had come over to our side! lol...His post is everything I have said earlier in the thread to refute evolution!


A) you cannot create something from nothing (Duh? That is exactly why God must exist!) I stated before that something has always HAD TO EXIST! And that, "THAT" thing must of been living and had the ability to CREATE.

B) matter is neither created nor destroyed (hmmmm sounds familiar) THUS, EVERYTHING in existence came from the same ORGIN!



I don't know what you were tring to prove vtmarik but you did a terrible job at it. Everything you sited I had already said (look back through the 71 pages) and ALL of it points to GOD.

[vtmarik]

WOW! For a second I thought vtmarik had come over to our side! lol...His post is everything I have said earlier in the thread to refute evolution!


A) you cannot create something from nothing (Duh? That is exactly why God must exist!) I stated before that something has always HAD TO EXIST! And that, "THAT" thing must of been living and had the ability to CREATE.

B) matter is neither created nor destroyed (hmmmm sounds familiar) THUS, EVERYTHING in existence came from the same ORGIN!



I don't know what you were tring to prove vtmarik but you did a terrible job at it. Everything you sited I had already said (look back through the 71 pages) and ALL of it points to GOD.

Did you read the whole post? Allow me to restate what should've been the focus of the post:

Unfortuately, to prove this using Occam's Razor, all things must be equal. Which means that both premises must have a possibility of being correct. Unfortunately, the fundie premise that God exists and created everything is unprovable since God cannot be proven scientifically.

If a premise is unprovable, using basic logic, then it is invalid. An argument cannot be sound with an invalid premise. Therefore, logic does not explicitly dictate that there is a God. Putting all faith and bias aside, one must come to this conclusion simply by following the premises.

I'm sorry to have distracted you with my attempt at summarizing the whole debate.

[maniacmath17]

Jay, I was just wondering, do you take the whole Bible literally, or do you know that many parts are symbolistic?


If you do take the whole bible literally, then; do you think that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans? Because werent adam and eve supposedly created very soon after the earth was, leaving no time for the dinosaurs to Rome for Millions of years?

Most can be taken literally. However, there are places where parables are used or someone is describing something they see (in a vision) and using words they can relate it to. Like in Revelation John see's "giant locusts", this may be refering to helicopters as John would not know what a helicopter is. (but to him he may have used locusts to describe them)

As far as dinosaurs and man. Man was created on the 6th day. A day to God is "like 1000 years". Dinosaurs were probably created on the 5th day, before humans and we can not be sure of how long these "days" are but we can almost be certain it was not a 24 hour period.

So you believe that dinosaurs were alive about 1000 years before the first humans? Also, how long have humans been around according to the Bible?

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I was just wondering, do you take the whole Bible literally, or do you know that many parts are symbolistic?


If you do take the whole bible literally, then; do you think that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans? Because werent adam and eve supposedly created very soon after the earth was, leaving no time for the dinosaurs to Rome for Millions of years?

Most can be taken literally. However, there are places where parables are used or someone is describing something they see (in a vision) and using words they can relate it to. Like in Revelation John see's "giant locusts", this may be refering to helicopters as John would not know what a helicopter is. (but to him he may have used locusts to describe them)

As far as dinosaurs and man. Man was created on the 6th day. A day to God is "like 1000 years". Dinosaurs were probably created on the 5th day, before humans and we can not be sure of how long these "days" are but we can almost be certain it was not a 24 hour period.

So you believe that dinosaurs were alive about 1000 years before the first humans? Also, how long have humans been around according to the Bible?

I don't know how long it was. A day is "like" 1000 years. Not that it IS 1000 years.

According to the Bible. Humans have existed for approximately 6,000 years.

[vtmarik]

I don't know how long it was. A day is "like" 1000 years. Not that it IS 1000 years.

According to the Bible. Humans have existed for approximately 6,000 years.

So, the dinosaurs existed somewhere around 7,000 years ago, give or take a few?

Then why does carbon dating place them at much older ages?

[jay_a2j]

I don't know how long it was. A day is "like" 1000 years. Not that it IS 1000 years.

According to the Bible. Humans have existed for approximately 6,000 years.

So, the dinosaurs existed somewhere around 7,000 years ago, give or take a few?

Then why does carbon dating place them at much older ages?

And why does corbon dating date a Pepsi can at 10,000 years old? Figure it out.

[vtmarik]

And why does corbon dating date a Pepsi can at 10,000 years old? Figure it out.

What are you blathering about?

[jay_a2j]

And why does corbon dating date a Pepsi can at 10,000 years old? Figure it out.

What are you blathering about?

It was a few years back. They carbon dated a Pepsi can and it dated the can as 10,000 years old. I don't think carbon dating is very reliable if it dates a can of Pepsi to be 10,000 years old.

[vtmarik]

It was a few years back. They carbon dated a Pepsi can and it dated the can as 10,000 years old. I don't think carbon dating is very reliable if it dates a can of Pepsi to be 10,000 years old.

Reference or Link please? Unlike you, I fact-check what I'm told.

[jay_a2j]

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”



The Pepsi thing I heard in a chat room. I will however, pick up the load and look into it since some people don't know how to google.


Also the linc for the above is : http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

[vtmarik]

You do understand that science has moved on right? That carbon-14 dating doesn't assume "constant decay" but rather exponential decay. I also love how the article assumes that carbon dating is the only kind of dating using radioactive isotopes. Weak premises make for a weak argument my friend.


Alright, i'm gonna throw some links at you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... _dinosaurs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_ ... bon_dating

And here's a link from a secular website: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ndex.shtml


Have fun!

EDIT: Oh, I googled for "10,000 year old pepsi can" and got nothing. Nice try though, very imaginitive.

[jay_a2j]

You do understand that science has moved on right? That carbon-14 dating doesn't assume "constant decay" but rather exponential decay. I also love how the article assumes that carbon dating is the only kind of dating using radioactive isotopes. Weak premises make for a weak argument my friend.


Alright, i'm gonna throw some links at you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... _dinosaurs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_ ... bon_dating

And here's a link from a secular website: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ndex.shtml


Have fun!

EDIT: Oh, I googled for "10,000 year old pepsi can" and got nothing. Nice try though, very imaginitive.

Some Jews and Christians believe that dinosaurs appear in the Old Testament, and regard this as evidence that the animals were still alive during early human history.

As it is a modern coinage, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan·ˈnin/) may be interpreted as referring to them. In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) whose "tail sways like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24).



I don't know of ANY Christians that believe dino's existed at the time of man. Lets be logical....Dino's + man = dino's without man. (do to man being EATEN by Dino's) Logic #2 Dino's died because of a meteor that hit the Earth (well accepted theory) and yet man survives? Rubbish! I say! Rubbish! Dino's and man did not co-exist.

[vtmarik]

HA! Gotcha! You ignore the hard-to-refute facts and go right for the point that you can disprove and then feel superior about it. My wonderful trap worked. *mini tribal dance* Obviously you didn't even read the article, because if you had you wouldn't have said what you did.

What about the other three links? What's your response to those?

[Truman]

Hey, this might shock some of you. Hey Jay, you know that website I told you about? Jude3? I've mentioned a few times here that I debated two atheists on the site. One of them was the owner of Infidels.org. He lists himself as "Jacob Geri" on Jude3. Check it out. I made a 4-part response to his entire proposition on evolutionary theory and he never answered back.

[Truman]

Later, the topic was deleted and the information gone, however. I've still got a printed version, but the only information left from it in the computer is an overview of most of the topics I covered. My sister now uses my information on an Orlando Bloom fan site whenever she's talking about it, and my family has asked me several times to "give them the notebook" so they can look something up (the notebook is where I keep all the information of Creation, Evolution, Bible Contradictions, and a 3-page long list of scientists who were Christian and a 3-page long list of current well-known scientists today who are Christian).

I also started a new topic on Jude3 called "Creation vs. Evolution, Part 3" in which I wrote an entire report on Carbon-14 dating and its fallacies. I also included Potassium-Argon dating and K-Ar dating. It's an interesting read...if you have an open mind about things.

I'm sorry about this, but I really wanted to get this out so people can start throwing things at me so I can bat 'em back. Just like the "evidences" for the big bang that were debunked by me on this very topic, I'd like to continue this same motion with any other "evidences" for evolution that are considered by anyone here.

...Oh and one more thing. I'm sure many of you people have been to "Infidels.org." You know that long list of Bible contradictions that the site gives on one article? I've got a 2-Part response to every one on Jude3. It's under the "Bible Contradictions!" thread over there, first page, if anyone's interested.

[vtmarik]

Later, the topic was deleted and the information gone, however. I've still got a printed version, but the only information left from it in the computer is an overview of most of the topics I covered. My sister now uses my information on an Orlando Bloom fan site whenever she's talking about it, and my family has asked me several times to "give them the notebook" so they can look something up (the notebook is where I keep all the information of Creation, Evolution, Bible Contradictions, and a 3-page long list of scientists who were Christian and a 3-page long list of current well-known scientists today who are Christian).

I also started a new topic on Jude3 called "Creation vs. Evolution, Part 3" in which I wrote an entire report on Carbon-14 dating and its fallacies. I also included Potassium-Argon dating and K-Ar dating. It's an interesting read...if you have an open mind about things.

I'm sorry about this, but I really wanted to get this out so people can start throwing things at me so I can bat 'em back. Just like the "evidences" for the big bang that were debunked by me on this very topic, I'd like to continue this same motion with any other "evidences" for evolution that are considered by anyone here.

...Oh and one more thing. I'm sure many of you people have been to "Infidels.org." You know that long list of Bible contradictions that the site gives on one article? I've got a 2-Part response to every one on Jude3. It's under the "Bible Contradictions!" thread over there, first page, if anyone's interested.

Truman, we don't care. Sorry to interrupt your social evening, but that really is PM-level information. Personally, I don't want to give your favorite site a visit, nor am I interested in reading your psychobabble about radiometric dating and how it isn't perfect so we just shouldn't bother.

Unlike you and Jay, some of us actually want to find the answers to reality rather then ignoring the obvious facts and cloaking ourselves in some kind of God-Cloak to protect us from the harsh and unforgiving world.

[Truman]

Maybe if you'd read the article I wrote instead of being completely dogmatic to evolutionary theory, you'd understand what I'm talking about and you'd be open-minded enough to read it and stop claiming to know everything.

By the way, this is exactly how Jacob Geri lost the debate against me: he never read anything I wrote. Probably because my response was too long.

[vtmarik]

Maybe if you'd read the article I wrote instead of being completely dogmatic to evolutionary theory, you'd understand what I'm talking about and you'd be open-minded enough to read it and stop claiming to know everything.

By the way, this is exactly how Jacob Geri lost the debate against me: he never read anything I wrote. Probably because my response was too long.

First off, science doesn't have dogma, it has facts. Secondly, The theory of evolution is, to put it bluntly, constantly being changed as we learn new things, unlike religion which stays the same no matter what new facts are revealed. Finally, It isn't closeminded of me to not want to waste my time on your article when i've read "Darwin's Black Box" and i've pretty much heard all of the 'evidence' against evolution.

[Truman]

Again, you're assuming evolution is science when it certainly isn't. Did you notice how whenever a question is asked about evolution to an evolutionist, he always brings up, "Well, the most recent research says..." Tell me, where exactly has the theory of evolution stood the test of time anywhere for any of its proposed evidences? Where?

And yes, evolution is dogmatic when you consider there have been many controversies among evolutionary scientists on how the theory is riddled with holes against many of the real laws of science.

Now, you mentioned something that implied something as well. You say, "...religion which stays the same no matter what new facts are revealed." Where has the Bible gone wrong or against science in any of its writings? Please show me a passage. You can post on my "Bible Contradictions!" topic and post some contradictions there. I don't care! The reason creationist thinking has never changed is because science has never brought anything against it.

The Bible has never contradicted science. It has contradicted evolutionism, but not real science that we can observe, test, study, and demonstrate. Evolutionsm must be applied to the scientific method in order to hold up properly, but it hasn't. Do you know how many holes have been drilled into your belief? I really don't think you do, otherwise you'd be a more critical thinker instead of holding on tightly to your dogma. If you'd have an inquiring mind you'd look more into your theory instead of supporting it blindly despite the fact that your belief can't hold up against many laws of physics, anotomics, and astronomy.

[vtmarik]

Again, you're assuming evolution is science when it certainly isn't. Did you notice how whenever a question is asked about evolution to an evolutionist, he always brings up, "Well, the most recent research says..." Tell me, where exactly has the theory of evolution stood the test of time anywhere for any of its proposed evidences? Where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Plenty of evidence here.

And yes, evolution is dogmatic when you consider there have been many controversies among evolutionary scientists on how the theory is riddled with holes against many of the real laws of science.

That's called debate. It's part of the scientific method. You'd know that if you stopped thinking like a fundamentalist.

Now, you mentioned something that implied something as well. You say, "...religion which stays the same no matter what new facts are revealed." Where has the Bible gone wrong or against science in any of its writings? Please show me a passage. You can post on my "Bible Contradictions!" topic and post some contradictions there. I don't care! The reason creationist thinking has never changed is because science has never brought anything against it.

No, it's because when you're conditioned from birth to believe in a godform, it is nigh impossible to be convinced of any other reality. If you had some genuine intellectual curiosity as a kid, you'dve grown out of it, but clearly you didn't.

The Bible has never contradicted science. It has contradicted evolutionism, but not real science that we can observe, test, study, and demonstrate. Evolutionsm must be applied to the scientific method in order to hold up properly, but it hasn't. Do you know how many holes have been drilled into your belief? I really don't think you do, otherwise you'd be a more critical thinker instead of holding on tightly to your dogma. If you'd have an inquiring mind you'd look more into your theory instead of supporting it blindly despite the fact that your belief can't hold up against many laws of physics, anotomics, and astronomy.

Man created from soil, stars made from water, a staff turning into a snake, a talking bush (that's on fire no less), these sound like scientific impossibilites to me.

You see, science never disproves itself, testing disproves theories. Science is the process of turning observations into theories of how things are. So when a theory contradicts existing evidence, that theory is rigorously tested and debated by the scientific community. In the end it is either rejected or accepted. The scientific community may be engaged in heated debate over evolution, but so far the collected observations and evidence support it.

Religion, however, doesn't support new ideas. If it did, Martin Luther wouldn't have broken off from the Catholic church. If religion accepted new ideas, then Martin Luther could have presented his essays to the papacy and there would've been discussion and debate over the specifics. However, the papacy rejected Martin Luther's ideas and so he went off to form the protestant faith.

[vtmarik]

Pardon the double post, but I'd like to get back to where I was before Truman interrupted my subdiscussion with Jay.

What about the other three links? What's your response to those?

[maniacmath17]

I don't know of ANY Christians that believe dino's existed at the time of man. Lets be logical....Dino's + man = dino's without man. (do to man being EATEN by Dino's) Logic #2 Dino's died because of a meteor that hit the Earth (well accepted theory) and yet man survives? Rubbish! I say! Rubbish! Dino's and man did not co-exist.

So I take it that you believe dinosaurs started about 1000 years before man. Then the dinosaurs lived for some time, died due to a meteor that hit the earth, and then humans started, all in the span of about 1000 years?

Oh, and the quote was from jay.

[jay_a2j]

HA! Gotcha! You ignore the hard-to-refute facts and go right for the point that you can disprove and then feel superior about it. My wonderful trap worked. *mini tribal dance* Obviously you didn't even read the article, because if you had you wouldn't have said what you did.

What about the other three links? What's your response to those?

LOL Ya "got" nothing. As for the other 2 links....not interested. The one speacks about dating of which we have already shown its not accurate. The other deals with the Shroud of Turin.... Real ot Hoax? I don't know and I don't care. It does not take away from nor add too my faith.