Philosophy Final- God Exists

[heavycola]

That's pretty funny Heavy.

I don't know if the possibility that your educating people makes it better or if that's just mean.

Dude, I read on a non hasbro strategy based game forum that the guys that hung out with Jesus were baked!

Seriously, it's from the original chinese in the book of Excellent or something.

[theosi]

Theosi:

a) 'faith' means believeing in something for which there is no proof. You have 'faith', not 'knowledge', in god. Therefore you are agnostic too, in a sense. Being agnostic is not like white kids pretending to be gangsters.

Uhmmmm... Pondering my response...You obviously missed my point. My point is persons claiming to be Agnostic when they in fact do not even know what being Agnostic is. Please take the time to read what is written rather than responding with flip remarks. Thank you.

b) You don't understand natural selection. It's a beautiful headfuck, definitely, but it explains the existence of every living thing on this planet. You have written nothing but regurgitated sophistry, which is all any creationist can ever do.

natural selcedtion explains the existance of everything? is this like String Theory aka the Theory of Everything? Please do elaborate because in my bank of knowledge there is no satisfactory explanation or even shred of ABSOLUTE fact that supports your claim.
Also in your regurgitated Sophistry are you using that in the Greek term for the ancient equvalent of Self-help Guru's?They were not even classified as philosophers. Which what I posted was not a philosophy but Scientific facts leading to a question of how did such an Intelligent Design occur out of chaos and dis-order?

In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity but not specification

Who is 'we'? Carl Baugh and friends? If they find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of ID, then they don't understand natural selection either. And doubtless they don't want to, because that might conflict with their religious beliefs, which makes them blind and dogmatic as well as wrong.

No where did I mention Carl Baugh... References were sighted so please stop spinning. Natural Selection is fact and I do not disagree with it as Adaptability is neccesary for survival but it has yet to explain where WE come from. there is that whole MISSING LINK thing remember? Darwin's theory was obviously with flaw and not absolute:?
Also I do not stand behind Religion. Notice in my introduction I stated my position as one based on 'Faith' not on specified organized religion.

c) Why believe in science, in its conclusions and its laws, EXCEPT for where an old book of myths, written when people had no scientific explanation, says otherwise?

Ok mr. Cola please do show me where science "concluded" anything to an absolute and I will listen. And those people with no scientific explanations knew a lot more than you are aware of. Check out ancient Greece and all it gave to society, to site one example, before making such broad, vague and ignorant statements. Those "old book of myths" were written by the people that lived it so they were not "myths" per say they were accounts for what they saw occur. Now, for the record, I do not argue "that old book of myths" has not been diluted and perversed through translations and Revisions from it's original form designed to bring people into the pews.

[theosi]

Right - if a virus (designed by god) attacks a human (designed by god) and we kill it with drugs (desiged by us) aren't we screwing with god's plan? And if we aren't, then what happened to everyone who died of smallpox before vaccines were invented? Were they not part of god's plan? Why did god wait until bubonic plague, malaria, smallpox etc etc had killed so many millions of his beloved children before letting us discover modern medicine? How does that work out?

Yours not in expectation of any sensible answer,

Confused of London

Damn fine point, indeed! makes me wish I'd thought of it.

This is where I get lost? You scream Natural Selection blah blah blah! yet when natural Selection takes place you blame God.
I cannot help but be confused by this argument. We all know natural Selection is a fact. It is an elementary fact learned in grade school.
Why don't we get serious here rather than rude and flip with no points made. I have not learned a thing yet. Am waiting for some form of real truth rather than these articulate, yet still lacking in any substance, statements thrown about in such dis-courteous response. If this is the full extent of your debate I will gladly bow out for lack of enthusiasm.

[theosi]

And a cell is not a car. Understand that and you'll have understood a lot already.

WOOOOOOOOW! Thanks for over stating the obvious! You are one of the most observant beings I have ever had the pleasure of coming across!

Thanks for the laugh. keep em coming!

[vtmarik]

theosi, for the sake of our minds, please write sentences that make sense and do not remind me of the ramblings of someone who doesn't know English syntax.

[MeDeFe]

theosi is obviously a very rare breed, he promotes a concept that most scientists say is not scientific, when confronted with answers he claims they are not scientific or distorts them in order to ridicule his fellow debaters.

I get the feeling we'll have to come up with something ingenious here.

[Bertros Bertros]

This is where I get lost? You scream Natural Selection blah blah blah! yet when natural Selection takes place you blame God. Rolling Eyes
I cannot help but be confused by this argument. We all know natural Selection is a fact. It is an elementary fact learned in grade school.

I refer you to: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=f ... gle+Search

[theosi]

I refer you to: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=f ... gle+Search

Sorry. I did not realize any of you would waste your time writing a paragraph of sarcasm completely unrelated to what you were debating. I thought we were exchanging view points and I thought I was responding to one. Please excuse me for the mistake of respecting what I thought was a viewpoint and taking it seriously.

arik"]theosi, for the sake of our minds, please write sentences that make sense and do not remind me of the ramblings of someone who doesn't know English syntax.

I, unfortunately, do not see where my syntax is lacking but will concede to you as I am not an English professor. But if the only argument you have is about my usage of the English language than my argument must be pretty solid. Thank you

theosi is obviously a very rare breed, he promotes a concept that most scientists say is not scientific, when confronted with answers he claims they are not scientific or distorts them in order to ridicule his fellow debaters.

I get the feeling we'll have to come up with something ingenious here.

I can only assume, as you failed to mention which concept, that you are referring to the String Theory. I was not "promoting" only saying that the String Theory is the only theory I know of that claims to encompass everything. Yet again if your only commentary is about a comment I made which was completely irrelevant to the debate at hand than my argument must be pretty solid, And please quote to me where I posted anywhere in this forum that any scientific evidence was not scientific. Thank you.

It appears that I have become some kind of villain here. My apologies to any whom have been offended. My words were not meant to offend nor cause bad feelings. I don't enjoy being nasty nor rude yet you seem to take great pride in flippant and rude commentary.
The world has become this place of non tolerance for anyone whom goes against the norm. If you do not share the opinion of the group, your opinion is invalid. I do not feel any of your opinion's are invalid nor your belief is wrong. I was just arguing the vanish point from which I base my opinion on the subject. I posted some very basic information and you have done nothing but attack me as if I were some kind of threat to your existence. I am just a guy on the other side of your computer screen who cannot harm you in anyway. Why are we as a society so intolerant of each other? Hmmmm... Maybe I will go start that thread.
But any way... This argument of God's existence has, more than likely, been had since man learned to speak and no conclusive evidence has surfaced, for nor against, to date so I do not see any of our brilliant minds coming to it here. With that I am doing as I said and bowing out of this debate. Thank you verra much and good luck.

[MR. Nate]

Nate have you read any of the other gospels?

Yeah, the gospel of Judas in translation, parts of the gospel of thomas. They're much less interesting than everyone says.

[MeDeFe]

I could refer back to any post of yours, theosi. Wherever you post you come across as an asshole. Sorry for being so blunt.



But we'll just stick to the flagellum of the bacterium. ID claims (more or less) that such intricacy in such a simple organism can not be the result of evolution and natural selection, since (so they claim) removing even one part of that bacteriums means of propulsion would make it useless.
And so, they say, that proves there must be a god who designed it and created it that way.


"Nope", say other scientists, "we can remove all these parts and still have a fully functional means of propulsion." (Again I'm paraphrasing) Which goes to show that a complex part of a simple organism CAN have evolved from a simple part in another simple organism which might have evolved from something even simpler. Thus rendering a designer superfluous.


I think it's best if I quote one of your previous posts here, otherwise you'll just be saying "so what" and trying to be funny again.

Thus there is no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Not only does common sense demand a Designer, there is no plausible naturalistic explanation to explain away the necessity of a Designer.

I'll leave it at that, I don't want to insult your mental capabilities by making a detailed comparison between what you wrote and what I wrote. It should be clear to a 12 year old, and I'll just assume you're not 11, as you seemed to be the last time I responded directly to a post of yours.

[Bertros Bertros]

I refer you to: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=f ... gle+Search

Sorry. I did not realize any of you would waste your time writing a paragraph of sarcasm completely unrelated to what you were debating. I thought we were exchanging view points and I thought I was responding to one. Please excuse me for the mistake of respecting what I thought was a viewpoint and taking it seriously.

Touché.

I feel I should apologies to heavycola for debasing his argument which was entirely valid. I referred you to the definition of sarcasm, not because I felt heavycola was being sarcastic, but rather because I felt you had deliberately misinterpreted his comment. You chose to take what was a valid point, presented in an informal fashion, and yes somewhat flippantly, and interpret it as heavycola having an opinion clearly differing from that he has consistently represented throughout this and many other discussions. I accused Nate of being somewhat obtuse earlier in this thread and now sincerly regret that as in comparison to your approach he is anything but.

You joined a discussion midpoint, presenting an argument which has as much academic standing as the laughable ontological one which started this thread, with several oversized and bolded sentences (there really is no need to shout). You have not been so much villainised as ridiculed, so if at this point you are bowing out of the discussion, I see it as no great loss.

[2dimes]

Nate have you read any of the other gospels?

Yeah, the gospel of Judas in translation, parts of the gospel of thomas. They're much less interesting than everyone says.

I would guess they're best used for people to not read them, then tell everyone the Bible is incomplete because the catholics left them out when they created it.

What was your source for them, I've never even seen a text.

I knew a gnostic quite sometime ago that first told me about them but I lost touch with him.

I wonder if they're online in an accurate translation?

[vtmarik]

I, unfortunately, do not see where my syntax is lacking but will concede to you as I am not an English professor. But if the only argument you have is about my usage of the English language than my argument must be pretty solid. Thank you

When someone asks you to write out your sentences in ways that can be comprehended by someone, that doesn't mean shit about your arguments.

I would have commented on your argument, if I could understand what you were trying to say.

[theosi]

I entered into this debate showing my honest perspective so as not to lead anyone to the conclusion that I was here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. If you read my introduction you will see this truth as I did state: " So how then can one Absolutely proof the existence of God? Can it be done? I don't believe it can and I definatly don't believe I can convince anyone who chooses not to believe that God does exist".

dont understand why you must assume that a "design" is present. Why is it so far fetched in your mind that the world is what it is and there wasnt any grand architect? I guess it's just easier to say "a god built it all". Just because we dont understand it yet doesnt mean it was all created by a supernatural being.

My introduction tells why I "assume" the design is present. It is my faith, and for that you ridicule me. That I and any other that believe in a creator, must be too ignorant or too simple minded to just accept the evidence that science presents to be Absolute truth when even science cannot claim it as absolute. As is evident in this thread it is not easy to say "God built it all". It takes a strong faith to believe in something that has yet to be proven and which will, more than likely, not be proven by man. My faith nor belief will be shaken by anyones dis-belief. I do not need anyones permission nor acceptance to stand firm in my faith. Yet I would not ridicule yours or anyone else's. I feel it wrong to belittle or degrade a human being because of their belief system. Not one of you did I attack your belief. I stated confusion with your argument but never attacked your belief. I stated quite clearly my belief in evolution. And to that I add that I believe (not meant as a statement of fact just my belief, don't get excited) evolution is a part of Gods masterpiece. The world is ever changing and demanding that we evolve, that we grow and become more than what we are. With our destructive behavior to this planet we must evolve to survive our own creation. Our bodies must adapt to the levels of pollutants we have put into the water sources, air, and earth. If we do not evolve our species will die. No. I cannot and will not accept this evolutionary process as the "World is what it is and there is no grand architect". I believe (notice again not stated as fact) we are too perfect and too perfect in our flaws to just be a random chance out of chaos. But in this I do not state anyone else's belief to be wrong just wrong for me. Ridicule me if you must.

: I could refer back to any post of yours, theosi. Wherever you post you come across as an asshole.

Why the need for such harsh language? I do hope this post clarifys my position and you and the rest understand I trully hope I did not give the impression I was disregarding anyones belief, as that would be the only reason I can see you could classify me as an asshole.

: you joined a discussion midpoint, presenting an argument which has as much academic standing as the laughable ontological one which started this thread, with several oversized and bolded sentences (there really is no need to shout). You have not been so much villainised as ridiculed, so if at this point you are bowing out of the discussion, I see it as no great loss.

The over sized words were to bring your focus to the points I 'felt' compelling. They were not me shouting. My apologies for the mis communication. It is sometimes difficult to display inflection correctly through a keyboard. Even emoticons can be mis interpreted.

: I would have commented on your argument, if I could understand what you were trying to say.

And rather than asking me to clarify my statements you insult my ability to converse through the English language. And I am classified as an Asshole!


Thank you all for the discussion and I do hope you accept my apologies for coming across wrong. This is one subject I try to tread lightly with and I see I failed miserably and for that I trully am sorry. I never meant to infer that anyones belief was incorrect or without merit. Once again good luck and please do not feel the need to reply to my post as I do not feel that I will be rejoining this discussion.

In closing I will quote Thomas Huxley: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable"

Ironically, Heavycola was not too far off the mark when he said I was Agnostic, but that term is non applicable in my personal faith. While I do not know the name of my God I do know him and no one can refute that. In my experience with this world and what I have endured I cannot accept that it was by random chance that I live. My faith is strong but my God is stronger.

[heavycola]

I feel it wrong to belittle or degrade a human being because of their belief system

I also don't want to come across as belittling anyone'e faith, although i will argue with anyone about almost anything.

But there is a boundary here... David Koresh believed he was Jesus and look what happened. The Son of Sam used to hear god telling him to murder people. Women are still stoned to death under Shariah law for adultery. Muslims are still executed for apostasy in some countries. I feel quite safe in belittling all their beliefs. Of course these are extreme examples, but to me, belief in ID/creationism/whatever you want to call it, in the face of all the available evidence, is almost as crazy.
If you accept natural selection as fact, then you can trace our lineage back, without any outside interference except cosmic radiation, through all our ancestors, back to the first self-replicating molecule... and then you ascribe THAT to a designer? It's still ID. And yet you believe the leap from protein molecule to human being, which took many hundreds of millions of years and many orders of magnitude of increasing complexity, is explicable by science and yet that first event isn't.

I believe (notice again not stated as fact) we are too perfect and too perfect in our flaws

Too perfect in our flaws? We are slow, fragile, prone to disease... Cancer has reached epidemic proportions thanks to our modern lifestyles, we still as a species spend a lot of time killing each other (often on religous grounds)... we are not perfect at all. A designer could have made us immune from infection, stronger, more peaceful and empathetic. We are FAR from perfect. And those flaws don't suggest a designer to me, unless he's not very good at designing.

Sorry I got radge, but this argument has been going on in this forum for AGES. I need to be less radge in general.

"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable"

Ironically, Heavycola was not too far off the mark when he said I was Agnostic, but that term is non applicable in my personal faith.

And i don't see how these fit together... how can you 'know' your god when you can't prove him, and yet argue against science like this?

Lastly: Sophistry just means using clever arguments to support a point of view you know is false in order to deceive, which is what I think many of these creationist guys do (and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt)

[MeDeFe]

: I could refer back to any post of yours, theosi. Wherever you post you come across as an asshole.

Why the need for such harsh language? I do hope this post clarifys my position and you and the rest understand I trully hope I did not give the impression I was disregarding anyones belief, as that would be the only reason I can see you could classify me as an asshole.

No harsher than yours in most of your posts. It's probably just the overall tone you're using and your style. Like using bad examples and analogies while belittling other peoples examples and responses. Although I'll admit that this last post of yours was a lot more moderate and moderated.
And to clarify again, I said you "came across as an asshole", I don't know what you're like otherwise. In RL for example, or when answering some newbs questions, or while flaming people who stalk their ex-girlfriends.

And I don't mind what you think about others beliefs (including mine, which we have barely discussed at all so far). What I DO mind about is the way you argue for and against your own and others. Jay for example thinks I'm a deluded fool who has turned his back away from GOD despite all the evidence that HE exists and that I will be thrown into HELL for it (or something along those lines). I don't mind, at least he tried to argue sensibly (if not always logically) against my and others arguments.


You give us a bad analogy, I point it out, admittedly in a slightly sarcastic way, simply because it's shorter and saves time. And again you try to ridicule me.
Just like you did when I responded to the "bacterium argument" the first time. btw, I was using what I perceived to be the "standard rebuttal" and was presuming you already knew it and might respond to it.

[Bertros Bertros]

Nate have you read any of the other gospels?

Yeah, the gospel of Judas in translation, parts of the gospel of thomas. They're much less interesting than everyone says.

I would guess they're best used for people to not read them, then tell everyone the Bible is incomplete because the catholics left them out when they created it.

What was your source for them, I've never even seen a text.

I knew a gnostic quite sometime ago that first told me about them but I lost touch with him.

I wonder if they're online in an accurate translation?

Yeah I'd find these interesting to take a look at too so let us know if you find anything.

[MR. Nate]

You can download the text of the gospel of Judas from national geographic. Well, what's left. There's only a few pages of full text, and what is there is can only be described as cryptic. I've seen the gospel of thomas at Borders, it's pretty popular in light of the "daVinci Code"

I've never been impressed by the gnostics. First, they copy the practices of Roman and Egyptian "mystery" cults of the period, so you had to be "initiated" into their group (not unlike cults today) and then they offered "higher" knowledge, like "Jesus was incorporeal, and only appeared human" or "all matter is evil"

It's the kind of things that appeals to people not actually interested in trying to LIVE the Christian life.

[Anony#1]

atheism doesn't necessarily assert that a 'God' doesn't exist. "A lack thereof" does not equate to an assertion that a 'God' does not exist.

Actually, that is exactly what athiesm assert. A = without, theism= belief in god. If you simply say that there is not enough evidence either way, then you would be called an agnostic.

Wrong again. What part of my post didn't you understand, huh? The parts you snipped out? Are you retarded?

*sigh*

Let's see what the princeton dictionary has to say about this.
Well, geewilickers, Batman, there's obviously two definitions, but I wonder why? Why is there two definitions, Batman? Oh, is it because there's two kinds of atheism, Batman, huh?

Stop being so intellectually lazy, Nate. It's unbecoming of you.

[unriggable]

Here's what I think. And this rule can apply to any given point in time. We proved a lot, as a human race. What we haven't proved, well, is where God comes in. You can believe in God if you want. you can disbelieve in him if you want. But please, don't use him to explain the explainable, in other words, what has already been proven.

[vtmarik]

Here's what I think. And this rule can apply to any given point in time. We proved a lot, as a human race. What we haven't proved, well, is where God comes in. You can believe in God if you want. you can disbelieve in him if you want. But please, don't use him to explain the explainable, in other words, what has already been proven.

Thank you. Use God to fill in the blanks, that's what religion is for. Early man created stories to explain how things came to be, and later on these stories were replaced with theories and natural laws. Some things still don't have an explanation, and so you can feel free to use God to answer them for you until we figure them out. But don't take away the proven shit and stick God in there. When that happens, groups like the Flat Earth Society come into existence and all hell breaks loose.

Thank you unriggable for bringing up that point.

[heavycola]

bumped in memoriam of some fine and absent posters:
Guiscard, Nate, VTmarik, genghis.

Also, this was some fine debate. The forum has indeed gone a little downhill...

[jiminski]

bumped in memoriam of some fine and absent posters:
Guiscard, Nate, VTmarik, genghis.

Also, this was some fine debate. The forum has indeed gone a little downhill...

sheese don't go all Spamalot HC! harking back to the golden time!? ; )


rouse us to a higher level.. or are the remaining tools insufficient to ply your trade!?

i for one see you as a philosophical chameleon with no nucleus of thought other than the guiding principle of imperceptibility. In short you believe in nothing in order to champion your necessity for unquestionable logic!

Through the security of modern existence your god has become yourself. This leaves you with the paradox of your bearing the responsibility of ultimate truth when you can not know it. In turn, to maintain stability of thought, you must use the notion that you understand everything by knowing nothing. This trick replaces an omniscient being to call on for comfort.

This house built upon sand does allow you to maintain faith in 'you', in place of faith in God. But it is an empty and cold position, ultimately it does not feed the humans intrinsic need for spirituality. Spiritually and religion may be merely the replacement of womb for god but it is an undeniable and universal gulf which the individual seeking it can not ever fill from within, without the perception of without.

(not good form but I couldn't be arsed to read the thread, so i strung some clichés together for you to work with .. like the art critic you are, I trust you can conjure up a master-piece of palaeolithic reasoning from the brush-strokes of mock-Kandinsky)

[Bertros Bertros]

Through the security of modern existence your god has become yourself. This leaves you with the paradox of your bearing the responsibility of ultimate truth when you can not know it. In turn, to maintain stability of thought, you must use the notion that you understand everything by knowing nothing. This trick replaces an omniscient being to call on for comfort.

Each picks his own defence against the double edged gift of intelligence, the greater the intelligence the more the subtle the defence. None is greater than your own as the only truth is your truth, all other truths are but the defence of others.

[joecoolfrog]

Anarkistsdream:

Let me tell you what I have told everyone else. We have more textual evidence for the NT being what was originally written than we do for any other book. Want proof? Learn Koine greek, go to Duke, read the 1st century manuscripts. Compare your translation to, say, the NASB. They're the same.

As for the "other" gospels, all were written between the 3rd & 4th century. Thus, not included in the cannon.

Those dates are very convenient to your argument but sadly not accurate , many of the Gnostic gospels are estimated to have been written 100 years before you say. They were not excluded from the canon as a result of being unavailable , it was simply that they did not fit the accepted script.