- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,14:29) Hi acertainchap ++”Do you always need evidence? No.
Actually yes, and I'd suggest you probably run most of your life by evidence as well.
If your bank said your account was overdrawn and you didn't believe it, you'd look for evidence for their claim, perhaps by adding up income to and expenditure from the account.
Your dentist says you need a filling. You trust his judgement not on faith but because your past experiences tell you that properly trained dentists are able to cure and prevent dental problems. Would you go to a faith healer with a toothache?A really interesting thing about human nature is how some people can point-blank deny things that are almost obviously true and supported by very good evidence while at the same time cherishing unshakable belief in things for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Stuart
Hi Stu,Yes, we as humans certainly look for evidence in almost all things. For Christians (and Jews, maybe Muslims as well) we see the evidence of God in creation. I know many do not, but that is our “visual” evidence.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Think about something so simple yet complex as water. We know that almost all forms of matter, at least those that are liquid or solid, contract when frozen. Yet water expands. Why is that? Well, what would happen if water contracted when frozen? Aquatic life would cease. At least most organisms. Instead, frozen water expands and sits on the surface while life continues below. Pretty amazing, wouldn't you say?
As far as matters of faith are concerned, evidence is not always found. If you have a friend or lover tell you they love you, do you always look for evidence, or do you just believe them? Sure, actions speak louder than words, but can you ever be certain that person truly loves you? It boils down to a matter of faith in that other person.
Faith is personal. If you have to base what you believe in on evidence alone, you may find that life is not as full as you'd like it to be. Search you life and realize how many things you take for granted by virtue of faith rather than solid, concrete evidence.
As far as your dental example goes, there is a balance. God gave us an intelligence much higher than any other organism on earth. Through that intelligence, man has developed and discovered some astounding things. So, IMO, God instilled within us the ability to better our lives through our talents, skills, and intelligence. We are made in His image after all…so to deny medical care and rely solely on faith-based remedies is to question why God gave us this intelligence to begin with. If everything is about faith, we would not need this superior intellect. I'll take what God has given and go with that.
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,21:00) hi Kenrck ++”I “heard” more and more scientist are coming around to a master mind having orchestrated the cosmos and life itself. Is this true?
No. But if you have evidence for such a thing, don't sit on it! Share!
++”Who gave the names to animals in any language? The basic names.
I think A4J might not have appreciated the difficulty there is in answering what seems to be a simple question.
You need to know when humans first started using speech to communicate, then at what point language was developed enough to name animals. It is likely that animals were an early subject of communication because of the advantage in being able to coordinate hunting or warn of the presence of dangerous animals. 50,000 years ago? 160,000 years ago? One of the major difficulties is that the larynx is made of soft tissue and doesn't fossilise so it is hard to work out even when humans would have been physically capable of making a range of vocal sounds, let alone what stared them off actually using those sounds.
Lets say that 100,000 years ago animals like buffalo and giraffes could be named in some way, then the second problem is that of domestication. Humans were around before dogs. When did a dog first get called a word that names that animal, and by whom? Somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 years ago, probably by an unknown Homo Sapiens living somewhere in Asia, would seem to be the current answer. Of course the dog was a wolf before domestication.
This is all very uncertain. At least it is still based on evidence, unlike the myth of Adam naming things (in what language?).
I'd like to be able to explain it better.
Stuart
I don't know I find it amusing that the scientist have the means to go back “billions” of years say that we came from apes but can't even guess when one of these apes/humans named other animals.They had a professor on TV just the other day and he said and showed pictures of a fish swimming somewhere, I don't remember where, it was some where “remote”. And He said that they thought this fish was extent BUT low and behold there was this species of fish who according to the scientist was 3.5 Billion years old.
You believe that? It was prehistoric looking. Why didn't it evolve? It looked the same as when they said it was extnict 3.5 billion years ago.
Quote (A4J @ July 31 2007,20:39) Quote God doesn't believe in Atheists. Good! that means we don't exist hahaha
well its not possible to scientifically prove big foot is not real is it?
or that there is a tea pot orbiting mars?you can't prove somethings but it doesn't mean you should believe in themhowever there is no proof of such, so we shouldn't believe it
there isn't a proof of a god, and there for i say there isn't one, its my belief, that we shouldn’t believe there is one
surely you don't believe there is a tea pot orbiting mars do you?
you would be a-teapotst as i am also, along with an atheist
do you really want to leave such stupid possibility open simply because you can not prove them?
i think not
as soon as you realize why you dismiss all the other gods of the world, present and past, you will understand why I dismiss yoursnow the guy on the video you sent us, uses the cosmology argument,
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect. *the video says its god*Now this is my argument to such an argument, its practically the same argument isn’t it?
Premise 1:if nothing exists, there are no laws because laws of matter exist because matter existed. there for it is possible for matter to exist with out a cause for the very fact that no law would prevent it (the law of conservation does not exist, until matter exists)
Premise 2: if anything at all exists it must have laws that govern it *as observed in this universe there is nothing that can do anything or that qualifies for everything*
Premise 3: the moment anything existed, it becomes everything and all the laws of the universe that exist along with the beginning of time
Premise 4: the laws of physics do not and cannot change.
Premise 5: the first thing to exist must apply to all the laws of physics that ever has existed in this universe at once.
Premise 6: To say god was the first to exist, forces god to obey all the laws of matter and energy, because he would be just: matter and energy. And there for if there is a god, god is the universe.
Premise:7 The universe itself or anything in it, can not be omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnipresent because nothing can travel faster then the speed of light and the speed of light is not an infinite and so it would always take some amount of time for information to reach anything at any distance. Also there is constant random change in the universe. And so at any given time nothing could know everything
And so the god in the Judeo-Christian sense does, and cannot exist 😛 unless there is something wrong think you guys should start begging the question and find my fallacies if I have any 😛
Hi A4JPremise 6: To say god was the first to exist, forces god to obey all the laws of matter and energy, because he would be just: matter and energy. And there for if there is a god, god is the universe.
No it does not….
The Collins English dictionary says of the word EXIST…
Have Being, Live.GOD IS SPIRIT…
He created the Universe and everything in it.
I know this is hard to digest, I was never an Atheist, but I was a hard core skeptic of Christianity, I couldn't understand how Christians could possibly know who “THE REAL GOD” was and be so arrogantly sure of it.
I want to encourage you not to give up on your curiosity about God, I haven't followed all of your posts, I've been away for a few months and just came back so forgive me if what I'm saying offends you in any way, but you seem to be set on disproving God exists to us who believe He sure does exist, and there is no way WE can prove anything to you, but God can, if your willing to let Him.Hi Kenrck
++”They had a professor on TV just the other day and he said and showed pictures of a fish swimming somewhere, I don't remember where, it was some where “remote”.
And He said that they thought this fish was extent BUT low and behold there was this species of fish who according to the scientist was 3.5 Billion years old.
You believe that? It was prehistoric looking. Why didn't it evolve? It looked the same as when they said it was extnict 3.5 billion years ago.These pesky professors, eh? Spouting their evidence-based reality!
Actually, it's a good question. Why “didn't it evolve”?
Firstly not all evolutionary change is visible from the outside.
Secondly, there is no rule that says evolutionary change must happen in all species. If there is no particular selection pressure there will be no change in any particular direction.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 01 2007,22:31) Hi t8 ++”Your faith is that your ancestors were primitive apes. That is your faith. You believe it even though it is a theory.
Have you not been reading anything that has gone before now? Your use of the words “faith”, and “theory” in the sentence above are wrong.
Your and my immediate ancestors are apes. That's what we humans all are, like it or not.
You can choose to disbelieve it, but you should do so in the full knowledge that you have not disproved anything by your disbelief and that the evidence stacks up year by year in favour of the scientific view. There is not a single scrap of evidence for your supernatural alternative.++”For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
That says it all really. Will all those who are anti-science please give back their heart medication, refridgerators, ipods, cured meat, modern longevity, motorised transport and any other products of the wisdom of this world.
Then give me the evidence that there is any other different kind of world to this one. I'm sorry to say that quoting from the Judeo-Christian holy book is not the same as supplying evidence.
Stuart
Hi Stu.I don't believe in the thing you put faith in, namely that your greatest of grandads was a primitive ape.
Remember what the definition of a theory is. A theory may go some way to explain something, but not all theories are fact.
That is why evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.
Don't think evolution, think revolution.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 02 2007,19:34) That says it all really. Will all those who are anti-science please give back their heart medication, refridgerators, ipods, cured meat, modern longevity, motorised transport and any other products of the wisdom of this world. Then give me the evidence that there is any other different kind of world to this one. I'm sorry to say that quoting from the Judeo-Christian holy book is not the same as supplying evidence.
Stuart
Yes I think refrigerators, ipods, etc are good, but they still pale in comparison to the one who created the cosmos.All those things are so primitive compared to the complexity of the human DNA pool or a galaxy of which there are at least billions.
Hi kejonn
++”Think about something so simple yet complex as water. We know that almost all forms of matter, at least those that are liquid or solid, contract when frozen. Yet water expands. Why is that? Well, what would happen if water contracted when frozen? Aquatic life would cease. At least most organisms. Instead, frozen water expands and sits on the surface while life continues below. Pretty amazing, wouldn't you say?
Yes, water is one of the most peculiar substances, due to the hydrogen bonding that forms between molecules, giving ice its low-density cage-like structures. There is no doubt that the historical course of evolution is intimately linked with the properties of water.
++”As far as matters of faith are concerned, evidence is not always found. If you have a friend or lover tell you they love you, do you always look for evidence, or do you just believe them? Sure, actions speak louder than words, but can you ever be certain that person truly loves you? It boils down to a matter of faith in that other person.
How do you explain the huge popularity of private investigators whose work chiefly consists of checking up on their clients’ spouses/partners for infidelity? Are they not gathering evidence? Once again, you trust another person based on your past observation that people can be trusted. I think you would have to try and define love before you could say that we don’t seek evidence for it. Not an easy task!
++”Faith is personal. If you have to base what you believe in on evidence alone, you may find that life is not as full as you'd like it to be. Search you life and realize how many things you take for granted by virtue of faith rather than solid, concrete evidence.
OK. Tarot cards, astrology, most “complimentary medicine”, faith healing, religious belief, creationism, UFOs, spoon bending, psychic reading and telepathy probably fit that category. None of them hold sway in my life though.
Can you think of one that might apply to me?
Stuart
I have a hypothetical question. Give the greatest scientific minds of this age unlimited funding, a 10 year time frame and a challenge – make one blade of grass….
Could they achieve this?
Hi t8
++”All those things are so primitive compared to the complexity of the human DNA pool or a galaxy of which there are at least billions.
Very true. Complexity is not evidence for a creator though.
Stuart
++”I have a hypothetical question. Give the greatest scientific minds of this age unlimited funding, a 10 year time frame and a challenge – make one blade of grass….
Could they achieve this?
No. Why would you expect humans to reinvent in 10 years what it took natural selection billions of years to achieve?
Although…not necessarily. It has been said that very often the person calling something impossible is interrupted by the scientist announcing that it has been done.
Stuart
Hi t8
++”I don't believe in the thing you put faith in, namely that your greatest of grandads was a primitive ape. Remember what the definition of a theory is. A theory may go some way to explain something, but not all theories are fact. That is why evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.
Why “primitive” ape? We are just apes of the species Homo Sapiens. What is controversial about that? You and I are biologically apes.
Actually, it is the fact of evolution explained by the theory of natural selection, the word theory used in the sense of scientific explanation. To call something a theory in science is to award it the highest approval.
I am fine with you not believing in your ancestry. I like to think you would be interested to fully understand the thing you choose to reject.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2007,20:12) No. Why would you expect humans to reinvent in 10 years what it took natural selection billions of years to achieve?
Riiiiight…..
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2007,19:32) Hi Kenrck ++”They had a professor on TV just the other day and he said and showed pictures of a fish swimming somewhere, I don't remember where, it was some where “remote”.
And He said that they thought this fish was extent BUT low and behold there was this species of fish who according to the scientist was 3.5 Billion years old.
You believe that? It was prehistoric looking. Why didn't it evolve? It looked the same as when they said it was extnict 3.5 billion years ago.These pesky professors, eh? Spouting their evidence-based reality!
Actually, it's a good question. Why “didn't it evolve”?
Firstly not all evolutionary change is visible from the outside.
Secondly, there is no rule that says evolutionary change must happen in all species. If there is no particular selection pressure there will be no change in any particular direction.Stuart
You know what? I do believe in God's creation adapting to a new environment. Sure if you take a creature out of his “normal” environment and place it somewhere hostile to him he will adapt so as to survive but to me this just PROVES God. The man is still a man, A ape still a ape, The fish is still a fish etc. A humming bird did not come from a crocodile.
Hi Kenrck
++”You know what? I do believe in God's creation adapting to a new environment. Sure if you take a creature out of his “normal” environment and place it somewhere hostile to him he will adapt so as to survive but to me this just PROVES God.
Brilliant. No more need for Faith! That has all been replaced by Kenrck's fact of God explained by the Theory of Fish Out Of Water.
++”The man is still a man, A ape still a ape,
,a man is also an ape,
++”The fish is still a fish etc.
A smile is just a smile…
++”A humming bird did not come from a crocodile.
That last one is very true.
Are you a song writer, or have you missed your calling? Or do you watch too much Benny Hinn?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 03 2007,07:37) Hi Kenrck ++”You know what? I do believe in God's creation adapting to a new environment. Sure if you take a creature out of his “normal” environment and place it somewhere hostile to him he will adapt so as to survive but to me this just PROVES God.
Brilliant. No more need for Faith! That has all been replaced by Kenrck's fact of God explained by the Theory of Fish Out Of Water.
++”The man is still a man, A ape still a ape,
,a man is also an ape,
++”The fish is still a fish etc.
A smile is just a smile…
++”A humming bird did not come from a crocodile.
That last one is very true.
Are you a song writer, or have you missed your calling? Or do you watch too much Benny Hinn?Stuart
Every fish I've seen out of water doesn't last too long I did read where your scientist said that the humming bird evolve from a crocodile
. You don't forget a ridicules statement like that especially when they had pictures!
May be you should go back and check your records OR have they changed their mind like the 3.5 billion year old fish Do you believe in frogs that turn into princes TOO
Hi Kenrck
++”I did read where your scientist said that the humming bird evolve from a crocodile.
I'd like to see a reference if you can find one.
All living things share an ancestor species if you go back far enough. I think probably hummingbirds and crocodiles shared an ancestor a very long time ago.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2007,03:01) Hi kejonn ++”Think about something so simple yet complex as water. We know that almost all forms of matter, at least those that are liquid or solid, contract when frozen. Yet water expands. Why is that? Well, what would happen if water contracted when frozen? Aquatic life would cease. At least most organisms. Instead, frozen water expands and sits on the surface while life continues below. Pretty amazing, wouldn't you say?
Yes, water is one of the most peculiar substances, due to the hydrogen bonding that forms between molecules, giving ice its low-density cage-like structures. There is no doubt that the historical course of evolution is intimately linked with the properties of water.
Are you trying to say inorganic substances are subject to evolutionary processes? You'll have to provide some evidence of that. Inorganic substances do not have the ability to adapt. They merely “are”.
Besides, of what benefit would water gain from floating on the surface as ice when frozen?
Quote ++”As far as matters of faith are concerned, evidence is not always found. If you have a friend or lover tell you they love you, do you always look for evidence, or do you just believe them? Sure, actions speak louder than words, but can you ever be certain that person truly loves you? It boils down to a matter of faith in that other person. How do you explain the huge popularity of private investigators whose work chiefly consists of checking up on their clients’ spouses/partners for infidelity? Are they not gathering evidence? Once again, you trust another person based on your past observation that people can be trusted. I think you would have to try and define love before you could say that we don’t seek evidence for it. Not an easy task!
Cop out. If you truly feel this way, then I see you are truly a skeptic about all things. That's OK. Different strokes for different folks. I'm just glad I don't have to live that way
.There is no true definition of love, not an adequate one anyways. Are you saying then that it truly does not exist? To you, I'm sure it is just chemical reactions in the brain.
Quote ++”Faith is personal. If you have to base what you believe in on evidence alone, you may find that life is not as full as you'd like it to be. Search you life and realize how many things you take for granted by virtue of faith rather than solid, concrete evidence. OK. Tarot cards, astrology, most “complimentary medicine”, faith healing, religious belief, creationism, UFOs, spoon bending, psychic reading and telepathy probably fit that category. None of them hold sway in my life though.
Can you think of one that might apply to me?
Stuart
Typical atheist answer. Again, faith is personal. It is not my purpose to prove God exists because I've not been told to do so. Such comes within a person and you can only believe when you are ready. All I can do is relate my experiences. Whether or not you believe God is real does not concern me in the slightest.Hi kejonn
++”Are you trying to say inorganic substances are subject to evolutionary processes?
Did I?
++”Cop out.
I'm sorry, what is a cop out?
++”All I can do is relate my experiences.
What experience have you had that gives you unshakeable knowledge of the existence of something for which there is no objective evidence? Can you actually think of one thing that I take on faith alone?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
