- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2008,23:33) More from the wishful thinking of the front page of this website: Quote People who do not believe in God, also believe that the wonderful and technological human eye was not designed by God, rather such design came about because creatures without eyes had a less chance of survival.
I don’t believe in god and I don’t believe that strawman of evolution of the eye. The evolutionary stages of eye development postulated in the past have been found. The light-sensitive patch of skin ‘eye’ and the rudimentary cup of cells eye are both known in modern animal species. What is more, the eye is so useful it has evolved independently several times in different evolutionary branches of the tree of life.Quote Yet when we see a man made camera we all know without a doubt that it was designed and built by someone. Did a camera come about by evolutionary processes because of the need for people to take photos, no it was created by intelligence for that need. However the truth is that the human eye and the human camera both use the same technology to turn light into an image, that can be understood. If you believe that a camera is always created by a designer (and so you should), then why is it so hard to believe that there was a creator for the human eye
Whoever wrote this has never heard of reverse engineering. Is there just the tiniest possibility that a camera could have been designed as a result of looking at that amazing (although flawed) product of natural selection, the eye?Heavennet logic never was a strong point.
Stuart
Yeah right Stu.Ha ha. The eye sort of built up over time.
Try dismantling a camera and even a tiny part can make the whole thing stop working.
The theory that some kind of primitive eye became more sophisticated by natural selection is quite funny. I mean even I could spin a story as to how it could have happened, but spinning stories isn't science and rich imagination isn't science either.
Why not build a blind robot that can reproduce and change to suit the environment, put it in an ecosystem where sight offers an advantage, then watch it over succeeding generations develop mechanical eyes that become so sophisticated that not even man can create a camera to match it.
OK, I know that you don't have the resources to do it, but try and imagine it. The earth has the raw materials that make up the robots eye, so imagine it just getting more technical for survival purposes. Start with the most basic camera and imagine it turning into something greater than the highest end video camera of today.
If you can imagine all the stages and how easy it is for it to happen (because no design from a designer is needed), then feel free to submit your plan to NASA for use in the Mars Rovers and watch yourself get rich in the process.
Yeah right did I hear you say? If so, then talk to yourself please, you need help.
Read and learn (if you're capable):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.htmlStuart
Stu, you are so hard of hearing but you are funny (humorous).
Read any recipe for making a cake. Sounds logical when you read how they happen.
But saying that there was no cook, is just plain silly, isn't it? Just because the cook book doesn't say that cakes are made by people, doesn't mean that they just happen by eggs and flour being mixed and then the substance being superheated.
In other words it makes no difference how close the explanation of a cake, just don't go all silly on me and say there was no cook.
Still if you believe and understand how eyes came to be by those Wikipedia articles (without a creator), then apply it to the robotics industry and become a billionaire.
NASA would be interested in how their rovers can reproduce and also become more sophisticated by being shaped by the forces of their Martian environment.
Oh, and when you make your first billion out of it, don't forget it was me who gave you the idea.
Never mind Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Rutherford or even Kant, the argument from silliness is the new science:
Quote Read any recipe for making a cake. Sounds logical when you read how they happen. But saying that there was no cook, is just plain silly, isn't it? Just because the cook book doesn't say that cakes are made by people, doesn't mean that they just happen by eggs and flour being mixed and then the substance being superheated.
In other words it makes no difference how close the explanation of a cake, just don't go all silly on me and say there was no cook.
I suppose you have devastatingly undermined modern cosmology and Darwinian evolution by calling it silly. With god any old name-calling will do, I suppose.
Stuart
I take it that you have run out of answers to your singularity came from nothing argument.
If you ridicule or even at best test those who believe in God, then it is only fair to look at the options. When the options are shown to you, you try your best to change the subject.
Sorry but changing the subject when you get right down to the base of your belief, only means that you are trying to avoid something, namely, that you BELIEVE that something came from nothing as opposed to God creating the cosmos.
YOU BELIEVE THAT NOTHING PRODUCED SOMETHING WHICH BECAME THE COSMOS AND LIFE.
So nothing ultimately produced life. Can you see how ludicrous that is?
This is the case of your religion or belief. No changing the subject is going to change this truth one iota.
WELCOME TO YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM.
I have not made a 'singularity came from nothing' argument. When this was first mooted I said I didn't know, and I still don't. I quoted Stephen Hawking on the subject of the origins of matter and energy. It is sweet that you are desparate to know what I believe, but I'm afraid I can't help you. I believe in evidence and there isn't any. Yet.
You have rejected the possibility that the causal relationships we obsess over do not apply in the absense of the time dimension, yet that is an obvious thing to consider when, if space-time did indeed begin at the big bang, time had no particular direction. What comes 'before' what is not a useful concept. Yet since you know all the answers, maybe you could tell us which bits are silly, which are not silly and which are absurd.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2008,23:41) Never mind Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Rutherford or even Kant, the argument from silliness is the new science:
Never mind Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Gregor Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and even perhaps Albert Einstein.Quote Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein's famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Quotes from others:
Quote Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God. Quote It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. Oops, I missed 'ludicrous'.
That's the scientific arguments of silly, absurd and ludicrous.Devastating.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2008,23:57) I have not made a 'singularity came from nothing' argument. When this was first mooted I said I didn't know, and I still don't.
So then if you are open minded to a cause, (which I thought you denied in recent earlier posts) then you have to be open to the cause to be either inanimate or living.So let's hear the inanimate theory, as you obviously reject that anything living created the cosmos.
BTW: it is interesting that you admit to not knowing. So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience?
I mean if you don't know, then you run the risk of not finding the truth by reason of pride. Putting your own understanding above all else often leads to many a downfall.
Re Einstein, been there and done that. If you believe in Einstein's god, or Spinosa's then welcome to atheism. Einstein rejected the label atheism because people were always trying to label him. I feel the same about that word. It is an accurate description but a definition of self in terms of imaginary friends invented by deluded people. It's not very flattering I have to admit.
Do you think Einstein was 'not silly'?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 09 2008,00:04) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2008,23:57) I have not made a 'singularity came from nothing' argument. When this was first mooted I said I didn't know, and I still don't.
So then if you are open minded to a cause, (which I thought you denied in recent earlier posts) then you have to be open to the cause to be either inanimate or living.So let's hear the inanimate theory, as you obviously reject that anything living created the cosmos.
BTW: it is interesting that you admit to not knowing. So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience?
I mean if you don't know, then you run the risk of not finding the truth by reason of pride. Putting your own understanding above all else often leads to many a downfall.
No, because what I am doing is pointing out that you are as ignorant as I am, but I am the only one honestly admiting that ignorance. What is your argument for the necessity for a cause? Has it changed from 'silly' to 'ludicrous'?Stuart
This on-going debate boils down to this —
t8: “Goddidit”
Stu: “Don't know what did it, but pretty sure it wasn't a 'whodidit'”
t8, you made a statement
Quote So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience? Pulling from a book of mythology does not qualify for “insights and experience”…
Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 09 2008,00:21) This on-going debate boils down to this — t8: “Goddidit”
Stu: “Don't know what did it, but pretty sure it wasn't a 'whodidit'”
t8, you made a statement
Quote So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience? Pulling from a book of mythology does not qualify for “insights and experience”…
Yep. We could have saved a lot of typing!Stuart
The problem is that you don't know what my experience is and if you have none to speak of, then that is not my fault.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 09 2008,00:06) Re Einstein, been there and done that. If you believe in Einstein's god, or Spinosa's then welcome to atheism. Einstein rejected the label atheism because people were always trying to label him. I feel the same about that word. It is an accurate description but a definition of self in terms of imaginary friends invented by deluded people. It's not very flattering I have to admit. Do you think Einstein was 'not silly'?
Stuart
Einsteins God does not play dice.OK, would you prefer to be called an ape?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,00:58) The problem is that you don't know what my experience is and if you have none to speak of, then that is not my fault.
t8 Did you not share with us in your Testimony that you posted to us?
Peace and Love IreneQuote (kejonn @ Sep. 09 2008,00:21) This on-going debate boils down to this — t8: “Goddidit”
Stu: “Don't know what did it, but pretty sure it wasn't a 'whodidit'”
t8, you made a statement
Quote So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience? Pulling from a book of mythology does not qualify for “insights and experience”…
The point is that Stu came to our party and tried to say that belief in God is like believing in Santa Claus. So if it took me all this time to get him to admit that he is ignorant of what happend before creation, then I have proven aptly that his comments were and are made in ignorance. He himself also said that he was ignorant.I rest my case thanks for listening.
I will let the jury decide.
Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 09 2008,00:21) This on-going debate boils down to this — t8: “Goddidit”
Stu: “Don't know what did it, but pretty sure it wasn't a 'whodidit'”
t8, you made a statement
Quote So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience? Pulling from a book of mythology does not qualify for “insights and experience”…
OK, lets have a bit of a wrap up then.KJ: I believe in the messiah
KJ: I divorced the messiah and the New Testament coz it doesn't stack up somehow.
KJ: I follow the Old Testament, but still kind of like Jesus
KJ: Hang on, I saw this video and it said that Moses was an incarnation of a pagan. So don't believe in him or the OT anymore, while I am at Jesus is also a reiteration of a pagan.
KJ: YHWH doesn't exist.
KJ: I am going to spend lots of time arguing about something that doesn't exist.
KJ: I enjoy being cynical and persecuting people who have faith, therefore I like to come here to satisfy some inner urge that I have to make people doubt God.
KJ: My life just isn't complete without coming to Heaven Net and abusing some Christians.
KJ: Hang on, I am condemning the very thing that I once was.
KJ: I hope everything will be alright and that YHWH doesn't exist because if I am wrong, well I would hate to think what I am saying no to.
KJ: Hey that T8 guy just wrote a pretty unflattering conclusion about me. How dare he. Right that is it, I am going to rebel even more than before. I will show him.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 09 2008,08:19) Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 09 2008,00:21) This on-going debate boils down to this — t8: “Goddidit”
Stu: “Don't know what did it, but pretty sure it wasn't a 'whodidit'”
t8, you made a statement
Quote So wouldn't you think it would be better to listen rather than ridicule others for their insights and experience? Pulling from a book of mythology does not qualify for “insights and experience”…
OK, lets have a bit of a wrap up then.KJ: I believe in the messiah
Not until the age of 20.
Quote KJ: I divorced the messiah and the New Testament coz it doesn't stack up somehow. What messiah? But you are right, much of it does not stack up. My inability to suspend reason would not allow me to accept it as valid anymore.
Quote KJ: I follow the Old Testament, but still kind of like Jesus I looked into the OT for awhile because I thought perhaps the Hebrew religion had something going for it. Further study showed that wasn't for me either.
Quote KJ: Hang on, I saw this video and it said that Moses was an incarnation of a pagan. So don't believe in him or the OT anymore, while I am at Jesus is also a reiteration of a pagan. Did I? Don't recall seeing any video like that.
Basically, I read about the horrible ways the god of the OT was portrayed and figured either (a) it was a false representation or (b) Yahweh is really that nasty. I decided that the bible was no longer something I wanted to base my life around. If that god truly exists, it is not one I want to honor.
Quote KJ: YHWH doesn't exist. Could be. Who knows? No real proof outside of the pages of the bible. No more than the proof of Allah or Brahman.
Quote KJ: I am going to spend lots of time arguing about something that doesn't exist. Nah, no arguing. Just trying to get people out of their funk so they will put their thinking caps back on.
You “argue” quite a bit about evolution and you don't believe in it. So are you not doing the same as you are accusing me of?
Quote KJ: I enjoy being cynical and persecuting people who have faith, therefore I like to come here to satisfy some inner urge that I have to make people doubt God. Cynical no. Skeptical yes. A phrase I saw somewhere: “I think therefore I doubt”.
And if you call pointing out biblical problems “persecution”, you need to get out more. Are you not “persecuting” Stu then for not believing in your god? Or me for that matter? Can I cry “martyr”?
As I've said before, if my words can make you doubt you god, then your faith is weak and your relationship is with a book, not your god. Sadly, most Christians do not have a relationship with their god, they have a relationship with a preacher or the bible.
Quote KJ: My life just isn't complete without coming to Heaven Net and abusing some Christians. Boy, you toss out words like “abuse” and “persecution” for the slightest of things. I challenge you to bring up a post where I actually “abused” or “persecuted” anyone. I question the bible — if that is your definition of “abuse” or “persecution” I'd hate to see you under real abuse or persecution.
Quote KJ: Hang on, I am condemning the very thing that I once was. For the most part. Don't you condemn your past as an atheist?
Quote KJ: I hope everything will be alright and that YHWH doesn't exist because if I am wrong, well I would hate to think what I am saying no to. Pascal's Wager is wrong on so many levels. What if Allah is the true god and he really is mad at my time with Yahweh? What if Brahman is the true god and he dislikes my time with Yahweh? What if Zeus…you get the point.
Quote KJ: Hey that T8 guy just wrote a pretty unflattering conclusion about me. How dare he. Right that is it, I am going to rebel even more than before. I will show him.
Who cares what you think of me? I don't. You aren't the first Christian who has thought poorly of me for “leaving the faith” nor will you be the last. If I cared about what you thought about me, I'd come back to the fold. Too bad such tactics don't work with people who have been set free from close-minded, blind faith.t8
Quote The problem is that you don't know what my experience is and if you have none to speak of, then that is not my fault.
I claim that, within the usual variations between people, I do indeed know what your experience is, and further that you yourself may not actually understand you own experience. That is common.Quote Einsteins God does not play dice.
Einstein’s god did and didn’t do all sorts of things. This god of Einstein and Spinoza is a generic metaphor for nature.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
– Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh HoffmanThe word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
– Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Regardless, it does not matter what Einstein thought about gods. That makes no difference to the evidence for their existence, or the lack of it.Quote OK, would you prefer to be called an ape?
Yes. That is what I am. Your denying it does not make it untrue of you. It is a formally accepted classification for humans, based on the overwhelming similarities between us and the other great apes.Quote The point is that Stu came to our party and tried to say that belief in God is like believing in Santa Claus. So if it took me all this time to get him to admit that he is ignorant of what happend before creation, then I have proven aptly that his comments were and are made in ignorance. He himself also said that he was ignorant.
And yet you know everything. Yet you can explain nothing.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
