Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
Why should any of us go to all that trouble just to satisfy your curiosity?
None of us here cares the least little bit whether you believe in a God or not, so don't expect much work from us on your questions.
I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins as a social commentator, but if you are actually interested in how that evolution works then I would say several of his books are probably the best you can find to describe it both accurately and in a way you don't have to be a biologist to understand.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Blind Watchmaker" would be great places to start and I really recommend you read these works if you want a truly comprehensive view on how it works. There are also some great science channels on youtube that can explain evolution for you. Here are just a few...
There is one last thing I want to address in your post...
Quote...when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
This is just factually wrong. My left eye has undeveloped places in the centre... but I can still see out of my left eye. I see a blur through the centre of my vision and have perfect peripherals. Likewise people with glasses also have pieces that are not all in place at the same time... but they are obviously not completely blind. Likewise as eyes evolved... it's not like these new pieces meant the animal went blind if it wasn't perfectly assembled.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PMThe theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
That is correct. The ToE has the following givens: 1) the existence of life 2) heritable genetic variety 3) selection pressures, i.e. not all offspring survive. Plug in those givens and you get a gene pool that changes from generation to generation.
QuoteHow does natural selection explain the eye, for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
QuoteHow can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
That's not what happens. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html) All-at-once evolution doesn't exist except in the minds of creationists. And it's pretty obvious projection.
QuoteAs for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
Five seconds of googling could've helped you out (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2), assuming for a moment that the question was sincere.
QuoteWhat are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/auto-mechanic-7457134.jpg)
I'll assume you meant "mechanisms". Well, here's (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_16) a brief intro to the idea, suitable for both children and adult creationists.
QuoteNot variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
LOL. An individual breaching the barriers of its DNA and metamorphosing into something else. I'll get right on that and soon as my sides stop cramping from laughter.
QuoteFor reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
Modern reptiles do not become modern mammals any more than you become your cousin.
QuoteThe facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like
That was the naive view all over the world before naturalists started digging up fossils and figuring out that a ton of species went extinct. Christians don't own that position any more than they own geocentrism.
Quoteand we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
You mean the selectively-bred and crossbred fruits and veggies?
Check out this biblical "kind":
(http://www.aicr.org/assets/images/foods-that-fight-cancer/grapefruit-and-half.jpg)
It didn't exist until a few centuries ago.
QuoteIt seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
Shooting down a laughably wrong creationist version of evolution doesn't do jack to establish the claim that a God exists, much less the Christian God. Even if you had somehow managed to understand and falsify evolution (neither of which happened, btw), it would simply send biologists back to the drawing board to establish a new theory explaining the genetic diversity of life on Earth and the fact of speciation.
To establish your claims, you'll have to show that 1) a God exists 2) that God is the Christian God. Anything short of that, and you're just blowing hot air and making a fool of yourself.
Look, yada (if you mean yammeryammeryammer you are right) first you come to an atheist board and tell us we are full of shit. And you have done that without introducing yourself. I don't know you from adam--or cain, for that matter. I don't care what warped ideas you carry around in your head. If you had an ounce of manners you would introduce yourself and then get to know your way around--but you are a theist and that automatically means you lack common sense and common manners.
You make assertions without any backup and you want somebody to do all the work. Well fuck that. If you were at all interested in any of what you said in your post, you could look up threads (many, many of them) from this board that tackles all of your questions and concerns. But then, these are not really concerns of yours, are they?! You have your beliefs screwed down tight and no 'facts' can enter there. Bad for the soul.....................(which is also doesn't exist).
Read some of those threads of the past (you do know how to use an index, don't you? Well, you are a theist........................) and if you have specific questions, ask away. I have no problems having a conversation with any theist that wants to be civil and show common manners. Do you fit that mold??? If not, why not just move to another forum.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
Giving you a theistic answer to your questions ...
People use words all the time, that they don't have a clear definition of. They think they know what a word means "in context", but do they really? People use such words as ...
G-d, exists, proof, validity, probability, nature, concept, likely, considered, impossible, evidence ... these are difficult philosophical concepts, that should only be wielded by philosophers after decades of training, and only with the safety on ;-) There isn't enough time to go into it. It would all take longer than counting the grains of sand on a beech, one by one. The dictionary isn't a very good alternative either, since there are ideological deficiencies with any dictionary (there is no neutrality in rhetoric). So what can us average folks do? I will let other folks post on evolution and convergent evolution, since they are more skillful in that area that I am.
So where to start? Where did the Enlightenment go off the rails? The Enlightenment was Sophistry 2.0. In ancient Athens, in Sophistry 1.0 ... there were teachers of rhetoric (useful in politics and law) who for a fee, could teach you how to persuasively argue any side of any question ... aka baffle the hoi polloi with nice sounding bullshit, how to prejudicially sift evidence of truth or falsehood. City state politics flourished for about 200 years, until first Alexander, and later Caesar, put an end to it. This argumentativeness was silenced by authoritarianism for over a thousand years, until the rise of the first universities in the Middle Ages. Eventually the universities, revived skepticism, both constructive and destructive, for the first time since ancient Rome. As part of this skepticism, in ancient Greece and early modern Europe naturalism and materialism was in vogue, along with rationalism. Naturalism rhetorically bridged the gap of not knowing what separated living from non-living things. Once again in the absence of dampening authoritarianism, freethinking and free speech got more and more common. Engaging in thinking and speaking/writing in the public domain is implicitly political. And so Sophistry 2.0 came about. What is attractive about sophistry? Those who practice it are sophisticates of course ;-) They also tend to come from the non-conforming parts of society just as the case with Socrates.
So all of this amounts to just so much ... yadda yadda ... whether you are a theist or not. And if you are gullible, you will be convinced by whoever is successful marketing to you. We are all consumers of unnecessary junk. The Enlightenment was all about people who were not at the center of the power structure, wanting to change their relative positions more in their own favor. But if you are an actual individual, who doesn't kow-tow to authorities ... aka you are socially marginal ... then instead of making a square hole fit your round peg, you will reshape the hole so the peg fits better (the average conformist does the opposite).
So basically, to an atheist, a theist, regardless of educational and professional background is a prima facie idiot, no different than someone who claims that the Nazca lines were designed by ancient astronauts. This is the meta-dialog, actual evolution fact and theory don't matter.
And yet at the same time, you find no curiosity that of all the gods mankind has followed and worshipped not one has actually been proven to be more beneficial to the believer than the next is to its. How odd for the one true god to be so.......invisible, unprovable and most of all, impotent.
But if people are G-d's hands and feet, then it is we who make G-d impotent ;-)
Hello Yadayadayada (name seems ironic somehow).
As several of our fine posters here have done so, they have gone over reason and explanations to questions. Now given the chance you read some of it and learn the atheist pov, that be something. But we've had a lot of peeps come by here several times doing the same thing, and not getting the answers from the atheist pov they want.
We have had a couple of open mind chaps here and there, but really, this is down to you looking at things from another angle. Reality is, most of us here have lives life having seen different angles of faith, belief, questioning it, rationalizing things, and coming to conclusions on what faith actually is.
There is one thing the bible proves, the advancement of science and study have gone on though the ages, and it isn't any surprise certain things of a scientific nature made its way into the bible. But it came from times also when people believed in magic and waterwalking and the world flooding, the same as ancient horse men believed in a golden city in the skies where the best warriors go, or in ancient egypt where people believed there was a god of death that brought your souls to the afterlife, no proof, just heresay.
Science is a part of mankinds evolution, but myth and storytelling is part of it too, and the two things get mixed up sometimes, so its not a surprise some folks get a little confused about it.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 07:29:36 PM
But if people are G-d's hands and feet, then it is we who make G-d impotent ;-)
We can make all kinds of fictional statements about god, since god is a fiction. Like making up stories about Daffy Duck.
Evidence, my dear, evidence.
That is what it all boils down to.
Not faith.
Faith is not evidence, but the veritable lack thereof.
When believers state that one "must have faith" it means that one must suspend all doubt and all reason and all logic merely to have "faith" in something that cannot be proven to exist and that which no believer has proficient evidence to provide.
You do know that atheism and evolution are not the same, right? There are theists who know that evolution is true. And atheists have plenty of other reasons for doubting the existence of gods, especially your Christian god. Historically, the Bible gets a lot of things wrong, including virtually every detail of Jesus' birth. For instance, there is no way there was a census that required every citizen to pick up and move to their home towns. That would be a stupid idea. All you need to know for a census is how many people there are. If you need to know where people are from, you can just ask them. If the backstory of the most important person in the Bible can't be believed, why should anything from the Bible be trusted?
As for the theory of evolution, there is a ton of evidence behind it. There is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. Yet you think you can get away with saying "evolution can't explain _____, therefore intelligent design must be true." No. That does not follow. Many things used to be a mystery, and gods were used to explain them. Then science came and removed the need for gods. Lightning is not from Zeus. The earth is not on the back of a whale. And soon enough, we will discover how life can come from non-life, and you theists will have to retreat to yet another mystery to move the goal post to.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 28, 2016, 11:27:37 PMYou do know that atheism and evolution are not the same, right?
Very few creationists know that. They try to refute evolution like it's some atheistic religion - they're not here to discuss science, they're here to do apologetics. That's why we get to see theists "prove" God by disproving evolution. They crash and burn because they never figure out what's wrong with that picture. It's like watching an aircraft carrier launch all its planes into the ocean and then wondering why the war is going badly.
How's about you introduce yourself, as is mandatory, and show an interest in THE forum.
We can have a Nice chat then.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
Because shutup.
1 post... who want's to bet he went out and bought "The Greatest Show on Earth" and is reading it as we speak?
If modern people evolved from stupid people, how come we still have stupid people?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 28, 2016, 11:27:37 PM
You do know that atheism and evolution are not the same, right? There are theists who know that evolution is true. And atheists have plenty of other reasons for doubting the existence of gods, especially your Christian god. Historically, it gets a lot of things wrong, including virtually every detail of Jesus' birth. For instance, there is no way there was a census that required every citizen to pick up and move to their home towns. That would be a stupid idea. All you need to know for a census is how many people there are. If you need to know where people are from, you can just ask them. If the backstory of the most important person in the Bible can't be believed, why should anything from the Bible be trusted?
As for the theory of evolution, there is a ton of evidence behind it. There is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. Yet you think you can get away with saying "evolution can't explain _____, therefore intelligent design must be true." No. That does not follow. Many things used to be a mystery, and gods were used to explain them. Then science came and removed the need for gods. Lightning is not from Zeus. The earth is not on the back of a whale. And soon enough, we will discover how life can come from non-life, and you theists will have to retreat to yet another mystery to move the goal post to.
I attended a lecture, by Dr Ponamparuma on abiotic evolution over 40 years ago, and he was redoing experiments from the 1950s. I was getting an award for best HS chemistry student along with a bunch of other folks across the state. The problem with abiotic evolution isn't the evidence, but how the question is phrased. Looking in the wrong end of the telescope. This is an old solved problem. Comparative exobiology will teach us more, but not in my lifetime.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
That's not quite accurate. There are no "facts". There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural and never has been. It's not that the evidence suggests there are no gods, it's that there is no evidence to suggest that there are.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
You are correct there. It is the theory of abiogenesis which explains the origins of life. The theory of evolution makes no attempt to do so as that's a completely different study.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
"Everything you know about the eye" is wrong. Off the top of my head, horses and squids have eyes with "parts missing", if I recall correctly. They do not function like ours do, but they are far from "completely useless". Dogs can't see in color because they have a part missing, but their eyes are still far from "completely useless". This argument ignorantly assumes an "intended purpose" for the eye with no other possible purpose, but the reality is that if you remove most of the parts of the eye so that all it can do is tell if there is light or not it is STILL not "completely useless". It would still be enough for me to tell if it's night or day in nature.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
It is not my duty to hand feed the plethora of evidence in support of evolution to someone to lazy and willfully ignorant to look it up. And the theory of evolution is not dependent solely on this EXACT bit of evidence. If the evidence for that were missing (it is not) there would STILL be enough data to show evolution is a reality. They can STILL show reptile to bird and fish to reptile, for instance. Even if they got that part wrong, evolution is still sound. The entire theory does not fall apart when you uncover a single flaw. What happens then is that the theory is adjusted to account for the new data. This isn't the Bible. It's not a rigid, unchanging belief system. It's not like your religion where if I prove that Jesus didn't exist the entire thing falls apart. Prove something wrong in evolution and you don't throw it out, you fix it because scientific theories NEVER have to be "right at any cost". That defeats the purpose of science.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
This is a stupid request. We can't follow along side a photon and observe that it always travels the same speed. We can't observe water cutting a huge canyon over millions of years. Time is a factor in evolution, which is exactly why dumb fucks want to see it "right now". I can't prove you can't make a good chili from scratch by telling you that I want to see it RIGHT NOW and, if you can't produce it RIGHT NOW, it proves you can't do it. It takes time and for me to demand the evidence without giving you the time is insincere. Neither can you prove evolution is wrong by demanding we "observe" something happening which takes millions of years. It's a bullshit tactic employed by the insincere in their tortured fight to avoid learning something. If you don't want to know, quit fucking asking. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
What is this "breach" you are talking about? There is no "breach" of DNA. If I take reptile DNA (or make it because they can make it from scratch now) into a lab I CAN change it, little by little, piece by piece, until it becomes human DNA. I CAN (were I educated and given the proper funding, time and ethical latitude) take blood from a lizard, change the DNA and use it to clone a human being. Or I can change just bits of it. Maybe something will be created, maybe it won't even gestate. But I CAN create one thing from an entirely different thing, or any of a nearly infinite number of "hybrid" steps in between. This "breach" you keep bringing up, that's in your head.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
You are relying on what you can see only with your own eyes, which is what the writers of the Bible were relying on. That's why you're both wrong in the same way. An iguana will never "beget" a cat, but over millions of years the offspring of the iguana may have changed so much that you not only no longer recognize it as an iguana, you no longer recognize it as a reptile. That takes a lot of time and a lot of generations. You only pretend to want to see the evidence for it. What you really want is chili RIGHT NOW. If you REALLY wanted to see the evidence for it you would take some biology courses (even basic courses would be a HUGE step up from what you know now) and learn why nearly 100% of the people who understand evolution intimately accept it as a reliable, dependable theory.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
You have given NO evidence "in support" of the concept of God. You have only given bullshit evidence "against" evolution. The two are not the same thing. I can't prove to you that the sky IS yellow by proving it IS NOT purple. That's not how "evidence in support of" something works. You have no evidence to "support" anything you've said. Your entire argument was not "here is why God is real", it was "here is why evolution is wrong".
Basic high school science courses would be enough to tell you why your argument is utterly stupid (maybe not what they teach in the south). You either want to learn or you don't, and it's pretty obvious which of this is true. Either way, you have nothing to teach here.
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
There is no atheist viewpoint on that. An atheist is simply a person that does not have a belief in gods. Any gods.
It's like trying to ask what the redhead opinion is on coffee. If you ask ten different people, you'll get ten different answers.
Okay, I just did the math and came up with some very interesting results which I thought I would share.
Many times I see theists claim "Nobody has observed"...insert some process which takes a ridiculous amount of time and demand it be observed withing a single human being's professional lifetime as the mark for "evidence". Of course they don't realize how ridiculous that is, but after doing some math I realized, neither did I.
Let's say the transition from species A to species B, two very different species, say, lizard to dog, takes only a lightning fast 1 million years. We're going with absolutely ridiculous best-case scenarios here, and always to the benefit of the theist. And let's say recent medical advancements let people live to be 1,000 years old, using the entirety of their life for the pursuit of this specific "evidence". Even in that example, so ludicrously biased in favor of the evolution denier, they are asking for something in 1/1,000th the time it takes.
So let's compare that to the chili I mentioned earlier (now I really want chili). I did some research and it usually takes 3-4 hours for contestants to make chili for a chili cook-off, sometimes taking as many as 12 hours for some recipes. So let's go with 24 hours because we're always erring to the ludicrous extreme in favor of the evolution denier. Now WE are the ones who get to set an arbitrary time limit on the chef, but we're going to be nice about it. We are going to start with TWICE the maximum amount of time it might possibly take AND we're giving them 1/100th that time instead of the 1/1,000th that we got for ourselves, so again, this scenario is heavily biased against us. So the minimum is generally 3 hours. There are recipes online you can make in as little as 20 minutes, though I highly doubt they would win any cook-offs. So how much time do you get? You have to prep, assemble and simmer an award winning chili in 14 minutes, 24 seconds. If you can't do it in that time it proves definitively that you are shit at making chili. It does not matter how many awards (ie, how much evidence) you can produce to the contrary, you make your chili in 14.4 minutes and it has to beat out every other chili in the cook-off, which took a minimum of 3 hours to make or it PROVES that you are shit at making chili.
And reality is even worse. I gave them 10x the actual human lifespan, and only half of that can really be devoted to "observing" something professionally. With JUST that little tweak toward reality they are now asking that it be done in 1/20,000th the time, and we STILL aren't using a realistic time scale for how long it takes evolution to accumulate such massive change. And it we tweak the chili example toward reality it normally takes only 4 hours, giving them as much as 1/10th the time they STILL only 24 minutes, just 4 minutes longer than the "quick" chili recipe I found takes.
That means that evolution deniers are asking for something AT LEAST 2,000 times more impossible than to create the best chili in a cook-off given only 1/10th the time of the other contestants.
Yadayadayada posted 24 hours ago. Wonder if it was a drive-by.
Ya think? :headscratch:
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-and-drive-by-18.jpg)
Quote from: widdershins on December 29, 2016, 12:31:59 PM
"Everything you know about the eye" is wrong. Off the top of my head, horses and squids have eyes with "parts missing", if I recall correctly.
IIRC, squid eyes are actually slightly better. Squid eyes aren't inverted like vertebrate eyes are, so light goes directly to photoreceptors instead of passing through a thin layer of tissue first.
(https://thehumanevolutionblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/eyeevolution.gif)
And human eyes are missing part of the eye - the nictating membrane. Well, it's not missing entirely, it's just folded up in the corner and non-functional. (the only primate with a functional nictating membrane is the Calabar angwantibo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabar_angwantibo))
(http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/nictitans.jpg)
The mantis shrimp has really good eyes:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mantis-shrimp-world-eyesbut.html
(https://arthropoda.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/human-vs-mantis.jpg)
I wonder why God gave shrimp so much better vision than his humans? Maybe that's why he didn't want us eating the things... :headscratch:
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/religion-scientist-science_vs_religion-holy_books-answers-philosopher-cman366_low.jpg)
If protestants came from catholics, why are there still catholics?
Quote from: Johan on December 29, 2016, 07:09:45 PM
If protestants came from catholics, why are there still catholics?
I like!
On a similar theme:
If Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?
If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Quote from: Johan on December 29, 2016, 07:30:32 PM
If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
There won't be, after the Muslims get thru ;-) And no, Americans didn't all come from Europe, initially they came from Siberia ;-)
Quote from: Johan on December 29, 2016, 07:09:45 PM
If protestants came from catholics, why are there still catholics?
Protestants are Catholics ... bad Catholics.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 29, 2016, 07:16:31 PM
I like!
On a similar theme:
If Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?
Jews are smarter. Actually Christians came from Gentiles.
Shrimp eyesight might be good, but it didn't save the shrimp who ended up on my dinner plate tonight. Maybe they were Democrat shrimp ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 07:42:12 PM
There won't be, after the Muslims get thru ;-) And no, Americans didn't all come from Europe, initially they came from Siberia ;-)
Initially, we all came from Africa.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 07:45:39 PM
Protestants are Catholics ... bad Catholics.
There is not such thing as 'good' catholics.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2016, 07:51:50 PM
There is not such thing as 'good' catholics.
I will have the Father celebrate a Mass for you, my son ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 07:57:31 PM
I will have the Father celebrate a Mass for you, my son ;-)
Thank you. And the recovering catholic I'm married to thanks you too.
@Yadayadayada What proxy service are you using to get past our bans? I'm not sure who you are a sock of, but I see you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 28, 2016, 08:22:10 PM
We can make all kinds of fictional statements about god, since god is a fiction. Like making up stories about Daffy Duck.
Didn't Daffy call Bugs ... "You're despicable"?
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2016, 08:08:30 PM
Thank you. And the recovering catholic I'm married to thanks you too.
Once you have tasted real communion wine, there is no going back to mere grape juice ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 09:36:09 PM
Didn't Daffy call Bugs ... "You're despicable"?
Constantly.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 09:37:28 PM
Once you have tasted real communion wine, there is no going back to mere grape juice ;-)
The grape juice was always better than the wine.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2016, 09:51:57 PM
The grape juice was always better than the wine.
And that is why there are always many POV ... people's naturally differing opinions.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 29, 2016, 08:14:08 PM
@Yadayadayada
What proxy service are you using to get past our bans? I'm not sure who you are a sock of, but I see you.
Now that's dedication. Through he seems desperate to get heard.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 29, 2016, 08:14:08 PM
@Yadayadayada
What proxy service are you using to get past our bans? I'm not sure who you are a sock of, but I see you.
TOR or something similar. At some point, his point of transfer is a NAT?
Meh... proxies to get through to the forums is not hard... particularly if you don't care if it shows up that you are using one.
There are much easier ways to get around without being detected. Proxies show less dedication to me and more just stupidity.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 30, 2016, 06:54:49 AM
Meh... proxies to get through to the forums is not hard... particularly if you don't care if it shows up that you are using one.
There are much easier ways to get around without being detected. Proxies show less dedication to me and more just stupidity.
Hmmm, you seem to know a lot about this stuff..
I knew it, you actually are pr126 as well! You've been fooling us for a long time now, but the jig is up buddy.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 30, 2016, 08:32:12 AM
Hmmm, you seem to know a lot about this stuff..
I knew it, you actually are pr126 as well! You've been fooling us for a long time now, but the jig is up buddy.
Oh sweet child, if only you knew...
Pickled eggs? Me. Aitm? Moi. Drunken, Janna, Baruch, Mike, Johan? All me.
All of this is to trap young and impressionable atheists here, and then convert them to the one true faith (Shiranuiism) as their "friends" all convert! Burhahahaha....
(It's six in the morning, I'm trying my hardest...)
Quote from: Shiranu on December 30, 2016, 08:38:12 AM
Oh sweet child, if only you knew...
Pickled eggs? Me. Aitm? Moi. Drunken, Janna, Baruch, Mike, Johan? All me.
All of this is to trap young and impressionable atheists here, and then convert them to the one true faith (Shiranuiism) as their "friends" all convert! Burhahahaha....
(It's six in the morning, I'm trying my hardest...)
Good ... I will send all my bills to your address ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 07:48:08 PM
Shrimp eyesight might be good, but it didn't save the shrimp who ended up on my dinner plate tonight. Maybe they were Democrat shrimp ;-)
Mantis shrimp are
smart, too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uTdTRXNdEY
I have seen film of an octopus opening the cork on a bottle, to get inside, where a shrimp is screaming ... oh no! And without a backbone, he can easily slide thru the neck of the bottle. Invertebrates aren't created equal. Cephalopods rule!
Urm, this goes without saying, but you know that mantis shrimp video is fake right? He threw a cube at the shrimp, which likely saw it as a threat, cuts way to its face, the back to a solved cube, put in later, and the punches it away in defense
Quote from: Munch on December 31, 2016, 05:43:47 AM
Urm, this goes without saying, but you know that mantis shrimp video is fake right? He threw a cube at the shrimp, which likely saw it as a threat, cuts way to its face, the back to a solved cube, put in later, and the punches it away in defense
The only news is fake news ... this is not a new thing.
Just because I don't fully understand something (for example the origin of life and how we all got here) does not mean I can automatically attribute it to an intelligent being who is so narcissistic as to destroy those who do not worship it.
Quote from: AllRight on December 31, 2016, 09:34:25 AM
Just because I don't fully understand something (for example the origin of life and how we all got here) does not mean I can automatically attribute it to an intelligent being who is so narcissistic as to destroy those who do not worship it.
I agree. Lack of understanding, is a universal part of the human condition. We would be unable to do anything useful ... if actual understanding was required. So this a straw man, but maybe not the one you think it is ;-)
Quote from: AllRight on December 31, 2016, 09:34:25 AM
Just because I don't fully understand something (for example the origin of life and how we all got here) does not mean I can automatically attribute it to an intelligent being who is so narcissistic as to destroy those who do not worship it.
It seems to me that many theists have a hard time with lack of understanding as if it's a flaw. Sometimes it can be, and we should try to recognize it for what it is. We can then either try to correct it, or we can accept it as an inevitable condition of our bounds of knowledge. Many theists seem like they can't accept it and then construct ultimate truths with which they shield themselves from the anxiety of unavoidable gaps in human understanding (hence we end up with a God of the gaps). Everything is then in order for them. There are no more gaps, and even if they don't fully understand, they can comfort themselves with a belief that higher power understands such things in their behalf.
Yeah, I'd love to know how life started. Sure, I can conjecture with some scenarios that seem plausible, but ultimately, I can offer nothing to write in a peer reviewed article in some journal. I'd also like to know what happened before the universe came into existence, although I'm told there was no "before" the universe. That one does actually bother me. From my limited experience, I just can't fully grasp no "before".
But lets say for the sake of argument that the theoretical physicists are wrong about there not being a "before", and there was something before. What would that be? Just more of the same, or maybe something beyond our current imagination? The possibilities would be phenomenally unlimited. Why must it be a god? And the real kicker is why the Christian god for that matter? The Christian god would be only one explanation out of a sea of possibilities. I suppose a god would be nice. Most of us are taught that from birth, so it's an easy explanation to latch onto. Easy, sure, but not logical. God becomes a necessary explanation for no other reason than we have closed ourselves off from all other possibilities.
Popular quantum mechanics understanding ... "sea of possibilities" would say that not only is anything possible, but that everything, including the Christian god, is actual, at least to some small percentage of the average reality.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
Popular quantum mechanics understanding ... "sea of possibilities" would say that not only is anything possible, but that everything, including the Christian god, is actual, at least to some small percentage of the average reality.
If infinity says that there could be a Christian deity, then it is just as likely that there are no deities of any sort.
Quote from: Munch on December 31, 2016, 05:43:47 AM
Urm, this goes without saying, but you know that mantis shrimp video is fake right? He threw a cube at the shrimp, which likely saw it as a threat, cuts way to its face, the back to a solved cube, put in later, and the punches it away in defense
Sure, just like any good magic trick!
This is fake too, but it's still fun to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SncapPrTusA
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
Popular quantum mechanics understanding ... "sea of possibilities" would say that not only is anything possible, but that everything, including the Christian god, is actual, at least to some small percentage of the average reality.
Yeah, it may be the case that anything that's at all possible is mandatory, somewhere in existence.
One implication of this would be that there's no such thing as fiction, since whatever story is told is
actual in some portion of the multiverse.
I don't know whether any part of existence could support what would be, in our universe, magic or the supernatural, like LOTR, etc., but I'm sure glad ours' doesn't - it would be too scary and unpredictable.
What, are you prejudiced against Orcs?
well; considering that many orcs are supposed to be the bodies of dead people possessed by the evil spirit of the evil dude; yes!!!
so if all fiction is reality somewhere in the multiverse does that mean that if we were able to break out of this dimention we would find a god or two somewhere in the multiverse???
Quote from: fencerider on January 06, 2017, 01:52:34 AM
well; considering that many orcs are supposed to be the bodies of dead people possessed by the evil spirit of the evil dude; yes!!!
so if all fiction is reality somewhere in the multiverse does that mean that if we were able to break out of this dimention we would find a god or two somewhere in the multiverse???
There is misunderstanding of "multiverse", but it is a useful rhetorical foil ;-) What happens, according to Feynman, is that there is only one reality, but that reality is made up of the averaging of an infinity (the multiverse) of sub-universes. We aren't really in one of an infinity of universes, because we don't exist in one of the sub-universes. If you know what an infinite series is, this isn't hard to understand. We are interested in the finite sum of the series, but less interested in each of the terms that make up the sum. In Quantum Field theory, there is a calculation of what is called a propagator, where individual terms are the famous Feynman diagrams. Propagators are much harder to calculate than the more familiar Taylor series, for calculate cosines for example.
Quote from: fencerider on January 06, 2017, 01:52:34 AM
so if all fiction is reality somewhere in the multiverse does that mean that if we were able to break out of this dimention we would find a god or two somewhere in the multiverse???
I don't know that anything outside the bounds of logic are possible anywhere in the multiverse. I suppose that different logic could apply elsewhere in the MV than what we have here, but I somehow doubt that. I expect logic, approximately as we understand it, rules everywhere and every-when. But that's just a guess.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 06, 2017, 02:32:27 PM
I don't know that anything outside the bounds of logic are possible anywhere in the multiverse. I suppose that different logic could apply elsewhere in the MV than what we have here, but I somehow doubt that. I expect logic, approximately as we understand it, rules everywhere and every-when. But that's just a guess.
You need to expand you mind, beyond Aristotle or Boole ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
Law of Excluded Middle doesn't apply in all cases, not even in most cases. In most cases we are dealing with complements, not true opposites. See Fuzzy Logic controlling transportation. See Multi-value logic controlling computer motherboards/CPU bus architecture. All of that is illegal according to Aristotle, but yet it works. Just like simple determinism doesn't work in physics, because most situations are chaotic, not toy systems.
mv1 baruch is a god
mv29 baruch is a pion
mvnext baruch is just baruch and
mv32 baruch is a god/man
that would be chaos if they all got together ...
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 12:35:00 AM
mv1 baruch is a god
mv29 baruch is a pion
mvnext baruch is just baruch and
mv32 baruch is a god/man
that would be chaos if they all got together ...
They are all correct, because as I mentioned immediately above ... they are not mutually exclusive. You are a demi-god too, we all are. But like Hephaestus, we are lame. Blame Hera. Hephaestus was to Hera what Jesus was to Mary. But notice in the original Greek, Jesus is called "teknon" ... this has many meanings. To the orthodox it means "child" and implies Jesus' sonship to G-d and Mary. But to Gnostics, it means demi-urgos ... aka the Logos of John. Hephaestus is also a maker. The classical cultural syncretism in the NT is very deep, and that isn't taught by the clergy.
In fact "I am what I am" ... and that can be taken that I am Popeye, or that I am the god of Moses ... and I am Moses ... as was Jesus and Muhammad. Desert gods, very dry but very serious.
In early Hinduism, we are both jiva and atman. Your atman is who you really are, jiva is who you appear to be. Some have the insight that all the atmans are images of the Brahman. In later Hinduism, in Krishna worship, as presented in the transfiguration of Krishna before Arjuna ... we are all young Krishna at play with the Gopis. There is nothing wrong with seeing divinity in babies or children ... or old men. The nativity is one of the most precious aspects of Christianity. But Hermes did it first. He stole the cattle of Apollo, shortly after he was born. Of course the notion of divinity is a paradox, because divinity brings both life and death, which the secular take for opposites. Theists understand them as complements.
Uh..... the absolute and complete lack of evidence of any god's existence.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on January 11, 2017, 08:46:18 PM
Uh..... the absolute and complete lack of evidence of any god's existence.
But notice zombies are real on the Internet ... this post started with a guy who was banned after one post.
I think that if the god of the Bible is real, there are going to be millions of people in hell and he won't have anyone to blame except himself. He is guilty of the crime of not being obvious enough.
It would be beneficial to have science good enough for time-travel. Then we could see for ourselves who actually wrote all of these religious documents. Then after having done that back the clock up a little bit so that we could compare what really happened with what was written. Maybe we would find that what was written was a gross exaggeration of a real event. Maybe all we would find was some guy sitting at a table smokin a cigar with a pad of paper.
I suppose that if we had the science to travel across the universe, we could go looking for gods.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
But notice zombies are real on the Internet ... this post started with a guy who was banned after one post.
there is evidence of zombies. Not movie or comic book zombies, but these kind of zombies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204140/
(http://static.hltv.org/images/galleries/9417-medium/1478866677.1944.jpeg)
The circle of life, hakuna mattata ... leaf cutter ants (same as carpenter ants?) are my favorite ant species ... army ants less so! Leaf cutter ants take the leaves back to the nest, to farm their own fungus, which they use to feed the colony (which of course is matriarchal). Amazing how complex life can be, for such a small creature. Social insects are the best (unless you don't like matriarchal communism). Bumble bees are Republicans ;-)
Quote from: Munch on January 14, 2017, 05:22:32 AM
there is evidence of zombies. Not movie or comic book zombies, but these kind of zombies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204140/
(http://static.hltv.org/images/galleries/9417-medium/1478866677.1944.jpeg)
I believe "The Last of Us" was based on the idea that this fungus evolves to infect humans.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 14, 2017, 11:49:21 AM
I believe "The Last of Us" was based on the idea that this fungus evolves to infect humans.
And if you try to tell people, they will just think it is Attack Of The Mushroom People (tied with Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes as one of the worst movies of all time). Nobody will believe you if you tell them that people are replicant pod people either.
I'll agree with fencerider here. If a deity exists, there is a fine line between obvious and oblivious.
Any deity could convince me right now easily...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:31:49 AM
I'll agree with fencerider here. If a deity exists, there is a fine line between obvious and oblivious.
Any deity could convince me right now easily...
Not an imaginary one.
Boom! Check and mate, atheist!
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:31:49 AM
Any deity could convince me right now easily...
And even though he could (and wants us to believe), he seems to leave the task up to his mortal minions, who can only fail because they are so ill equipped for the job. Nor does God provide his minions with the proper tools. Supporting evidence would help them greatly, but he won't give them any. It's almost like he isn't really there.
Don't get me wrong here. Just saying that any extant deity could and should make things pretty obvious.
Not using that as a disproof (who could fathom a deity?) but still, deliberate uncertainty seems a bit dim... If I were a deity, I would just place fiery letters in the sky every generation saying, "I'm here". In all languages, of course.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:31:49 AM
I'll agree with fencerider here. If a deity exists, there is a fine line between obvious and oblivious.
Any deity could convince me right now easily...
I am a demi-god, and I am talking to you ... does that count?
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 07:02:43 PM
I am a demi-god, and I am talking to you ... does that count?
You are hardly even a real mortal to me. Bow before Hunk-Ra!!!
No, you aren't a demi-god. Demi-god genes have been so diluted since the days of the ancient Greeks that the best you can hope for is a mild resistance to the common cold. And probably not even that. You might have the "counting to 10" gene. And not allergic to pineapples.
I'm a Toothfairian.. I actually got money for losing teeth as a youngster. There is a cut off date which is kind of arbitrary, but once you stop believing the cash flow stops..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 05, 2017, 02:15:25 PM
I'm a Toothfairian.. I actually got money for losing teeth as a youngster. There is a cut off date which is kind of arbitrary, but once you stop believing the cash flow stops..
Just like political bribery of politicians and voters.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 05, 2017, 02:15:25 PM
I'm a Toothfairian.. I actually got money for losing teeth as a youngster. There is a cut off date which is kind of arbitrary, but once you stop believing the cash flow stops..
Aren't there two kinds of toothfairianism? It is true that once I stopped believing, the money dried up. But once my child reached tooth losing time, I became one again. Until her belief dried up.
Why do atheists claim that the concept of god is so unlikely???
Here's a better question:
Why do theists claim that the concept of god is likely????
Do you got a big-Daddy complex? Do you get brownie points for getting other people involved? Are you scared to face your life with out a genie to get you out of trouble?
Quote from: fencerider on February 06, 2017, 11:41:45 PM
Why do atheists claim that the concept of god is so unlikely???
Here's a better question:
Why do theists claim that the concept of god is likely????
Do you got a big-Daddy complex? Do you get brownie points for getting other people involved? Are you scared to face your life with out a genie to get you out of trouble?
Religion is all psychology ... individual and social. Why do atheists deny psychology? Why do they have a hard-on for physics?
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2017, 06:36:41 AM
Religion is all psychology ... individual and social. Why do atheists deny psychology? Why do they have a hard-on for physics?
Ahem. *Holds up my Master of Arts in Psychology.*
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2017, 06:36:41 AM
Religion is all psychology ... individual and social. Why do atheists deny psychology? Why do they have a hard-on for physics?
Why is Santa white??? Why is the Tooth Fairy female??? Why is Rumpelstiltskin rumpled???
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 07, 2017, 10:58:02 AM
Ahem. *Holds up my Master of Arts in Psychology.*
If you got it, use it, don't flaunt it ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 07, 2017, 11:04:22 AM
Why is Santa white??? Why is the Tooth Fairy female??? Why is Rumpelstiltskin rumpled???
Fiction doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from people's imaginations, their mind. Ask authors why they write what they do ... ask yourself that question ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2017, 06:45:06 PM
Fiction doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from people's imaginations, their mind. Ask authors why they write what they do ... ask yourself that question ;-)
You are correct (write even)--I've asked that question of each and every author of the books of the bible (even if we don't know who wrote them) and of the Joel Osteens of this world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 07, 2017, 08:03:20 PM
You are correct (write even)--I've asked that question of each and every author of the books of the bible (even if we don't know who wrote them) and of the Joel Osteens of this world.
I can cross-examine you (very appropriate with Christianity) and you can cross-examine Olsteen (if he will respond). The authors of ancient books, not so much. Not worth the papyrus they are scribbled on .. unless you just like old books, which I do.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2017, 06:45:06 PM
Fiction doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from people's imaginations, their mind. Ask authors why they write what they do ... ask yourself that question ;-)
It is still fiction...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 06:50:50 AM
It is still fiction...
Don't dismiss your mind ... or are you Christian? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2017, 06:45:06 PM
Fiction doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from people's imaginations
Dumbledorf "When we dream we enter a world that is all our own"...
Quote from: fencerider on February 11, 2017, 12:06:18 PM
Dumbledorf "When we dream we enter a world that is all our own"...
Consciousness is daydreaming, but with more pragmatics than night-dreaming. Dreaming is all we have.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:54:50 AM
Don't dismiss your mind ... or are you Christian? ;-)
No he's a cave bear. Can't you read user names?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 12:15:46 PM
Dreaming is all we have.
All I have to do is dre-e-eam... I'm dreamin my life away.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2017, 02:30:04 PM
No he's a cave bear. Can't you read user names?
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Yes, and Cave Bears are very atheistic...
Quote from: Yadayadayada on December 28, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
You claim magic happens?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 15, 2017, 08:47:45 AM
You claim magic happens?
They do, relentlessly and without evidence. Nothing seems to stop them.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 02:27:47 AM
They do, relentlessly and without evidence. Nothing seems to stop them.
Nor their deliberate miscasting of the general atheist position. It's not "god probably doesn't exist". It's "there's no evidence to support belief in the existence of a divine figure of any sort".
Well, they can't argue in support of their position, so they have to mischaracterize the position of atheists in order to fool themselves and/or their flocks.
Quote from: trdsf on February 17, 2017, 05:00:53 PM
Nor their deliberate miscasting of the general atheist position. It's not "god probably doesn't exist". It's "there's no evidence to support belief in the existence of a divine figure of any sort".
Yes, the proper demand is that theists should prove their claim, not others to disprove it. This logical fallacy is routine among people who don't understand logical thinking.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
Popular quantum mechanics understanding ... "sea of possibilities" would say that not only is anything possible, but that everything, including the Christian god, is actual, at least to some small percentage of the average reality.
Assuming something like a god is actually a finite possibility. (Which it isn't, in much the same way you can't have a triangle with one side longer than the sum of the other two.)
Quote from: Jason78 on February 19, 2017, 08:39:47 AM
Assuming something like a god is actually a finite possibility. (Which it isn't, in much the same way you can't have a triangle with one side longer than the sum of the other two.)
Expand your mind to include non-Euclidean geometry. Where triangles can have less than or more than a sum of 180 degrees. Similarly with topology, where distance is strictly optional.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 08:52:27 AM
Expand your mind to include non-Euclidean geometry.
So now we're up to spherical geometry and maybe orbital mechanics. Little bit more math involved, but no closer to
Quote from: trdsf on February 17, 2017, 05:00:53 PM
evidence to support belief in the existence of a divine figure
The thing about fiction is that it is easily distinguishable from reality, at least to those who think critically and use reason.
Religion is fiction in the sense that it does not represent reality; rather, it represents the fantasy and the all too common impetuousness of needing a readily available answer to the question of life no matter how absurd, unrealistic, and fantastical the answer is.
God is not an answer so much as he is a spoiled child's unwillingness for learning.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
Popular quantum mechanics understanding ... "sea of possibilities" would say that not only is anything possible, but that everything, including the Christian god, is actual, at least to some small percentage of the average reality.
Not having the education of your level, I might agree that given infinity, a "sea of possibilities" presents that anything indeed is possible, perhaps even a "god". But if the argument is that outside of the sea of possibilities exist a thing whose existence denies all probability that makes things to such an extant that all possibilities are probable... is perhaps...a stretch.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 04:09:57 PM
The thing about fiction is that it is easily distinguishable from reality, at least to those who think critically and use reason.
Religion is fiction in the sense that it does not represent reality; rather, it represents the fantasy and the all too common impetuousness of needing a readily available answer to the question of life no matter how absurd, unrealistic, and fantastical the answer is.
God is not an answer so much as he is a spoiled child's unwillingness for learning.
You and I don't exist, we are both fictions ... dramatic characters made up ad-hoc. All life is a stage ...
But I agree, some fiction is childish ... Teletubbies anyone?
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 03:47:01 PM
So now we're up to spherical geometry and maybe orbital mechanics. Little bit more math involved, but no closer to
Not my point ... just poking holes in a bad metaphor.
Quote from: Jason78 on February 19, 2017, 08:39:47 AM
Assuming something like a god is actually a finite possibility. (Which it isn't, in much the same way you can't have a triangle with one side longer than the sum of the other two.)
A finite possibility exists for all ideas. There is a finite possibility there are unicorns in my backyard as I type this. But finite does not mean anything approaches "likely" or even "plausible". I can safely state that there are not unicorns in my backyard without much concern.
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 03:47:01 PM
So now we're up to spherical geometry and maybe orbital mechanics. Little bit more math involved, but no closer to
Baruch "not my point"sarcasm Baruch, sarcasm
Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 02:57:01 AM
Baruch "not my point"
sarcasm Baruch, sarcasm
If you want Baruch to understand sarcasm, you need to add ";-)".
You really ought to read the instructions manual in dealing with him.
Oh, wait.
;-)
There we go.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 21, 2017, 03:02:28 AM
If you want Baruch to understand sarcasm, you need to add ";-)".
You really ought to read the instructions manual in dealing with him.
Oh, wait.
;-)
There we go.
Italic smiley? Denying you are Italian again? ;-)) But don't bold smilies ... that is shouting.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 04:09:57 PM
God is not an answer so much as he is a spoiled child's unwillingness for learning.
Often when people come up with
an answer they like, they stop looking for
the answer that's
the right answer...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 04:58:40 PM
Often when people come up with an answer they like, they stop looking for the answer that's the right answer...
Yes, and the easiest answer for too many people is that there is some sort of deity managing everything. There is no evidence of that; logic suggests that believe itself is not a basis for truth.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:54:41 AM
Yes, and the easiest answer for too many people is that there is some sort of deity managing everything. There is no evidence of that; logic suggests that believe itself is not a basis for truth.
Belief is not a basis for tautology nor for fact. Truth isn't fact or tautology. But we newspeak. I am truthful by being honest, not by being factually right, nor by quoting mathematics. People will integrity are honest, so integrity lies at the root of truth ... there is no truth without people, it doesn't lie in Plato's universe.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 05:58:13 AM
Belief is not a basis for tautology nor for fact. Truth isn't fact or tautology. But we newspeak. I am truthful by being honest, not by being factually right, nor by quoting mathematics. People will integrity are honest, so integrity lies at the root of truth ... there is no truth without people, it doesn't lie in Plato's universe.
You "newspeak". I do not. You are a trivialist attempting to be a comedian. Must I break down your sentences phrase by phrase? I can. Its not worth the effort.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 11:02:43 AM
You "newspeak". I do not. You are a trivialist attempting to be a comedian. Must I break down your sentences phrase by phrase? I can. Its not worth the effort.
Your loss. If you aren't still growing (at any age) then you are shrinking.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:24:08 PM
Your loss. If you aren't still growing (at any age) then you are shrinking.
From science, to nature, to understanding of history, to botany and biology, I am learning every day. You show no signs of doing that.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:12:59 AM
From science, to nature, to understanding of history, to botany and biology, I am learning every day. You show no signs of doing that.
I maxed out 5 years ago, and then just kept on going up ... by escape velocity. When I reach orbit, I won't have Internet anymore.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:24:53 PM
I maxed out 5 years ago, and then just kept on going up ... by escape velocity. When I reach orbit, I won't have Internet anymore.
This is your max? This is my relaxation...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:49:30 PM
This is your max? This is my relaxation...
There are still some days of Winter left ... back to the cave!