Page 63 of 63 FirstFirst ... 1353616263
Results 621 to 628 of 628

Thread: If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

  1. Top | #621
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    19,450
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,950
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Not neccessarily. Like people finding they know there's something fishy going on at moogly's but they just don't know what it is.
    'Fishy' still requires a comparison to 'normal.' How would you compare the directed universe you believe we are in to an undirected universe? ACTUAL universes, not just a bare assumption 'without god nothing would be here.' Show how two universes compare.
    If the universe just happened, then it could not have happened 'wrong,' so there's no actual point to being impressed that it turned out 'right.'

    It just turned out. Full stop. No + or -.
    Valid point.. to the suggestion... you're not making that claim (in bold).
    That is the claim.
    The observed interactions between matter and energy appear to be sufficient to explain the universe we observe eithout needing an appeal to a general operations director.

  2. Top | #622
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    19,450
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,950
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Ok then... how about "what are the odds?"
    But Learner, the question is meaningless in this context.
    If mankind's development was directed, then whether it took a billion years or six days, the odds are 1:1.

    If mankind is the undirected result of evolutionary processes, with no external goal, then there is no ratio.


    Maybe more simply. I roll two dice. I get a 13. What are the odds?

  3. Top | #623
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,760
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,799
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Yes they do, but this rule only applies to things that are not magical. You'd think that magical things like gods and souls and spirits must be awfully complex, more complex that our little world anyway. But our little world needs magic to make it work because it's too complex to work without magic.

    I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

    I'd say to the question... things are too complex to be continously "lucky." Creationsists don't rule out evolution (small g, small-scale ) entirely.
    But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

  4. Top | #624
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,774
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,720
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Yes they do, but this rule only applies to things that are not magical. You'd think that magical things like gods and souls and spirits must be awfully complex, more complex that our little world anyway. But our little world needs magic to make it work because it's too complex to work without magic.

    I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

    I'd say to the question... things are too complex to be continously "lucky." Creationsists don't rule out evolution (small g, small-scale ) entirely.
    But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.
    I wonder how much thought goes into mind/spirit/soul? They're told these spiritual entities last forever for not being material. But is there no mechanism there to describe (in their conception of souls)?

    It would be interesting if they chose to look more closely at that. Some folk did, in eastern cultures, and by close observation they noticed that "self" and "mind" are as subject to change as everything. So some of them chucked the idea of everlasting souls.

    Christianity doesn't share the same introspective questioning that'd help them notice that selves ("souls") change. And so the notion that souls are not subject to time for lacking a material mechanism remains unquestioned. They really should think it through. If spiritual beings have thoughts/will/intention, then how come that complexity doesn't strike them as unlikely (or "lucky" as Learner puts it)? What's the theory of origins of spirits? What's the explanation for how they got so complex?

    If no explanation then how is that not an appeal to magic? And how does that not trigger an incredulous response?

  5. Top | #625
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Ohio, U.S.
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    They really should think it through.
    [Car Mechanic voice] "Well there's your problem, right there."

  6. Top | #626
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    10,193
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    19,233
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Ok then... how about "what are the odds?" Of course there's no precised number reference to scale the enormity but in context to a phrase often expressed like " How lucky we are to be here" etc. I thought you'd sort of agree here at least.
    What you don’t understand about evolution is that this question, “what are the odds” is like imagining a ball at a top of a hill and wondering, “what are the odds” that it ends up at the bottom. Well, pretty high.

    What you clearly do not understand about evolution is that the odds favor the most robust example. In a population, a mutation that increases survival rate to reproductive age by a mere 5% will take over a population in something like 20 generations. Becoming the new normal.

    Creationists are not able to understand this. They think it’s random. Chance. “Lucky.” And it totally isn’t.

    The more brightly colored a poisonous thing is, the better it influences the gene pool. The faster a thing can react, the better it influences the gene pool. Split a population in half, and isolate them from inerbreeding, and a mutation may happen in one population, but not in the other. Leading to speciation.

    Just do math. It is not random.



    This makes no sense at all. If there is evolution then there is evolution, so over extremely long time scales an extreme diversity of life that nicely fits its environmental niches will be the result.
    Saying it with umost faith and not actually seeing it (without ANY fossilsed transitional-inbetweens at all, for example)
    I’m sorry you have such a hard time understanding evidence. That must be very frustrating.
    But real critical thinkers can see how this got to that.

    Hey, tell you what. Go look at the thread in the Media and Culture forum called “the Follow On Word Game”. It starts with a two word phrase. Someone takes the second word and in their head they use it as the first word in a new two-word phrase. Then they take that phrase, use the second word, make a subsequent two-word phrase and post that. They DO NOT post the intermediate variation. With the utmost FAITH and not actually seeing it you can infer what the intermediate phrase is, and it can be funny.

    Some people aren’t able to mke the inference and so it appears utterly random. But it’s not.

  7. Top | #627
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,760
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,799
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post

    What you don’t understand about evolution is that this question, “what are the odds” is like imagining a ball at a top of a hill and wondering, “what are the odds” that it ends up at the bottom. Well, pretty high.

    What you clearly do not understand about evolution is that the odds favor the most robust example. In a population, a mutation that increases survival rate to reproductive age by a mere 5% will take over a population in something like 20 generations. Becoming the new normal.

    Creationists are not able to understand this. They think it’s random. Chance. “Lucky.” And it totally isn’t.

    The more brightly colored a poisonous thing is, the better it influences the gene pool. The faster a thing can react, the better it influences the gene pool. Split a population in half, and isolate them from inerbreeding, and a mutation may happen in one population, but not in the other. Leading to speciation.

    Just do math. It is not random.




    Saying it with umost faith and not actually seeing it (without ANY fossilsed transitional-inbetweens at all, for example)
    I’m sorry you have such a hard time understanding evidence. That must be very frustrating.
    But real critical thinkers can see how this got to that.

    Hey, tell you what. Go look at the thread in the Media and Culture forum called “the Follow On Word Game”. It starts with a two word phrase. Someone takes the second word and in their head they use it as the first word in a new two-word phrase. Then they take that phrase, use the second word, make a subsequent two-word phrase and post that. They DO NOT post the intermediate variation. With the utmost FAITH and not actually seeing it you can infer what the intermediate phrase is, and it can be funny.

    Some people aren’t able to mke the inference and so it appears utterly random. But it’s not.
    Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every organism is a transitional organism. Sameness is a myth. Organisms are only similar to one another in the traits they share. Lots of vestigial structures in organisms to demonstrate speciation and change over time, if one needs to see transitional characteristics. I challenge anyone to find any two identical organisms, or even identical parts of two organisms.

    The problem is that creationists are not scientifically educated and do not look for evidence. They are very poor observers who only seek confirmation bias, much of that is hardwired. If they do find something that contradicts their bias they spin some form of woo to explain it away, which only accentuates their bias and ignorance.

  8. Top | #628
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    4,506
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    7,417
    Rep Power
    45
    I like the ball on a hill analogy, but also, balance it at the top, and wait. Where will it fall? Who knows. It will fall down and end up somewhere in the down. He marvel's "how could we ever end up in this down, of all that other down? Clearly we didn't come down, and were placed!" And we say "it was going to end up in a down. We tracked the path it took. This is how down works."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •