[Zaki]

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Invocation of quantum effects that are useful and denial of ones that aren't isn't really a cogent argument. If you want to make quantum physics a macro-phenomenon then you have to take it in its entirity, including all the bits that make it fundamentally uncertain and as destructive as creative.

I'm not sure which bits of quantum theory you think I'm leaving out. But also have you not noticed that intelligent beings can be both creative and destructive - and do not always act intelligently but can be arbitrary sometimes? That is the nature of free will. Inertia matter is utterly incapable of any of that - and is completely predictable; at least in principle.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Facticity)
What? Judging from everything you have said so far, none of your arguments stretch outside of the fallacies involved in teleological (intelligent and purposeful design)/cosmological, line of reasoning. No presumption was made, its right in front of me. And there was certainly no blindfolding of my consciousness.

I note you have no actual logical argument to present here to back your claims up.

[Zaki]

(Original post by mmmpie)
So, you made it up at random and now you claim it's self-evident rather than attempting to justify yourself. Good GUESSING there......

Whatever are you on about? What am I supposed to have made up - the FACT that the Universe Exists?

[Facticity]

(Original post by Zaki)
I note you have no actual logical argument to present here to back your claims up.

Which claims? I haven't claimed anything of note. If you are referring to your comments, just scroll up and you can see where you have used these arguments.

As for their fallacious nature, anyone with basic understanding of these arguments will also know they are heavily flawed.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Facticity)
Which claims? I haven't claimed anything of note. If you are referring to your comments, just scroll up and you can see where you have used these arguments.

As for their fallacious nature, anyone with basic understanding of these arguments will also know they are heavily flawed.

Nothing LOGICAL to present then, eh?

[Facticity]

(Original post by Zaki)
Nothing LOGICAL to present then, eh?

Logical about WHAT? WHAT is it you want logical argument for? TELL ME.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Facticity)
Logical about WHAT? WHAT is it you want logical argument for? TELL ME.

To be able to make your criticism of something have real value, you need to present clear LOGICAL arguments exposing its flaws - not just blank assertions that it is flawed, don't you agree? You've criticised my arguments - but where are YOUR logical arguments to buttress your position? That's my point.

[Facticity]

(Original post by Zaki)
To be able to make your criticism of something have real value, you need to present clear LOGICAL arguments exposing its flaws - not just blank assertions that it is flawed, don't you agree? You've criticised my arguments - but where are YOUR logical arguments to buttress your position? That's my point.

You haven't answered what I asked. I asked, what argument you want me to expose. All I said is that you used the teleological and cosmological arguments which are voraciously known to be flawed. If you are, in all honesty, asking me to show you how they are flawed, then I don't think I want to have such a discussion. I don't think you have a very good understanding of what logic is, let alone how it works. This is the evolution thread anyway, not a place for proof of God arguments

Please don't ask me to logically prove that. If you knew anything about logic, you'd understand such a question is, by nature, illogical.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Zaki)
I don't see how the history of the life of one man - or even several - is reliable evidence that a particular theory is true or false. It is your prerogative to choose whatever path you wish in life - and accept the inevitable consequences that unavoidably follow also.

I am not using the the history of Darwin and Wallace as evidence of their theories. You stated that Darwin's atheism was a result of grief and that his faith was lost because of his own weak-mindedness and implied that mainline atheism is a derivative of this. I was using Wallace's story as a contradiction to your beliefs. I brought Darwin's story into the mix as you were implying that atheistic evolutionists believe there is no God without a doubt, and you included Darwin is this category. So I felt it necessary to display how he didn't want to draw absolutes over the existence of a supreme being.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I am not using the the history of Darwin and Wallace as evidence of their theories. You stated that Darwin's atheism was a result of grief and that his faith was lost because of his own weak-mindedness and implied that mainline atheism is a derivative of this. I was using Wallace's story as a contradiction to your beliefs. I brought Darwin's story into the mix as you were implying that atheistic evolutionists believe there is no God without a doubt, and you included Darwin is this category. So I felt it necessary to display how he didn't want to draw absolutes over the existence of a supreme being.

Actually, I believe it was you who claimed that Darwin became atheist because he looked at the evidence soberly. That wasn't the case.

I didn't say that people came to Atheism in just one way. Darwin came to it via one path. There are other paths. I don't know enough about Wallace to be able to perform a proper analysis, but people who are not privileged can also become atheist - in some cases because they feel that if there is a God He'd be looking after them better.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Facticity)
You haven't answered what I asked. I asked, what argument you want me to expose. All I said is that you used the teleological and cosmological arguments which are voraciously known to be flawed. If you are, in all honesty, asking me to show you how they are flawed, then I don't think I want to have such a discussion. I don't think you have a very good understanding of what logic is, let alone how it works. This is the evolution thread anyway, not a place for proof of God arguments

Please don't ask me to logically prove that. If you knew anything about logic, you'd understand such a question is, by nature, illogical.

Expressions like "...known to be flawed....", for instance, don't tell us anything unless you can say what it is that makes such arguments "flawed". That's my point.

[Pangol]

(Original post by Zaki)
Inertia matter is [...] completely predictable[/I][/B]; at least in principle.

This just tells me that you don't understand quantum theory at all. The idea that the universe runs like clockwork - wind it up and it works out totally predictably - is one of the things that quantum theory tells us is not so.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Pangol)
This just tells me that you don't understand quantum theory at all. The idea that the universe runs like clockwork - wind it up and it works out totally predictably - is one of the things that quantum theory tells us is not so.

I don't believe I've stated that the universe works like clockwork. On the contrary! What I've said is that what is responsible for the spontaneity in the universe has NOTHING to do with inertia/mass. Is this not so?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Zaki)
I don't believe I've stated that the universe works like clockwork. On the contrary! What I've said is that what is responsible for the spontaneity in the universe has NOTHING to do with inertia/mass. Is this not so?

What you have asserted is that every non-deterministic phenomenon is the product of intelligence.

Unfortunately the sum of all human knowledge and reason thus far disagrees with you. We've invited you repeatedly to justify, or failing that to explain coherently, your philosophy. People have even attempted to help you to do so.

I think it's long past time we all wrote you off as a troll and stopped responding.

[TOMwelcomesYOU]

The reason life nowadas has the need to survive is because the ones with the genetic build that made them want to survived were the only ones who survived. No one can really be a full Athiest, because you can't disprove something that your not capable of seeing, hearing etc In the same way there could be flying invisible, silent unicorns everywhere. The evidence for evolution is undeniable, Italian Wall lizards (Lacerta Sicula) where moved to a new island in the mediterrenian a few decades back, they were forced to survive on more fatty insects, with harder exoskeletons. Now they are basically a new species, they have heart valves, ellongated jaws and many more new features, just open your eyes and look at the evidence.

[Zaki]

(Original post by mmmpie)


What you have asserted is that every non-deterministic phenomenon is the product of intelligence.

Unfortunately the sum of all human knowledge and reason thus far disagrees with you. We've invited you repeatedly to justify, or failing that to explain coherently, your philosophy. People have even attempted to help you to do so.

I think it's long past time we all wrote you off as a troll and stopped responding.

As you wish. I'm happy that my arguments speak well enough for themselves to impress an impartial appraisal of them. It is up to people to decide - individually - what they wish to make of them. For my part, I'm indifferent as to whether they agree with me or not.

[Zaki]

(Original post by TOMwelcomesYOU)
The reason life nowadas has the need to survive is because the ones with the genetic build that made them want to survived were the only ones who survived. No one can really be a full Athiest, because you can't disprove something that your not capable of seeing, hearing etc In the same way there could be flying invisible, silent unicorns everywhere. The evidence for evolution is undeniable, Italian Wall lizards (Lacerta Sicula) where moved to a new island in the mediterrenian a few decades back, they were forced to survive on more fatty insects, with harder exoskeletons. Now they are basically a new species, they have heart valves, ellongated jaws and many more new features, just open your eyes and look at the evidence.

It is not whether things change that's the problem - it's WHAT makes them change that's the issue.

[kly45]

(Original post by Zaki)
Actually, under rigorous testing his theory falls apart - which is why it was replaced with the Synthetic Theory - which is also falling apart because of the vestiges of Darwinism that it clings to.

I'm glad the claim is now no longer being asserted that Darwin became an atheist because sober scientific evidecnce compelled him to it. It was nothing of the sort.

Newton's belief in Alchemy has actualy been vindicated by nuclear physics. He just lacked the tools in his day to demonstrate that he was right.

Atheists cannot say they are compelled by any evidence to deny the existence of God - for there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE! At best, lack of evidence can bring one to agnosticism - NOT denial of the Existence of God. Those who nevertheless persist in such a denial do it despite a complete lack of supporting evidence! That is a matter for them - for which they will also have to bear full personal responsibility!

Actually I was never asserting that Darwin's theory of natural selection was correct and that it is still used today, technically you were doing that by calling people "darwinists". I was making the point, that it doesn't matter what a scientist's opinion, no matter how biased is, we follow their discoveries and evidence. Scientists can be biased, science is not.

But the parts we keep are testable and don't indicate any further "force". The "force" is the need animals have for hunger and survival. That survival instinct came from the common ancestors that had the random mutations to want to survive, hence they survived more often and reproduced more often.

Technically some of Darwin's atheism was a result of his findings.


Most people claim to be atheists because they have no good reason to belief in something without proof (we belief stuff because of proof, not because there is a lack of it).

Agnosticism regards knowledge
Atheism regards belief

Only an Gnostic Atheist asserts there is no God.

----------------------------------

(Original post by Zaki)
Well, it is just blankly asserted that animals "evolve over time" with absolutely NO REASON given for these "random mutations" - and every attempt by others to supply one is vehemently resisted. Is this not so?

No. Are you kidding me? Blankly asserted? You don't understand the theory.

The reason they evolve over time is because dna replicates with random mutations. If you're going to go further, i'll just say that dna cannot replicate itself perfectly. Why? That's just how dna replicates. There's no need for a further explanation.

-------------------------

(Original post by Zaki)
a. I don't think you actually understand what "begging the question" means. Here is how it is described in wiki:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

So, pray tell, how is one begging the question by asking the question of how random mutations arise in the first place?

b. What evolution explains is why animals change into the forms they do from different ones - NOT why they change at all, much less why they arose.

Haha is that your attempt at an insult? Please, save yourself any embarrassment and speak to me like a person, and don't act like a troll. Furthermore, I am an honours student of philosophy, I am well aware of what begging the question is, I don't think you're grasping the overall picture that i'm piecing together from your comments.

I'm saying that evolution theory is adequate enough to explain life.

You are saying it isn't adequate enough so:

P1 Evolution theory is not adequate enough by itself to explain life and requires a further "force".

P2 This "force" is God.

P3 Given P1 and P2, for evolution to exist, god must also exist.

P4 Evolution exists

C Hence God Exists


It's begging the question because the conclusion that God exists relies specifically on premises 1 and 2, which themselves, rely on God existing.
Simply put it's like saying: God exists because evolution happens, evolution happens because God exists.

If you think i've misrepresented your point then let me know, this is the argument you have suggested from the comments I have seen.


(b) - It seems to me as if you don't understand evolution - I don't mean that as an insult, it's sometimes hard to grasp.

Evolution theory is supposed to explain the mechanics of how evolution happens and why animals change.

Animals change because dna replicates tiny "mistakes" (in other words, it cannot replicate perfectly). Replication after replication of mistakes ad nauseum you will find a very different generation to one one million years before.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, this is a common mistake people make.

It is only supposed to explain how evolution works not how life began. Much like how the big bang ONLY explains the event known as the big bang, and not what was before it.

-------------------------

(Original post by Zaki)
So what? Unless they're able to logically fault my arguments they would merely be expressing personal opinions - which aren't worth very much, are they?

You were stating it as though the facts lead to your conclusion which were obvious. I was merely pointing out that it's your interpretation of the facts that lead to you conclusion.

[kly45]

(Original post by Zaki)
Oh brother! There is only Supreme Reality or subordinate reality. An illusion, for instance, is subordinate to the thing that generates it. It cannot exist without this thing. But its generator can exist without the illusion.

Supreme Reality Exists of necessity. It is how Existence REALLY IS - whether we perceive It or not. Subordinate realities are subsequent effects of Supreme Reality Everything that exists belongs to either Supreme Reality or a subordinate reality. In either situation, Supreme Reality necessarily Exists. Hope that helps.

So are you saying that what we experience just now is subordinate reality and that God or "the Force" or whatever exists in supreme reality. And that our reality is some sort of distortion of the supreme reality?

[kly45]

(Original post by Zaki)
Does it JUST HAPPEN - or is it driven by something? If the latter, then that's the more interesting subject of study, isn't it. I always prefer to deal with the organ grinder - not his monkeys.

Whatever the answer is to the latter, you won't be happy with it. So why bother answering? It's like when a child constantly asks "why"?

Not to say that you are a child or unintelligent, what I mean is that, you won't accept an answer that doesn't account for a special God force.