Darwin vs DNA

[ecks_why]

...
No one have ever demonstrated the existence of god, neither with logical argument or evidence
....

i'm guessing you haven't read much philosophy about "prime mover" ?

about 2400 years ago, the bright philosopher Aristotle decided - yes, there is a god, and used his smarts & reasoning ability to describe how he came to that conclusion

http://google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=philosophy+prime+mover

basically - everything humans have ever seen on planet earth & space for all of history has some kind of "cause effect" relationship. examples - steam bubbling up from water is the effect, the cause is heat applied, effect sun rising in the east, cause earth rotates around the sun, effect females get pregnant after sex with males, cause little spermules etc. keep peeling back layer after layer after layer, there is always some cause/effect, science as of 2012 has in no way gotten to the bottom/inner core of these encapsulated cause/effect layers

so looking at time & space in their entirety, clearly these things exist, but how & who created them ? have time & space existed for all eternity ? entropy says energy is decreasing blah blah blah

whatever, so to me the arguments for a "prime mover" or "god force" are fairly straightforward. the choice is either some kind of "god force" started the universe, or LOLOL the universe kind of runs itself

this is just the "god" part, connecting this self-evident proof of god to a specific religion is much more difficult. i'm quite the skeptic for miracles being written down on paper as proof, but REST ASSURED if i was personally there to witness this magic then for sure i would be convinced of that persons power & would listen closely to what they said

then science fiction enters the picture as quote from somewhere, "any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from magic". it really is possible that aliens landed on earth a lonnnnnng time ago, convinced the pre-humans back then of their special powers, and so another cargo cult begins...

on the other hand, all of us presumably will be dead someday & many religions claim that after death the final proof will be delivered to each of us personally. sadly they also claim that to receive the benefits of that religion we must believe & act on those beliefs BEFORE we die. and yes, this does seem the perfect setup for a scam...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any one with a degree has read plenty of philosophy on First Cause, Prime Mover, so forth and so on.

It is talk, limited by man's inability to grasp every nuance. For instance, "Can God create something S/he can't pick up", and someone thinks they have said something significant.

It merely demonstrates their inability to express the infinite in a finite language.

So, ecks__Y, no one is really impressed with a degree in philosophy.

 

[LOki]

Loki, tsk tsk, grow up, OK.

You are entitled to your belief and faith, like we all are.

Just don't think you can prove it.

Grow up? WTF?

What "faith" could you possibly be talking about?

Who (but you) said anything about "proving" something?

Why is it that you so obtusely refuse to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to, and you can't disprove it.

Move along, son. Nothing here for you.

 

[ecks_why]

Any one with a degree has read plenty of philosophy on First Cause, Prime Mover, so forth and so on.

It is talk, limited by man's inability to grasp every nuance. For instance, "Can God create something S/he can't pick up", and someone thinks they have said something significant.

It merely demonstrates their inability to express the infinite in a finite language.

So, ecks__Y, no one is really impressed with a degree in philosophy.

well no, i have 2 degrees in computer science, went to engineering college and actually very few people there had any time to read philosophy (too busy with math etc) and yes, generally we weren't very impressed with philosopher types back then except after a few beers...

as for the rest of your rebuttal, i disagree with your assertion that accurate peer reviewed brain power reasoning is "just talk", unless of course your posts are "just typing" without being connected to any coherent logical concepts in reality ?

blah blah blah, i just wanted to jump into this thread to get a few more posts over 50 so i can send PMs thx

 

[newpolitics]

I don't have to prove it.

You can't disprove it.

That's the fun of the Constitution, we both get to believe how we want, and no one dare make afraid.

Yes, you do. You are asserting that something exists. I don't have to disprove it. That is not my job, just as it is not the job of the defense to prove someone's innocence in order for them to be set free.

 

[CandySlice]

See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee.

The "Man of God" is a heresy practiced in several churches, apparently believed by The Irish Ram as well. God will choose and know His own, and the Man of God will have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but will you know God?
Emanuel is the only thing it has to do with. You cannot remove sin without Emanuel, and sin does not enter Heaven. Period.

God knows every one of us. The ones guaranteed a seat at His table are the ones that Know Him, not the other way around.

So tell us, Jake. What does God's voice sound like???

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have every right to think that, reply here, and demonstrate tht you know nothing about the concept of God. That's fine. More power to you.

Any one with a degree has read plenty of philosophy on First Cause, Prime Mover, so forth and so on.

It is talk, limited by man's inability to grasp every nuance. For instance, "Can God create something S/he can't pick up", and someone thinks they have said something significant.

It merely demonstrates their inability to express the infinite in a finite language.

So, ecks__Y, no one is really impressed with a degree in philosophy.

well no, i have 2 degrees in computer science, went to engineering college and actually very few people there had any time to read philosophy (too busy with math etc) and yes, generally we weren't very impressed with philosopher types back then except after a few beers...

as for the rest of your rebuttal, i disagree with your assertion that accurate peer reviewed brain power reasoning is "just talk", unless of course your posts are "just typing" without being connected to any coherent logical concepts in reality ?

blah blah blah, i just wanted to jump into this thread to get a few more posts over 50 so i can send PMs thx

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

I don't have to prove it.

You can't disprove it.

That's the fun of the Constitution, we both get to believe how we want, and no one dare make afraid.

Yes, you do. You are asserting that something exists. I don't have to disprove it. That is not my job, just as it is not the job of the defense to prove someone's innocence in order for them to be set free.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The sound of the voice of God? You will know when your time comes, The Irish Ram, you will surely know His voice.

 

[CandySlice]

The sound of the voice of God? You will know when your time comes, The Irish Ram, you will surely know His voice.

Okay I get it. In other words, you've never heard it so you don't know. I wish I'd had some money on that evasion you just submitted. I'd have cleaned up.

 

[LOki]

I don't have to, ...

I didn't say you had to, I just asked --nicely, BTW--if you would.

... and you can't disprove it.

Who said anything about "disprove" ... besides YOU, of course.

Just don't run off thinking you've ...heh..."thwarted" me because I can't "disprove" your superstition.

You see JakeStarkey, in the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

The reason there's no reasonable argument against the "God" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created by some magical "God" thing. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contigent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things. The actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence, are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

Here's something you should know though; I wouldn't "disprove" your dopey superstition even if I had irrefutable proof it was nothing but an utter fiction. You see JakeStarkey, faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holder's persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the smug denial of verifable evidence and valid logic. It is anti-rational.

This is why the superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards, but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

I just wouldn't give you the smug satifaction ... as utterly retarded as it would be.

Beliefs consistent with reality; that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality.

That's what I take away from every single discussion I have with you asshats.

Move along, son. Nothing here for you.

No. Indeed not.

Since, you know, I'm betting you're one of the anti-rational, superstitious retards with a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of your "God," and simply lack the intellectual courage of honesty to admit it's so.

You see JakeStarkey, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do you explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the shameless dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.

And they deserve it.

So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?

I ask, because I have absolutely no faith at all that you will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You will know when your time comes as well.

The sound of the voice of God? You will know when your time comes, The Irish Ram, you will surely know His voice.

Okay I get it. In other words, you've never heard it so you don't know. I wish I'd had some money on that evasion you just submitted. I'd have cleaned up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for displaying in so many words that you can't disprove the existence of God.

It is nice that you asked nice.

I don't have to prove that God exists to claim it.

The point is that the Creationist, the IDer, the believer, and the non-believer cannot prove their respective points on it, because empirical data fails on the issue and language, our frame of intellectual reference, cannot even poorly frame the issue. You demonstrated that just now.

It is what it is.

I don't have to, ...

I didn't say you had to, I just asked --nicely, BTW--if you would.

... and you can't disprove it.

Who said anything about "disprove" ... besides YOU, of course.

Just don't run off thinking you've ...heh..."thwarted" me because I can't "disprove" your superstition.

You see JakeStarkey, in the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

The reason there's no reasonable argument against the "God" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created by some magical "God" thing. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contigent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things. The actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence, are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

Here's something you should know though; I wouldn't "disprove" your dopey superstition even if I had irrefutable proof it was nothing but an utter fiction. You see JakeStarkey, faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holder's persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the smug denial of verifable evidence and valid logic. It is anti-rational.

This is why the superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards, but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

I just wouldn't give you the smug satifaction ... as utterly retarded as it would be.

Beliefs consistent with reality; that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality.

That's what I take away from every single discussion I have with you asshats.

Move along, son. Nothing here for you.

No. Indeed not.

Since, you know, I'm betting you're one of the anti-rational, superstitious retards with a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of your "God," and simply lack the intellectual courage of honesty to admit it's so.

You see JakeStarkey, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do you explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the shameless dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.

And they deserve it.

So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?

I ask, because I have absolutely no faith at all that you will.

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

I don't have to prove it.

You can't disprove it.

That's the fun of the Constitution, we both get to believe how we want, and no one dare make afraid.

Yes, you do. You are asserting that something exists. I don't have to disprove it. That is not my job, just as it is not the job of the defense to prove someone's innocence in order for them to be set free.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not, necessarily, the assertion that a god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That doesn't mean a positive belief that a god or gods do not exist.

stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I am not sitting here saying there is no god. I haven't said that once.

 

[CandySlice]

You will know when your time comes as well.

The sound of the voice of God? You will know when your time comes, The Irish Ram, you will surely know His voice.

Okay I get it. In other words, you've never heard it so you don't know. I wish I'd had some money on that evasion you just submitted. I'd have cleaned up.

Jake, you just messed your drawers with that one. You are caught. You are like all the other thumpers I know. If we just let you talk--type-- long enough and let you get a little sure of your self (one might say 'Get your Messiah on') you'll get a head full of yourself and fall on your ass.

I didn't ask you what I'd do when I heard His voice, I didn't ask you what Ram would do (that was a good dodge though, casting around for help like that ) but I asked a question I had every confidence you could answer. And being the FIRST person God has spoken to (according to your own Bible) since Moses it would only be natural to ask what that voice sounded like.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

Now tell us, does he speak ancient Hebrew? Aramaic? How about Greek?

Becaus if you have indeed heard the voice of God you should be a celebrity of some reknown, not a lonely guy having delusions of granduer on a web site.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is always the atheist's first great lie: that atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist. Of course it is such an assertion. Example: I don't believe in Santa Claus, so I am asserting that SC does not exist. Come on, you can do better than this.

QUOTE=newpolitics;5963090]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

Yes, you do. You are asserting that something exists. I don't have to disprove it. That is not my job, just as it is not the job of the defense to prove someone's innocence in order for them to be set free.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is theists who claim one does exist, and atheists who simply disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that atheists believe that no gods exist. I am unsure whether a god exists, but I lack a belief that one does. I am an agnostic atheist.[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh, I am not challenging you, just telling you what I believe will happen. I can no more prove to you that God exists (if you don't want to believe) than you can disprove that a god exists (and I don't care about that).

If you want to get wired about it, OK, but I won't write 37 paragraphs of nonsense debating with you.

You can't prove that God does not exist. You know it, I know it, and God knows it.

You will know when your time comes as well.

Okay I get it. In other words, you've never heard it so you don't know. I wish I'd had some money on that evasion you just submitted. I'd have cleaned up.

Jake, you just messed your drawers with that one. You are caught. You are like all the other thumpers I know. If we just let you talk--type-- long enough and let you get a little sure of your self (one might say 'Get your Messiah on') you'll get a head full of yourself and fall on your ass.

I didn't ask you what I'd do when I heard His voice, I didn't ask you what Ram would do (that was a good dodge though, casting around for help like that ) but I asked a question I had every confidence you could answer. And being the FIRST person God has spoken to (according to your own Bible) since Moses it would only be natural to ask what that voice sounded like.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.

Now tell us, does he speak ancient Hebrew? Aramaic? How about Greek?

Becaus if you have indeed heard the voice of God you should be a celebrity of some reknown, not a lonely guy having delusions of granduer on a web site.

 

[newpolitics]

That is always the atheist's first great lie: that atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist. Of course it is such an assertion. Example: I don't believe in Santa Claus, so I am asserting that SC does not exist. Come on, you can do better than this.

QUOTE=newpolitics;5963090]

Yes, you do, you are asserting something does not exist. You do have to prove it, if you have made the first affirmation. That's the problem with most atheists,etc, want to say God does not exist, and then ask for proof against their affirmation.

Sorry, you are as silly as some of the far right political ethugs on the board.

But believe as you will, it is your right to do so.

Yes, you do. You are asserting that something exists. I don't have to disprove it. That is not my job, just as it is not the job of the defense to prove someone's innocence in order for them to be set free.

I am not asserting god does not exist. I am responding to claims that a god does exist.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is theists who claim one does exist, and atheists who simply disbelieve that claim. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that atheists believe that no gods exist. I am unsure whether a god exists, but I lack a belief that one does. I am an agnostic atheist.

[/QUOTE]

Atheism: lack of belief in god. That's it. Let's stick to what actually is the case, and not what you wish to be the case. I can keep on repeating this all day, if you are going to continue to get it wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, a belief system, even if it is as sophomoric as "I don't believe."

OK, we all get that.