knew this would start a conflict of interests lol. The truth to it all is none of you know the right answer you can only guess it!
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
“The Answer to the Great Question... Of Life, the Universe and Everything... Is... Forty-two,' said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
lol I meant deep breathing, give it a go @whoami .. this wasn't meant to be about God or anything.. but may I ask why you're an atheist? As in what's your reasoning, if you have any, of course Posted by percival09
This wasn't directed at me, I haven't had a chance to read all of this thread, and I'm not looking to start any fights.
That said, it seems quite a strange to ask. Unless you think humans are born with built in religious beliefs it would take a reason for someone to start believing, not a reason not to. (I hope this makes sense.)
For me personally I grew up in an atheist society (East Germany) in an atheist family, and I haven't come across anything in my life that put even the slightest doubt in my mind.
PS: Shout outs to Richard Dawkins, Penn Jilette, Ricky Gervais, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens
LOL i have got so much to say (only seen above posts after a poker session :P) but i do not want to go OTT here, firstly i would like to apologise to you amybr if i came across rude or aggressive, but i have strong views on these subjects so no offence intended.
I am glad you pointed out that creationism, in your view, a bit of a farce; phew lol. But to say "But fwiw evoloution is no more comprehensive fact than creationalism " is a hugely incorrect assessment to make. "just a theory" is also an unjustifiable point to make, mohicans post covers this.
Blind faith in evolution? :P, don't go there!!
The point you make that Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final theory, i don't get this imo, for a large percentage of us(thank God, (oh the irony )) accept Evolution is a fact, even the pope has accepted evolution, rightfully so too! the tangable evidence is overwhealming, even ruling out the fossil data in regards to the geological strata would not affect the strength of the theory, and Charles Darwin will forever be the figure of the evolutionary theory imo.
Heres some info on Darwins findings, quite interesting (from wiki btw).
Summary of Darwin's theory
Darwin pictured shortly before publication
Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologistErnst Mayr summarised as follows:[3]
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).
Some of the points there are premises based on facts, but just reading them they make so much sense.
I have a passing interest in science. Whilst science reveals more and more about the world and the Universe we live in there are some things which are both indisputable and strange. The majority of leading cosmologists are religious to one degree or another and even those who are not admit there is very good evidence for a creator of everything. The goldilocks effect is often used to describe the world we live in. Everything from the distance from the Sun to the balance of gasses in the atmosphere have to be just right for life as we know it to exist on earth. With a different balance life could exist elswhere and this is often usedas an argument against the goldilocks effect. However what cannot be disputed (so far) is that there is a much grander goldilocks effect when it comes to the creation of the Universe. The balance (or more accurately imbalance) of elementary particles immediately after the big bang had to be just right to allow the universe to form. Any deviation from that would have resulted in nothing rather than something. Was that the hand of God or the most outrageous good fortune? As far as poker goes - the power of one's mind has the abilty to work wonders and make losers into winners. Maxally won the DTD last night ........ I rest my case. ) Posted by elsadog
I think this is the most interesting part of the whole God argument.
The obvious problem with the argument that the universe was created is 'Who created the creator'? If the universe can't spring up out of nothing, how can something that is capable of creating a universe?
Even if one accepts that the universe was created it is way too much of a stretch to tie it to the existing organised religions. To suggest that the whole huge thing was created just for our benefit or that the creator after billions of years would suddenly take interest in our little planet and start sending different cryptic messages to different peoples all over the planet is just absurd.
I'm not going to go into this on this thread anymore. I'll happily debate it privately but as always people naively think they're correct and nothing else can be. I never claimed to be right, and my intention wasn't to get into this in my op. Just because a website says a theory is based on facts, it doesn't make the theory correct, anyway that's my say over
I'm not going to go into this on this thread anymore. I'll happily debate it privately but as always people naively think they're correct and nothing else can be. I never claimed to be right, and my intention wasn't to get into this in my op. Just because a website says a theory is based on facts, it doesn't make the theory correct, anyway that's my say over Posted by percival09
I hope this isn't due to anything I said.
I just have to re-iterate what was said before, science uses the term theory differently than you and me. It's still called the theory of gravity, and nobody disputes it. The only reason there are people disputing the theory of evolution is because it clashes with their religious beliefs. Gravity doesn't.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : I think this is the most interesting part of the whole God argument. The obvious problem with the argument that the universe was created is 'Who created the creator'? If the universe can't spring up out of nothing, how can something that is capable of creating a universe? Even if one accepts that the universe was created it is way too much of a stretch to tie it to the existing organised religions. To suggest that the whole huge thing was created just for our benefit or that the creator after billions of years would suddenly take interest in our little planet and start sending different cryptic messages to different peoples all over the planet is just absurd. Posted by Giant811
Absolutely, but when you get down to the quantum level you stray into the realms of philosophy. We know that certain results only happen when observed, and if there is no observer, then it can't happen. There are many theories to overcome this but so far they are only theories. Until proof by observation is forthcoming all options should remain on the table.
The fact of the matter is the world's best minds are wrestling with the biggest question in the world. What chance have we of understanding it?
Some creationists came to my door, I asked them "why did god make dinosaurs?"-- They did'nt know offhand, but said they would come back with the answer--- next week they came back and said that god made dinosaurs to "fertilize the earth"--- "Oh right", I said, " so you believe that god could make a 70 foot long beast that could eat a tree, but he could'nt make poo?"
Anyone fancy a game of "spot da loonie"? Posted by oynutter
i do love when you come on the forum nutter your mad as me. And i think if they explored our minds they would well and truley be pickled forget creation life the universe and everything check out our crazy noggins and you will go insane wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : i do love when you come on the forum nutter your mad as me. And i think if they explored our minds they would well and truley be pickled forget creation life the universe and everything check out our crazy noggins and you will go insane wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Posted by Dazler
LOL Daz, the same creationists came back again the next week with solid proof that god exists---- they told me that science has proved that the chances of life (a single celled organism) evolving by itself are the same as filling a 56lb sack with equal amounts of red, black and white beans, and then getting a 5lb scoop and scooping up all red beans---- they think that the chance of that happening is so small that it proves god exists?--- I told them that it actually proves that there is no need for a god to create life because if you scoop 1000 times per second for 6 billion years, then one day it will happen---that was the last I saw of them--lol
It matters not what the chances of life evolving by itself actually are, but these people believe that the chance is so small that it's impossible!--- How thicky is that?---- Some day, some place, everything that can happen by chance, will happen by chance--- Richard Orford won a tournament ffs!!!!!!
Looking back the comment I made (that you highlight) probably doesnt fully represent what I believe, devils advocate hat was firmly on.
But just one thing to add (:p) in relation to this: "The point you make that Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final theory, i don't get this imo, for a large percentage of us(thank God, (oh the irony )) accept Evolution is a fact, even the pope has accepted evolution".
I dont know if i'd agree that "most" of us accept evoloution. Most of our society do, thats true, but its not true globally in any way shape or form. Also to be confident that evoloution is going to be our dominant origin theory from now til the end of the human race is kind of presumptious.
I wasnt offended at all tbh bud, enjoy healthy debate with anyone passionate about anything.
My pov just comes from having quite diverse research on most things. I always try to see as much of a debate as possible, plus I have a healthy mistrust of officialdom Everything serves an agenda and I like to get out there, research from multiple angles and form an inclusive opinion of my own. I do believe in evolution as I said, its the presentation and unflinching acceptance that I have reservations about. (Is Global warming scientific fact? It is certainly presented as so - but isnt.)
A friend of mine is a devout Jehovas witness. He is a great guy and very confident in his beliefs in creationism and we have nearly come to blows over it lol. Every creationism book he gives me to read does nothing to prove creationism, it merely serves to attempt to debunk every other pov (especially evo obv), making creationism right my default lol.
My thoughts dont come out of religion, as I am not religious. But I do have a spiritual belief/faith based on my understanding of the world around me.
This thread kept me busy while MTTing last night This ought to be a regular forum topic
Some creationists came to my door, I asked them "why did god make dinosaurs?"-- They did'nt know offhand, but said they would come back with the answer--- next week they came back and said that god made dinosaurs to "fertilize the earth"--- "Oh right", I said, " so you believe that god could make a 70 foot long beast that could eat a tree, but he could'nt make poo?" Anyone fancy a game of "spot da loonie"? Posted by oynutter
That is quality ,I am going to have to nick that if you dont mind.
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : That is quality ,I am going to have to nick that if you dont mind. Posted by jonjo75
Nice one Jonjo, be my guest, there are actually millions of people that believe god made dinosaurs to fertilize the earth, and it's easy to see why, there was no "miracle grow" in those days you know!
In Response to Re: Spiritual Poker? : Absolutely, but when you get down to the quantum level you stray into the realms of philosophy. We know that certain results only happen when observed, and if there is no observer, then it can't happen. There are many theories to overcome this but so far they are only theories. Until proof by observation is forthcoming all options should remain on the table. The fact of the matter is the world's best minds are wrestling with the biggest question in the world. What chance have we of understanding it? Posted by elsadog
Your post other than the bold bit is non-disputable, and although the worlds best minds are struggling to make a connection or a complete theory that could intertwine quantum theory and the theory of relativity to create a complete theory of everything, these two theories alone have been scrutinized to this day to the last neutrino <mega LOL, and have stood the test of time.
Although among the factual content of these theory's some observations made cannot be theoretically proven; as of yet. But WE believe in them, all of modern day scientist base their thesis on them WHY? because they are based on the natural laws of physics and have stood a battering from skeptics, do we understand them? there's a lot we don't understand and probably never will especially if string theory is the case...
Comments
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Pretty sure Douglas adams & Terry Pratchett have the answers between them
Summary of Darwin's theory
Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologistErnst Mayr summarised as follows:[3]
The fact of the matter is the world's best minds are wrestling with the biggest question in the world. What chance have we of understanding it?
Anyone fancy a game of "spot da loonie"?
Looking back the comment I made (that you highlight) probably doesnt fully represent what I believe, devils advocate hat was firmly on.
But just one thing to add (:p) in relation to this: "The point you make that Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final theory, i don't get this imo, for a large percentage of us(thank God, (oh the irony
I dont know if i'd agree that "most" of us accept evoloution. Most of our society do, thats true, but its not true globally in any way shape or form. Also to be confident that evoloution is going to be our dominant origin theory from now til the end of the human race is kind of presumptious.
I wasnt offended at all tbh bud, enjoy healthy debate with anyone passionate about anything.
My pov just comes from having quite diverse research on most things. I always try to see as much of a debate as possible, plus I have a healthy mistrust of officialdom
A friend of mine is a devout Jehovas witness. He is a great guy and very confident in his beliefs in creationism and we have nearly come to blows over it lol. Every creationism book he gives me to read does nothing to prove creationism, it merely serves to attempt to debunk every other pov (especially evo obv), making creationism right my default lol.
My thoughts dont come out of religion, as I am not religious. But I do have a spiritual belief/faith based on my understanding of the world around me.
This thread kept me busy while MTTing last night
That is quality ,I am going to have to nick that if you dont mind.
Although among the factual content of these theory's some observations made cannot be theoretically proven; as of yet. But WE believe in them, all of modern day scientist base their thesis on them WHY? because they are based on the natural laws of physics and have stood a battering from skeptics, do we understand them? there's a lot we don't understand and probably never will especially if string theory is the case...