Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]c.m.l. wrote:

Holy shit I have never laughed louder following a theological debate than I did having read this line.

Too perfect[/quote]
That’s because you are unintelligent. Those things called words have meanings. Did Jesus prove he was the son of God? No, he did not. He may have performed miracles but they were not done to prove anything. Everything he did still required faith in order for them to be seen as acts of a divine being. In fact, when asked to prove he was the Messiah he refused. [/quote]

What else did he need to do, in your eyes, to “prove” he is the son of God?

The way your comment reads it sounds like he could of create a person right in front of you and you still wouldn’t be convinced. [/quote]

But why would those acts prove he was the son of God/Messiah? Were there stone carvings on some wall saying he who does…is?

He could have said he was a wizard, demon, or some kind of alien life form.
[/quote]

Well, he did xy & z (as Beef pointed out) while saying he’s the son of God. Has anyone else done xy & z, ever? Did they claim to be something else?

I just want to know what exactly constitutes proof in a non-believers eyes?

Hell, I can’t “prove” Jesus wasn’t in fact Satan mind fucking us, so I guess there’s that. [/quote]

There is no proof that he did any of it, it is about as well proven as Mohammad flying on his horse.

142

[quote]espenl wrote:
There is no proof that he did any of it, it is about as well proven as Mohammad flying on his horse.[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can only go off faith and observation. [/quote]

143

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
There is no proof that he did any of it, it is about as well proven as Mohammad flying on his horse.[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can only go off faith and observation. [/quote][/quote]

Faith is not proof. This isn’t your fault, but you asked what non believers needed for proof. We clearly need something a little more than “hey I got this book that says X happened.”

144

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
There is no proof that he did any of it, it is about as well proven as Mohammad flying on his horse.[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can only go off faith and observation. [/quote][/quote]

Faith is not proof. This isn’t your fault, but you asked what non believers needed for proof. We clearly need something a little more than “hey I got this book that says X happened.” [/quote]

What is proof enough for a non-believer? That was the question and no one has yet to tell me what proof they need.

145

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is proof enough for a non-believer? That was the question and no one has yet to tell me what proof they need. [/quote]

To be honest, I don’t think a human can give such a proof. We have the old books, that people with personal interest has written and edited trough the ages, which is in no way proof, and references to these as proof only harms the “cause”.

A god would have to show or do something extraordinary, that multiple people observed.

I have worked with mental patients with psychosis and hallucinations believing me to be jesus, so only me observing something would even lead so doubt, as I could be hallucinating. If your god was omnipotent and had any interest in converting the entire human population to believing in it, it could be done in 10 seconds. So far this has not happened. Even though the first law he apparently said was “You should have no other gods than me”, he is content with humans on the planet not even hearing of him before they die.

146

^If that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel.

147

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
People like Dawkins and Hitchens thrive on ridiculing people to flatter their own pathetic egos.[/quote]
So they are like your typical PWI poster. [/quote]

Are you ridiculing them with this statement? You seem to be.

148

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
There is no proof that he did any of it, it is about as well proven as Mohammad flying on his horse.[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can only go off faith and observation. [/quote][/quote]

Faith is not proof. This isn’t your fault, but you asked what non believers needed for proof. We clearly need something a little more than “hey I got this book that says X happened.” [/quote]

What is proof enough for a non-believer? That was the question and no one has yet to tell me what proof they need. [/quote]

At this point I honestly can’t tell you. I can’t tell you one thing that would prove god’s existence.

I think if there is a god it intended not to provide evidence.

This is similar to the idea I have that if a god did exist he would not provide an instruction manual for life.

149

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^If that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel. [/quote]
It’s a feeling backed up by experience and knowledge of how the world really works. People get deluded. People hallucinate. Even today there are miracle stories that YOU don’t take seriously. Why should we take miracle stories that take place 2000 years ago any more seriously than you take many today?

150

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
BTW - Dawkins criticises cosmological arguments by saying they rely on infinite regress(turtles all the way down) from which G-d is unjustifiably immune. However the quote above from Maimonides addresses that.[/quote]

It’s a copout. If god can always exist why can’t the universe(or multi-verse)?

Carl Sagan puts it rather diplomatically here:

151

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The unmoved mover:

‘It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity[infinite regression], because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be G-d.’ - Thomas Aquinas

‘The being which has absolute existence, which has never been and will never be without existence, is not in need of an agent.’ - Maimonides[/quote]

The idea that common sense from 500+ years ago about the nature of reality has any bearing on actual reality is laughable. What would these men have thought of quantum mechanics?

The ultimate questions do not lend themselves to common sense.

We don’t know anything about first causes. Period.

152

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]

Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.

153

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I chimed in because I have no idea why non-believers are solely fixated on evolution/age-of-earth stuff while there are certain matters a bit easier to demonstrate. It’s true, I can’t point to a man and say “watch, he’ll evolve a vastly larger head and eyes.” Or, while I can view a series of fossils, I can’t point out an ape evolving right before our eyes into a human being. But they could say “well, do the shuttles have to pass through rain gates or whatever in the dome in order to reach the vacuum of space?” Buuuut, noooo, it’s always evolution vs creationism. Always.[/quote]

This I wonder about too. Why to non-believers think that all believers are all young-earth creationists when the majority of believers are not young-earth creationists, at all. There is, of course a segment of the Christian population that are young-earth creationists, but they are in the minority.

Non-believer: “The earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is a sound scientific theory”
Believer: “I aggree”
Non-believer: “See! You’re wrong! Your are idiot and your religion is stupid”
Believer: “Uh, I thought I said I agree?”[/quote]

A LOT of people are YEC’s.

154

Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.

155

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]

Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.
[/quote]

So? Do you have some kind of inherent right to a secular public education, or something? What moral rule are they breaking? There is no objective universal law in your worldview as to how they must behave. Where is the commandment of the universe stating that humans beings should conduct themselves socially, politically, etc., according to science?

People lobby/fight for what they want.

156

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.[/quote]

None of these arguments can be made without assumption, and few of them can be made without special pleading, which is why you will not find credible theist philosophers (Platinga, Craig, etc.) referring to their conclusions as proved, but rather “argued” or “strongly argued,” or “it is reasonable to believe X” and the like.

It is even possible that God exists and yet He exists beyond the reach of human reason and cannot be logically “proved” without assumption.

157

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]darsemnos wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?[/quote]

You’re way too smart to be making these silly statements. There’s no way this is what you are really getting hung up on. No freaking way.

Instead of the dome stumbling block please deal with the following:

"theist view – conventionally accepted evolution (macro), of course, posits that death has existed since the first life and was part of the original (secular) “plan;” it is inherent that life forms die – trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Judaism/Christianity/Islam teaches that creation was originally perfect and all death is a direct result of man’s original sin. For one to mix the two (macro-evolution and creation) is to pull the legs out from under the creation model. In other words, how could Adam – fully formed, perfect and sentient – have committed the original sin which began the cascade of death ever since…and yet be the result of billions of years of prior death?" [/quote]

Been here, done it.

Not interested in evolution vs young earth creationism. Again.

I’m just flabbergasted why it’s always the young earth/Man-immediately-formed bits that get the spotlight? Where are the debates about the dome? About how the “lights” are placed IN the dome…etc., etc.

I personally don’t care if a Christian is a young-earth creationist.
And, I wouldn’t care if I was an atheist, either. It’s not like there’s some moral value either way on the issue in a godless/purposeless universe. One could live/believe any way one chooses, and not be morally wrong. Therefore, I wouldn’t be “morally outraged” as others are here, despite my own conclusions.
[/quote]

Because these people are trying to prevent us from teaching evolution and the Big Bang in school.
[/quote]

So? Do you have some kind of inherent right to a secular public eductation, or something? What moral rule are they breaking? There is no objective universal law in your worldview as to how they must behave. Where is the commandment of the universe stating that humans beings should conduct themselves socially, politically, etc., according to science?

People lobby/fight for what they want.
[/quote]

Somebody should write a novel about an atheist who is struck by this particular line of thought and just sits down and stops doing literally anything. I would read that.

158

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.[/quote]

None of these arguments can be made without assumption, and few of them can be made without special pleading, which is why you will not find credible theist philosophers (Platinga, Craig, etc.) referring to their conclusions as proved, but rather “argued” or “strongly argued,” or “it is reasonable to believe X” and the like.

[/quote]

Hence my use of the words ‘someone/something.’ ‘Something’ could be just about anything couldn’t it? The spaghetti monster, a giant turtle or some unknown property or substance of the universe.

159

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Somebody should write a novel about an atheist who is struck by this particular line of thought and just sits down and stops doing literally anything. I would read that.[/quote]

As long as it has colorful pictures and/or pop-ups, I’d read it.

160

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.[/quote]

You seem to know more than the greatest physicists of all time. Congratulations.