Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[Ricter]

Quote from Trader666:



Question for you if I may. Are you a U.S. citizen living in Canada?

Aye. I do a lot of business in both countries, but of my choices of where to sleep, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, or Alberta, I enjoy Canada's ambiance best.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from stu:
Suppose there were this thing called God, and it expected you to use certain abilities , like skepticism, doubt, rationality, reasoning, critical inquiry, practical knowledge, honesty, to come to the decision that there is no such a thing as God.
It uses circumstances to suggest belief , but then also provides clues which to pick up on, such as, this God is hypothetical, unknowable , indescribable, imaginary, an abstract idea , unfalsifiable , implausible , of "unknown composition and location."
It expects, wants, requires you to come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist in order to achieve some other goal, which It in kind doesn’t explain either, and if you do believe in it after all that , you shall be cast out.

Wouldn't that make Pascal’s wager wrong and illogical?

No, not at all... With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I am not suggesting that wanting "insurance" is a good reason to have faith. I just find the argument interesting, even though I am not at all a man of faith myself.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Trader666:

Speaking of irrational beliefs, atheists' "certainty" that there is no God ranks right up there.

I'm sure you are atheist when it comes to a pink elephant orbiting the sun. Speaking of irrational beliefs, your certainty of no pink elephant orbiting the sun, ranks right up there too.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Martinghoul:

No, not at all... With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I am not suggesting that wanting "insurance" is a good reason to have faith. I just find the argument interesting, even though I am not at all a man of faith myself.

pascals wager fails because it only allows for belief in the christian god. when pascal devised the wager the options were catholic god or nothing.

there have been thousands of gods believed in through history. what are the odds of picking the right god?

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Free Thinker:

pascals wager fails because it only allows for belief in the christian god. when pascal devised the wager the options were catholic god or nothing.

there have been thousands of gods believed in through history. what are the odds of picking the right god?

I find it amusing that science can agree on one theory of evolution, one theory of the big bang, one quantum mechanics, one general relatively. But when it comes to god, there are thousands of religions, which can't agree on the same thing!! But of course, they have all the answers.

 

[Trader666]

Specious comparison because it ignores the content of the beliefs.

Quote from Betapeg:

I'm sure you are atheist when it comes to a pink elephant orbiting the sun. Speaking of irrational beliefs, your certainty of no pink elephant orbiting the sun, ranks right up there too.

 

[Trader666]

Wrong. Like STUpid, you need to understand the wager before making a fool of yourself. Pascal's wager was specifically devised to apply to a Christian God. So it's not the wager that fails, it's your understanding and application that fail.

Quote from Free Thinker:

pascals wager fails because it only allows for belief in the christian god. when pascal devised the wager the options were catholic god or nothing.

there have been thousands of gods believed in through history. what are the odds of picking the right god?

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

Yes because you're just throwing a whole bunch of quotes at me as if that is proof enough. FYI, it isn't. Can't you say what you want to say without resorting to copy & paste dialogue??? It just reeks of laziness...



I didn't know feelings were evidence of anything. That's something new to me. It appears the earth is flat, so it must be so right? The sun, stars, and planets appear to orbit the earth, so it must be so, too, right? You talk about science yet, your only proof is your feeling of the appearance of design. You talk about evidence, yet, provide none. So, the appearance comes from the evidence? So why don't we see some evidence. Still waiting. Your cosmological constants argument is pretty much shot. So what if they APPEAR fine-tuned? That is again, your feeling on the matter, not actual evidence.



I have explained numerous times. Here it is again. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe is at its most fundamental level, completely random. Ever studied the Uncertainty Principle? That's only the beginning. Chaos theory further expounds on the fact that ordered structures can come from completely random processes such as a sand dune which forms from randomly moving sand grains.

You accuse me of "sound bites", but you are the one throwing quotes around indiscriminately. I can do the same thing. Hey, we can both throw quotes at each other and see who wins. At least I construct my own arguments. Sheesh.



Wow, I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do? LOL. Get off your high horse.



I don't need your direction. Just pointing out feelings and appearances aren't evidence of anything. The fine-tuning that is apparently evident in the cosmological constants sounds great but answers absolutely nothing. It's the newest flavor of the "God did it" argument.

you keep asserting illogical crap.
you are being a clown.
These are nobel prize winners... some atheist... trying to explain current science to you... and you refuse to listen.


So once again... I ask you to explain how your chaos theory explains the origin of the universe and how it exists today..
and you give me sound bites about randomness. That is the same thing I read in books in the early 90s when I was researching the markets. You are living in the 80s... learn some current science.

What you are not getting is that most if not all scientists now accept that given our current understandings there is no chance random processes could have created this universe if there is only one. No matter how many coin flips you got there was no way this universe would have happened.

I have even presented quotes which say that that random chance did not have enough time to have non life turn into life on earth.


Get it... not enough time for Chaos to create order.


When you actually do the research... you will find out about string theory and the multiverse argument to explain the existence of the fine tunings.

 

[as678]

Quote from jem:


When you actually do the research... you will find out about string theory and the multiverse argument to explain the existence of the fine tunings.

This is a matter of biology, not physics.

Given the size of the universe and the tiny amount of matter that is within, it may seem impossible for life to form. Gravity, however, allows matter to form clusters thereby allowing for self replicating molecules. Self replicating molecules by nature their very nature will begin to mutate and very slowly, over hundreds of thousands of generations you get complex self replicating organisms.

Humans are only the product of the giant chemical reaction that is the universe that began X billion years ago.

 

[Trader666]

I've spent a lot of time in Canada myself and, believe it or not, have many Canadian friends

Quote from Ricter:

Aye. I do a lot of business in both countries, but of my choices of where to sleep, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, or Alberta, I enjoy Canada's ambiance best.