Darwin Presents Another Swift Boot To The Lifeless, Bloody Corpse Of The Idea Of God!

Superfreak said:
As an agnostic, I don't take a stance one way or the other on God's existence given that it cannot be proven either way barring a sudden appearance by said 'all powerful being'.

That said, evolution does not disprove God's existence. It disproves what is written by man in the bible and other religious texts as to the time line they believe in.

If God did exist and was all powerful/has existed forever etc.... then how would we know that 'man' accurately conveyed the meaning of time as seen by this all powerful being who has lived forever?
Click to expand...

the only "time line" I am aware of is found in Genesis 1:1...."In the beginning"......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nor can you prove that he did either but, as I stated previously, that would be outside the scope of scientific enquiry.
Click to expand...

isn't it axiomatic that since the origin of all that is physical has to be outside the physical that whatever the origin is it will be outside the scope of scientific inquiry, i.e. meta-physical?.......
 
Superfreak said:
As an agnostic, I don't take a stance one way or the other on God's existence given that it cannot be proven either way barring a sudden appearance by said 'all powerful being'.

That said, evolution does not disprove God's existence. It disproves what is written by man in the bible and other religious texts as to the time line they believe in.

If God did exist and was all powerful/has existed forever etc.... then how would we know that 'man' accurately conveyed the meaning of time as seen by this all powerful being who has lived forever?
Click to expand...

Thats what I was going to say....

Excuse me while I go home and vomit.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
It merely shows a lack of knowledge on both sides, not just one. If you haven't noticed I love playing devils advocate from time to time. And in all honesty, you cannot prove that 'god' (whatever it may be) didn't to it.
Click to expand...

Nothing can be proven in the universal sense. However, it is not irrational at all to reject supernatural claims at face value, or to ask for good evidence before you'll believe something.

The scientists like 99.99999% of the knowledge in the universe, sure, but the religious like ALL of it.
 
Socrtease said:
Big props for you Mott. I love it when someone gets called out for that type of sophistry. Rep points on the way.
Click to expand...
What bothers me is that if a person is attractive or has good rhetorical skills then they often get away with this kinds of sophistry. If poor PiMP here looked like Pam Anderson everyone would probably be running to his/her defense. LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No. It isn't axiomatic. It's sophistry.
Click to expand...

not at all......if you can speak of a "beginning" of the universe, it must need be that which preceded what can be examined scientifically.....because that which can be examined scientifically IS the universe......

The term sophism originated from Greek sophistēs, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom (sophós means "wise man").
Click to expand...

I will withhold my thanks momentarily, but I expect your instant reaction was based on the fact your knowledge of science is limited to counting how many things continue to writhe in a petri dish after a weeks' incubation....consider this...what is there for biology to study if there is no life....no amoeba, no petri dish....what I engage in is philo-sophistry, not sophistry.....if a logical conclusion of abiogenesis forces us to conclude there was a time prior to the existence of life, then there is nothing for biology to study prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to the existence of the physical laws, there is nothing for physics to examine prior to that time.....if there was a time prior to everything that science examines, then there is nothing for science to examine, prior to that time.....axiomatic.....
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
True, and without a beginning or evidence thereof, there's no reason to think he exists.
Click to expand...
that simply isn't a true statement......you could properly say there is no evidence on which to base a conclusion he exists, or that there is no rational basis upon which to determine he exists.....but it is simply wrong to say there is no reason to think he exists.....that which cannot be proven impossible must be accepted as possible.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that simply isn't a true statement......you could properly say there is no evidence on which to base a conclusion he exists, or that there is no rational basis upon which to determine he exists.....but it is simply wrong to say there is no reason to think he exists.....that which cannot be proven impossible must be accepted as possible.....
Click to expand...

Accepting the possibility of ferries, unicorns, invisible dragons, or Zeus because they cannot be disproven is a hell of a long way from any of those things being a legitimate enough belief to warrant respect of any kind.

When your strongest argument is that you have no evidence for God's existence but the guy you're arguing against can't DISPROVE his existence, then you need to reevaluate why you believe what you do.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Accepting the possibility of ferries, unicorns, invisible dragons, or Zeus because they cannot be disproven is a hell of a long way from any of those things being a legitimate enough belief to warrant respect of any kind.

When your strongest argument is that you have no evidence for God's existence but the guy you're arguing against can't DISPROVE his existence, then you need to reevaluate why you believe what you do.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....the left seems to have no problem accepting the possibility of abiogenesis with even less evidence than that for unicorns......as for ferries, well....
staten-island-ferry-address.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....the left seems to have no problem accepting the possibility of abiogenesis with even less evidence than that for unicorns......as for ferries, well....
staten-island-ferry-address.jpg
Click to expand...

We have lab experiments showing spontaneously forming RNA sequences. The mechanisms are proven to exist. The only missing factor is time, which can't be observed in a lab.

By the way, unicorns are in the Bible.
 
ib1yysguy said:
We have lab experiments showing spontaneously forming RNA sequences. The mechanisms are proven to exist. The only missing factor is time, which can't be observed in a lab.

By the way, unicorns are in the Bible.
Click to expand...

wrong....the missing factor is a significant one....life...all you have is organic chemical reactions......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top