Also, as an aside, I don't see how anyone can deny the concept of macroevolution over 6 billion years when we see microevolution (or, adaptation) over only a few years. Macroevolution is just microevolution done thousands of times over until there have been so many adaptations that they're something altogether. Evolution is an AMAZINGLY slow process, and there's a fair deal of proof in it. "I don't believe something because I can't comprehend it" is not scientific. Besides, if you can't comprehend evolution as I stated it, I don't see how you could comprehend an omnipotent, omniscient being that came from nothing, or always was. THAT is something I can't understand.
I don't believe in God mainly due to the concept of parsimony which basically asserts that it cannot exist.
I don't think parsimony applies in the way you say it does. Parsimony is an informal device for forming a hypothesis, not a logical device for forming a conclusion.
At best, it states that we cannot conclude that God exists without data that fit his existence better than his non-existence.
Christian theologists believe that the events recorded in the Bible are enough evidence for the existence of God that this principle does not apply.
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
I don't believe in God mainly due to the concept of parsimony which basically asserts that it cannot exist.
I don't think parsimony applies in the way you say it does. Parsimony is an informal device for forming a hypothesis, not a logical device for forming a conclusion.
At best, it states that we cannot conclude that God exists without data that fit his existence better than his non-existence.
Christian theologists believe that the events recorded in the Bible are enough evidence for the existence of God that this principle does not apply.
If using the word "parsimony" isn't satisfactory, then I'll go with using the term "Occam's Razor" even though they really are similar enough to be interchangeable.
The objection still stands, as I explained in IRC.
[02:19:59] <Dacicus> btw, parsimony doesn't prove that God doesn't exist
[02:20:24] <Boco_XLVII> Thats only because parsimony can't prove things, not because the logic isn't sound
[02:21:53] <Boco_XLVII> It falls on the theist to make a claim about (a particular) god which can be substantiated. Because of Occam's Razor the atheist need make no similar claim.
[02:22:26] <Boco_XLVII> This doesn't mean the atheist is correct due to parsimony or even at all, it just means the theist needs to do work rather than be the default assumption.
Parsimony isn't a proof of no god, it's just a convenient shortcut that "claims about God need a minimum backing evidence to be taken seriously". Because of parsimony, the default position should undoubtedly be atheist, and it is the theist's job to explain that theism to the atheist's satisfaction and not vice-versa.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
It's not a proof, no. There is no proof. There will never be proof. However, parsimony and Occam's Razor point towards it.
Even though this is slightly off topic, I think this is a nice little quote relating somewhat to this whole thing: "Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby."
As I said above, the events recorded in the Bible ought to be sufficient evidence to put the ball back in the Atheists' court.
Even if I were to somehow provide a logically rigorous proof, I do not think you would accept it. In my experience, atheists hold the non-existence of God to be axiomatic.
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
I'll stay out of the logical discussion of whether God can exist or not, and simply state* the very Christian and very annoying and very irrational point of view that I share, which is that I know that God exists because I know that I know that I know that God exists.
Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians wrote:
(1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
(3:18-20) Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
*) Despite how I began this post, it is on-topic. The topic is "tell me your thoughts on God", and that I did.
As I said above, the events recorded in the Bible ought to be sufficient evidence to put the ball back in the Atheists' court.
Even if I were to somehow provide a logically rigorous proof, I do not think you would accept it. In my experience, atheists hold the non-existence of God to be axiomatic.
The Bible has so many flaws and inaccuracies and is completely unreliable. Take the flood, for example. It was supposedly worldwide, but Chinese and Egyptian historical documents are unbroken during this time. How do you explain that?
If the Bible is an infalliable source of truth, once you find just one fallacious statement or line, the integrity of the entire document comes in to question. So many miracles happened in the Bible that just do not occur today. Where did they all go? Where are the mythical beasts in the world today? Why doesn't God speak to people today? Why isn't he destroying Brighton and Hove? I could go on for a long time about it, but that isn't necessary.
Gott ist tot. Ball back to you.
The Bible has so many flaws and inaccuracies and is completely unreliable. Take the flood, for example. It was supposedly worldwide, but Chinese and Egyptian historical documents are unbroken during this time. How do you explain that?
I cannot comment on that because I haven't seen those historical documents which you talk about.
I don't know how large the flood was, and what really happened. There is a possibility that the flood did not actually cover the entire earth; that it only covered as much as the people witnessing it understood as the whole world (and thus it was said, whole world). For instance.
Kles wrote:
So many miracles happened in the Bible that just do not occur today. Where did they all go? Where are the mythical beasts in the world today? Why doesn't God speak to people today?
Some Christians argue that those miracles still happen. The Holy Spirit* still does miracles today just like he did nineteen centuries ago. It is another tangent of discussion why those miracles are not well known.
"mythical beasts"?
God does occassionally speak to his followers when he wants to give them some task or to inform a church about some things, such as what happened with David Wilkerson, Demos Shakarian and many other christian authors. It happens different than how it happened before Holy Spirit was sent, because now we (christians) have the Holy Spirit :) Which is approximately (part of) the God himself inside us.
*) John 14:25-26, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:1 onwards.
The Bible has so many flaws and inaccuracies and is completely unreliable.
If the Bible is an infalliable source of truth, once you find just one fallacious statement or line, the integrity of the entire document comes in to question.
I see we've moved to the classic appeal to authority vs ad hominem debate.
So many miracles happened in the Bible that just do not occur today. Where did they all go?
Miracles are reported on a regular basis. Most to all such reports are rejected ad hoc with little-to-no investigation or publicity, precisely because they're not supposed to happen. If you try to compare this to the Bible, a condensed account of many centuries' miracles, you're facing an enormous sampling bias.
Where are the mythical beasts in the world today?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Please expand.
Why doesn't God speak to people today?
God does speak to people today. A significant fraction of evangelical Christians rely on divine revelation for day-to-day life.
Why isn't he destroying Brighton and Hove? I could go on for a long time about it, but that isn't necessary.
If you are drawing an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, you ought to check out the appropriate passage first.
(Genesis 18:25-32)
I find it highly improbably that there are fewer than ten serious Christians in the city.
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
The Bible has so many flaws and inaccuracies and is completely unreliable.
If the Bible is an infalliable source of truth, once you find just one fallacious statement or line, the integrity of the entire document comes in to question.
I see we've moved to the classic appeal to authority vs ad hominem debate.
Um, what? I fail to see how this is either and the line goes for anything: if it claims to be an infalliable source of knowledge and any part of it is found to be fallacious, then the accountability of the rest of it is jeopardized, whether it's a religious text, scientific text or anything.
So many miracles happened in the Bible that just do not occur today. Where did they all go?
Miracles are reported on a regular basis. Most to all such reports are rejected ad hoc with little-to-no investigation or publicity, precisely because they're not supposed to happen. If you try to compare this to the Bible, a condensed account of many centuries' miracles, you're facing an enormous sampling bias.
Most of the miracles today are amazing rescues, unexpected healings, or other things that could be documented and researched scientifically or are simply just very lucky. I don't see water becoming blood, talking animals, people becoming salt pillars or people coming from the dead and ascending to heaven today.
Where are the mythical beasts in the world today?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Please expand.
I don't know. Giants, unicorns, talking animals. Things like that. (Yet, they managed to miss the dinosaurs. Hmm)
Why doesn't God speak to people today?
God does speak to people today. A significant fraction of evangelical Christians rely on divine revelation for day-to-day life.
Power of suggestion. If you actually believe you're talking to God, you will likely get responses. These are made up in your brain. People in every deistic religion speak to their God. Are they all correct? I doubt it very much so. It is most likely that it's all in their head.
Why isn't he destroying Brighton and Hove? I could go on for a long time about it, but that isn't necessary.
If you are drawing an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, you ought to check out the appropriate passage first.
(Genesis 18:25-32)
I find it highly improbably that there are fewer than ten serious Christians in the city.
Um, what? Brighton and Hove has over a quarter million citizens. Are you to tell me that a total of 0.00004% of the inhabitants are Christian? A quick look in to the 2001 census says that 146,466 people there identified as Christian. That's not "ten or fewer." I suggest you not call an ad hominem on me then follow up with one right back.
EDIT: Well, crap, I misread the last one. I'll leave it in there anyways, even though it's irrelevant. :P
Many people accept that either God or Satan can respectively "speak through" or "possess" an individual. How, then, do we know that the bible wasn't written by someone possessed by Satan?
This accusation can not be supported in any way. The Bible contains several derogatory statements directed at Satan. He would not have had any reason to write this about Himself. The name was, prior to the publication of this work, unknown in Europe. Therefore He could not possibly gain anything from including these statements, such as appealing to a wider audience. The only people who could possibly be interested in including negative statements about themselves while pretending to be someone else would be people who already had a strong negative reputation. This pattern is supported by events occurring today. Some dishonest people will try to lure people out of organizations that are opposed to them by starting false organizations of the same type.
Yeah, it wouldn't make much sense for Satan to do that... judging from what we know of Satan, which we get from the bible.
An epistemological problem, no?
As I alluded to in my reply to Primo, it wouldn't be logical for Satan to have done such a thing, and I accept that the Christian faith isn't quite as abstract as I had thought. But what if Satan simply wasn't acting logically? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote the bible, posing as God, for his own noodly purposes?
What if anything? There is no limit to the number of non-falsifiable, ad-hoc hypotheses I can come up with as explanations, and the validity of each is equal to that of any holy text, or work of fiction.
I know that God exists because I know that I know that I know that God exists.
I'd say it's impossible to know anything for sure, because how would we know that we know, etc? Even scientists who say that they know only believe or think that they know. Knowledge is more like a word that means very strong belief. So strong that it's actually "reality".
"mythical beasts"?
Leviathan and behemoth for example. I think both are metaphorical though.
AQwertyZ wrote:
The increase in human knowledge is explained by neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian evolution. It amazes me how so many people equate intelligence with knowledge.
Without knowledge, how intelligent can you be?
Information makes us more intelligent and creates neuro-passageways in the brain that are then passed down from generation to generation via the genes.
The human brain has not changed much in tens of thousands of years. Humans living 20,000 years ago, for example, were not any less intelligent than humans are now.
So if I time travelled 10,000 years back in time to take a baby from someone to this time, the child would become a person indistinguishable from other people?
A short while ago we used to think that black people are inferior, but today it's much more uncommon. People also have more understanding for gays. Wouldn't you say that we are more intelligent today?
HHS wrote:
Common sense tells us that a belief is necessarily useful if and only if it is true. A belief in any God must be either true or false.
Not really. For example, some religions could be wrong, and yet they are useful for the people. They give them hope and happiness.
You may not know where your beliefs come from, but they have been implanted in your from birth.
How could we have beliefs "implanted" the instant we are born when we don't yet have the ability to think consciously to create beliefs? To get a belief we first need experience.
You have been told of a certain history and a future by your creators that is not true. The future where all human races will coalesce into one that will exterminate the original races and take over the Earth will not take place. There will be a war and the hybrid race will lose.
Information makes us more intelligent and creates neuro-passageways in the brain that are then passed down from generation to generation via the genes.
Um, that's not how DNA works. It seems especially dumb to argue this when later on you say:
nfq wrote:
How could we have beliefs "implanted" the instant we are born when we don't yet have the ability to think consciously to create beliefs? To get a belief we first need experience.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
nfq: where are you from?
boco: what scientific evidence is there for your religion? if you reply that this is unimportant, then in what sense is it true?
Information makes us more intelligent and creates neuro-passageways in the brain that are then passed down from generation to generation via the genes.
Genes aren't memes. I suggest you stop posting about such things until you know what you're talking about.
Bob A wrote:
boco: what scientific evidence is there for your religion? if you reply that this is unimportant, then in what sense is it true?
The biggest proof I can offer is the National Revelation.
Most religions are founded on what could very easily be hoaxes - one or two or even eight or so guys who claim some supernatural event, and they tell people who tell people and then there's a religion. But none of the peole who believe can confirm what the original guys at the top said, they can only believe it.
But this is explicitly not true for the God of the Jews. According to Judaism - and Christianity and Islam - God spoke to an assembled mass of 600,000+ people all at once at Sinai. The entire nation heard him. Judaism isn't founded on "Well, Bob talked to God, so I guess we should do what he says", it's founded on "Hey grandma, you were there, what was it like?". Anyone attempting to create such an event as a hoax even postdated 400 years would run into a lot of people saying "I never heard about any of this,a nd if it happened as you say we should have lots of stories about it passed from generation to generation and we'd be able to get independent confirmation" - and that's not what happened. Instead, the independent confirmation and the stories were present when the text was recorded.
So, there's a historical proof. The Sinai event occured. Whether the being who spoke to the nation was who he said he was, you can argue, but whether he spoke? not so much.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
The increase in human knowledge is explained by neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian evolution. It amazes me how so many people equate intelligence with knowledge.
Without knowledge, how intelligent can you be?
Information makes us more intelligent and creates neuro-passageways in the brain that are then passed down from generation to generation via the genes.
if that happened, i would suspect that it was someone, an extraterrestrial perhaps, with access to clarketech. anyway, i dont remember which event youre talking about. when did it happen, and where is it recorded?
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Kles wrote:
nfq wrote:
AQwertyZ wrote:
The increase in human knowledge is explained by neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian evolution. It amazes me how so many people equate intelligence with knowledge.
Without knowledge, how intelligent can you be?
Information makes us more intelligent and creates neuro-passageways in the brain that are then passed down from generation to generation via the genes.
Exactly right. Lamarckian evolution is thoroughly wrong in every conceivable way.
Of course, our knowledge is still passed on to the next generation, just not through DNA. It is passed on through books, documents, teachings, and other such things. Nowadays, when someone wants to learn about something, for example our sun, he doesn't have to start from scratch like our ancestors. He can look at scientific documents and read detailed reports that are the results of decades of observation and experimentation. THAT is what is inherited, and THAT is why we know much more today than people did even just 1000 years ago. We are not "intrinsically smarter", just more informed and less superstitious (at least some of us...).
Blublu wrote:
I think you do not understand evolution. I suggest reading a book, or at least a good article, about it before you dismiss it completely.
I haven't bothered to read much about it because I know it's not true.
How can you possibly know it's not true if you don't even know what it is about? Anyway, you should check it out. It's one of the most mind-bogglingly awe-inspiring scientific theory ever made. Really, it's fascinating. Maybe read the book "The blind watchmaker" or any good book about evolution. It's great stuff.
I think you do not understand evolution. I suggest reading a book, or at least a good article, about it before you dismiss it completely.
I haven't bothered to read much about it because I know it's not true.
How can you possibly know it's not true if you don't even know what it is about? Anyway, you should check it out.
Completely agreed, but I think this goes for science in general for nfq:
nfq wrote:
science never understands anything entirely, they only think they do.
I'm not sure if you understand how science is 'done'. Maybe reading this might be interesting for you.
I'm not sure if Bob A was responding to Blublu, but if he was, I think he doesn't know what is meant with 'theory' in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Another book I can personally recommend about evolution is The Red Queen, which has a lot to do with how sexual selection works (basically why men prefer young hotties and women prefer powerful rich dudes etc). A great read imo.
How can you possibly know it's not true if you don't even know what it is about?
The same way that atheists know that god doesn't exist. I know enough about it. I believe in evolution, but not the one science believes in because it doesn't make sense to me.
What makes sense to me is that we were androgynous spirits who became jellyblobs who divided by division like cells. After dividing for a long time we divided into two genders made of meat (because of mind's separation). God, life or consciousness decided which form it wanted to become/design. My theory also explains why creatures used to be so big (dinosaurs). Because spirits don't weigh much so they can be big without gravity affecting them.
If you understood god, you would believe in it, and if I understood darwin-evolution, I would believe in it.
