Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 07:24:27 PM »

I would like to know what your best rational argument is.

I wouldn't say that I have a best argument. There are a few that I find more compelling than others but nothing I would say is my best.


It was his mistakes which made the difference, not because some of what he said was correct.

Which mistakes? You didn't say? They may be important mistakes.

Evolution produces rationality and reliability of thought in two ways, by intuition and by method.

Evolution has to develop rapid intuitive responses. It is necessary to intuitively understand some of the basic concepts of the universe such as distance and time and combine these to understand speed. Distance, time and speed are needed to hunt and escape from other animals. No doubt early humans threw stones to protect themselves, so they would also have evolved the more difficult intuitive concepts of gravity, force and trajectory, since a moving animal would have to reach the same place at the same time as a thrown stone or other object. We can do all these things intuitively without any conscious mathematical calculations in our heads but the physics is not easy to do consciously.

Evolution also has to develop a conscious method of data collection and analysis. Data has to be collected on terrain and plant types, when they can be eaten, and if they are poisonous. Hypotheses also need to be formed about when and where the plants can be found again, about the weather and safety of travel, plans for dealing with dangerous animals which might be met, crossing rivers, making tools, and finding source materials for tools. Early types of humans also made tools, not just modern humans.

So we evolved the basic method we need for complex science from simple problems of survival.

We did NOT evolve the intuitive ability to understand all the processes of the universe and reality just by thinking about it, but we did evolve the conscious method to try. Gods are one of the mistakes made because we have evolved to think that any unexpected event might be caused by a hiding predator, so we tend think that living beings are behind natural events when they are not. How many times have you instinctively froze or reacted to a shadow in the corner of your eye in the dark?

Intuition does not get you any further along in demonstrating that evolution produces beliefs that can be known to be true or false. The intuition may be correct and, then again, it may not be. So, an evolved being may act on their intuition and even though it is false, it may still enhance adaptation and survivability. Again, intuition is something you could never know to be capable of producing true intuition....which still makes naturalism irrational.

I'm sure what you've presented here represents a plausible model of how primitive beings may have utilized intuition. However, natural selection did not and does not favor what evolution has produced based on truth. It favors what is capable of surviving.

Mathematics shows that we can think rationally. Science tells us what we can do rationally and intutively and what we cannot. Successful applications and predictions show that we have been successful, regardless of the origins of the ability.

Yes, but how do you know that what we believe about science is true? Absent a means for demonstrating that evolution is capable of producing true beliefs,  you cannot know if anything you believe is true, including matter how true it may appear to be. As I said, you are a product of evolution...a process that generates physical biological structures that could be acting on true beliefs or false beliefs. Natural selection is oblivious as to whether a belief is true or not.

The argument probably gets attention because of the qualifications of Plantinga which could lead people astray and so the argument needs to be refuted because it is so obviously false.

Actually, you have not demonstrated that it is false. You have not even come close.
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 06:46:55 PM »
Brilliant, so obvious how could I have been so stupid. Aaàh, t'was my rebellion against god phase, how cute.
I'd be curious, on the whole, who is more fearful of death: atheists or believers?  I know it's impossible to measure because we don't even know who is really a believer, and believers (and atheists) are likely to lie and say they aren't afraid.

The quote that always comforts me comes from Mark Twain, who famously said “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by YouCantHandleTheTruth on Yesterday at 06:18:11 PM »
I am waiting for the "you are discussing god therefore he must exist therefore there are no atheists"

And we're all angry at God!  Like Professor Radisson in God's Not Dead.  Then the brilliant response from the freshman student well beyond his years: "how can you hate something you don't believe exists?"  Boom - game over!  God's Not Dead!!
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by YouCantHandleTheTruth on Yesterday at 06:16:31 PM »
That's the problem, 12 Monkeys! When we look at our universe on the largest scale we see no sort of intent in the way things have worked out. In fact following what we know about physics rewinding the expansion seems to show that our understanding of the physics is pretty good. The idea that  a persona created everything for the purpose of creating humans and who then drops the humans on an obscure planet seems quite unlikely.

The fact is that there is nothing in the universe that we presently know of that remotely suggests it was designed and, given the idea that it was designed for humans makes even less sense given the places humans might live. I mean, look how far it is to the nearest possible planet we might inhabit - 4 light years. That's hardly placed to help humans.

Rather, if it were not for holy bools written by ignorant men, no one would be proposing a creator or any sort or a ruler over the universe. Of course, Jstm you could always consult the works of Ludwig Feuerbach who in one of his works concluded that the only thing to be all-knowing and all-powerful in the universe was the entire human race! perhaps that would suit, Jst?

Doesn't it seem even less likely that it was designed for humans when it was inhabited by dinosaurs for millions of years? 
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by YouCantHandleTheTruth on Yesterday at 06:12:09 PM »
Not surprising that you give an amazingly ridiculous video and have cannot explain what you claimed.  What is false or true about adaptations?  what is this "genuine backbone" you claim?  I'm waiting for you to explain it.  I'm not wasting my time on videos.  You claim you have researched it, so please do expound on it. 

and no surprise that you give nothing at all for what you would take as evidence.  Nice dodge there, BS.  Same fail as before.

I think this is where we acknowledge that BS's need to believe is greater than his need to know.  There's no swaying BS, he's set in his beliefs, but it's not impossible that 10-15 years down the road he changes his mind.  We've seen that a lot from some famous preachers like Jerry DeWitt and Dan Barker, and people that went to seminary and lost their faith after really diving into the Bible, etc.

But I'm definitely done debating in this thread because of the assertions that God is there, and he can do no wrong.  Once you get to that point, it's like arguing with someone about Superman.  You can give Superman any qualities you want.
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 05:59:28 PM »
I am waiting for the "you are discussing god therefore he must exist therefore there are no atheists"
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question about Islam
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 05:54:15 PM »
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 05:49:19 PM »
Does God exist?  Please explain.

no evidence for the one claimed by jst, other Christians, or other theists.

Jst, what evidence would it take you to believe in a god other than the one you claim exists?
I don't want them seriously threatening human employment! :(

we can send in humans.  Many tedious, dirty dangerous jobs may be done by robots.  I'm curious if it's more important to have employment or to have humans not exposed to radiation, coal dust, repetitive strain injuries e.g. people in slaughterhouses, etc. 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10