Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Guy Threepwood]

But it's not rationale. You're assuming it only because we do not yet understand it. At best it's a filler-answer, at worst it's an imperative to simply stop looking for the actual answer.

It's because we do understand it, we understand that there WAS a beginning, a specific creation event- not a static uncreated universe as atheists predicted.
we understand the Galaxy is NOT teaming with other sentient life, but that we so far appear to be alone
we understand that the probability of happening upon the universal constants by chance are so staggeringly low, that it would require a practically infinite imaginary multiverse to fluke this one.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is true because God told me.

did not!

 

[viole]

Chance as opposed to purpose, intent, will,

False dichotomy, obviously.

If I let an apple fall, it will definetely go down to the ground in a straight line. No chance it will go to orbit or follow any other weird trajectory.

Does that entail intent?

If yes, why don't you use the apple falling scenario alone to prove God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

It's because we do understand it, we understand that there WAS a beginning, a specific creation event- not a static uncreated universe as atheists predicted.
we understand the Galaxy is NOT teaming with other sentient life, but that we so far appear to be alone
we understand that the probability of happening upon the universal constants by chance are so staggeringly low, that it would require a practically infinite imaginary multiverse to fluke this one.

The bold is bull****. Do you have the slightest idea as to how vast the distances are? The universe could be outright choked & clogged with life and we may never know because of how far away everything is even if you're literally traveling at the speed of light.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's no proof, there is evidence & faith,

'nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

the existence of the apple and gravity alone are difficult to explain by chance

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The bold is bull****. Do you have the slightest idea as to how vast the distances are? The universe could be outright choked & clogged with life and we may never know because of how far away everything is even if you're literally traveling at the speed of light.

so you accept the other two?

we can listen across an entire galaxy and hear nothing but deafening silence. If it were teaming with intelligent signals, I'd accept that implication, I'm willing to accept the opposite one also

 

[metis]

it's theoretical speculation as you say, not a scientific field at all by your own definition. I used to believe in the Big Crunch till it was disproven not so long ago by supernova measurements. That was the last scientifically testable atheist theory and it failed.

The Big Crunch has not been disproven, but the overall consensus of cosmologists tends to consider it less than likely.

 

[Nietzsche]

so you accept the other two?

No. The Universe is technically an eternal construct because time only came into existence when the Universe did. You cannot measure age without time and you do not have time if there is no universe. So it can have a beginning and be eternal.

we can listen across an entire galaxy and hear nothing but deafening silence. If it were teaming with intelligent signals, I'd accept that implication, I'm willing to accept the opposite one also

We've only been listening for those things for 50 years tops. It also assumes that they(aliens) would go down a technological path like ours. That is a faulty assumption.

 

[viole]

There's no proof, there is evidence & faith,

'nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

the existence of the apple and gravity alone are difficult to explain by chance

Lol. I did not ask Galileo either. Three delegations of your thoughts to someone else, and counting.

Now you are making a category error. And a huge logical one.

You defined the lack of chance as intent. If we take that a face value, then the predictive trajectory of the apple is intent.

So, you redirected to the existence of the laws of gravity, that make the predictability of the apple possible.

But that woud entail that lack of chance is not necessarily intent. It is the laws that make that predictability possible that entails intent.

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Big Crunch has not been disproven, but the overall consensus of cosmologists tends to consider it less than likely.

OK to be picky! but it was certainly enough for it's proponent to abandon it for something else... which doesn't involve everybody having to climb back into the womb this time!

 

[metis]

OK to be picky! but it was certainly enough for it's proponent to abandon it for something else... which doesn't involve everybody having to climb back into the womb this time!

The problem was in your use of the word "disproven", so I'm hardly being "picky" here.

 

[Lu Zao]

You have to look at history as an evolution of society. - Jean Chretien

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lol. I did not ask Galileo either.

Now you are making a category error. And a huge logical one.

You defined the lack of chance as intent. If we take that a face value, then the predictive trajectory of the apple is intent.

So, you redirected to the existence of the laws of gravity, that make the predictability of the apple possible.

But that woud entail that lack of chance is not necessarily intent. It is the laws that make that predictability possible that entails intent.

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

your above argument is the category error, it uses two different definitions of chance- lack of intent and lack of predictability

I'm using one explicit definition, lack of intent.

semantics aside, either we believe the design of the universe came about ultimately through creative intelligence, intent, purpose..
or chance, automated /naturalistic/ spontaneous/ mechanism of some kind.

However you prefer to describe each belief, we both know what they are

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem was in your use of the word "disproven", so I'm hardly being "picky" here.

point being... Big Crunch was cobblers

 

[metis]

point being... Big Crunch was cobblers

Not necessarily.

 

[Nietzsche]

your above argument is the category error, it uses two different definitions of chance- lack of intent and lack of predictability

I'm using one explicit definition, lack of intent.

semantics aside, either we believe the design of the universe came about ultimately through creative intelligence, intent, purpose..
or chance, automated /naturalistic/ spontaneous/ mechanism of some kind.

However you prefer to describe each belief, we both know what they are

The problem of a Creator is that you then have to ask who or what created them. A 'spontaneous' universe relies on fewer assumptions than a created one, because there is no need for magic for it to work nor does there require an infinite chain of 'Creators' creating other creators.

So. 'Spontaneous' or "creators all the way down".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not necessarily.

how much you bet?

 

[viole]

your above argument is the category error, it uses two different definitions of chance- lack of intent and lack of predictability

I'm using one explicit definition, lack of intent.

semantics aside, either we believe the design of the universe came about ultimately through creative intelligence, intent, purpose..
or chance, automated /naturalistic/ spontaneous/ mechanism of some kind.

However you prefer to describe each belief, we both know what they are

I think you are mixing things.

Automated, naturalistic, chance, spontaneous are four things with very different meanings. For instance, naturalstic does not entail chance. The same for automated, whatever you mean with that.

You are also contradicting yourself. I thought we have only chance and intent. Now we have five not necessarily reduceable possibilities.

You are moving the target. Which one do you want to address, if any?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem of a Creator is that you then have to ask who or what created them. A 'spontaneous' universe relies on fewer assumptions than a created one, because there is no need for magic for it to work nor does there require an infinite chain of 'Creators' creating other creators.

So. 'Spontaneous' or "creators all the way down".

what spontaneous mechanism created the spontaneous mechanism? that's a paradox unique to atheism.

Creative intelligence is the only phenomena which can break the chain of infinite spontaneity with the unique creative power of purpose, intent will

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey, welcome to RF, Lu Zao!