Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[psychoslice]

Then your argument is wrong?

Why did we just have that argument, then?

Ha, your ego is so big, you just cannot see, we are all wrong, we can only know what we know through our mere senses, we feel the world out there only through our senses, and what we come up with is only that level, we cannot go beyond that level, so yes we are always wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ha, your ego is so big, you just cannot see, we are all wrong, we can only know what we know through our mere senses, we feel the world out there only through our senses, and what we come up with is only that level, we cannot go beyond that level, so yes we are always wrong.

I might recommend reading the Bible, but i don't think any advice is going to get through.

 

[psychoslice]

I might recommend reading the Bible, but i don't think any advice is going to get through.

There you go again..........I have read the bible many times, I was a Seventh Day Adventist for almost 17 years, I am not stupid when it comes to the scriptures.

 

[NoorNoor]

NoorNoor, you present your BELIEFS as if they were FACTS.

First of all, I was talking to a person of faith (Etritonakin) about specific aspects of faith and I made it clear that the discussion is from that specific perspective but since you asked, then I 'll explain.

This is a belief, not a fact.

Yes, It's a belief but it's perfectly consistent with the logic that the first cause (God) beyond the beginning is necessarily beyond spacetime and physical laws, then it should be logical that nothing in our physical world is like him.

This is another set of beliefs that are not facts. It is not a FACT that your god exists, but just that you believe it's a fact

It's not logical that something would arise out of nothing. The existence of the first cause, created the potential for our universe to exist. The first cause is necessarily eternal (beyond spacetime). Non physical (as explained above), then the defining attributes of the first cause are necessarily different than any thing we experience in our physical world.

We have no evidence that you KNOW anything about any god. We have no evidence that this god GIVES anyone anything, or has control over anything, or can do ANYTHING ... or indeed, it if exists at all.

We recognize the existence of God through his influence, the creation point at the big bang would be an influence by the first cause/God.

You would have to DEMONSTRATE that your god "simply brings"... anything whatsoever. We can clearly see that you believe it.

We do create. In other words, manufacture using existing materials but the creation of the universe came out of total absence of matter and any thing physical.

It's easy to understand your point.
You believe things.

Don't you believe things? I have reasons to support my belief in God as the first cause. I claim you don't have any evidence against the existence of God. None, yet you seem confident that God can't or doesn't exist. Why? Simply because "you believe things" you just don't see it this way.

 

[NoorNoor]

Yes but is there a god that is going to hand out a spanking for those who don't agree with him, if so, then we don't have free will.

You are free to choose. You are free to do whatever you want whether right or wrong but that doesn't mean your choice wouldn't make any difference at the end. It will.

 

[psychoslice]

Why on earth do we need God, the cosmos is all that we need, it knows what it is doing, our silly concepts about god only makes everything stupid, just like a nursery rime, that little children believe in.

 

[psychoslice]

You are free to choose. You are free to do whatever you want whether right or wrong but that doesn't mean your choice wouldn't make any difference at the end. It will.

So your saying that I can do whatever I want, without a silly god complaining ?.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is your theory? That the magical fairies make things in candyland? you can't have things without first cause, //they wouldn't exist in the first place/. what's the cause?

But evolution does have a so called beginning or cause, the ultimate cause being the so called big bang.

*shrugs*
that's a very incomplete theory. First off, you assume some sort of 'cause', anyway, then you are dealing with the matter that you have to figure was set into motion for ''creation'', /no proof to either of those/, then, it leaves a bunch of variables.

cool. I'm going to make some coffee now.

Notice the inconsistency? Look again:

What is your theory? That the magical fairies make things in candyland? you can't have things without first cause, //they wouldn't exist in the first place/. what's the cause?

One post later:

*shrugs*
that's a very incomplete theory. First off, you assume some sort of 'cause', anyway, then you are dealing with the matter that you have to figure was set into motion for ''creation'', /no proof to either of those/, then, it leaves a bunch of variables.

So, you start by asserting that there HAD to be a cause, then as soon as a probable cause is given you reject it on the basis of having no good reason to ASSUME a cause. Isn't that exactly what you just did? And where is your proof that a "first cause" is even required? Your logic is clearly self-contradictory. I would get your own ideas in order before you start quizzing other people's.

 

[NoorNoor]

Why on earth do we need God, the cosmos is all that we need, it knows what it is doing, our silly concepts about god only makes everything stupid, just like a nursery rime, that little children believe in.

Your statement "the cosmos is all that we need, it knows what it is doing" implies that "the cosmos" is a self aware intelligent being??

 

[NoorNoor]

So your saying that I can do whatever I want, without a silly god complaining ?.

Yes, you can do whatever but your choice will make a difference.

 

[NoorNoor]

So, you start by asserting that there HAD to be a cause, then as soon as a probable cause is given you reject it on the basis of having no good reason to ASSUME a cause. Isn't that exactly what you just did? And where is your proof that a "first cause" is even required? Your logic is clearly self-contradictory. I would get your own ideas in order before you start quizzing other people's.

Every thing has a beginning necessarily needs a cause (Our universe has a beginning at the big bang.The universe didn't arise out of nothing). beyond the beginning, in absence of time, there are no beginnings. the ""first" cause that brought the physical world to existence, would necessarily have no beginning/Don't need a cause.

 

[psychoslice]

Your statement "the cosmos is all that we need, it knows what it is doing" implies that "the cosmos" is a self aware intelligent being??

Your label of the Cosmos is only a human concept, it is what it is, once we label it, it is no longer why it is. When we call it an intelligent being, we then reduce it to our level, we then call it God or whatever, and we then worship it. We must realize that we are also the Cosmos, there is nothing separte from the Cosmos, that is until we label it, which means nothing to the Cosmos.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, you can do whatever but your choice will make a difference.

To who ?.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Every thing has a beginning necessarily needs a cause (Our universe has a beginning at the big bang.The universe didn't arise out of nothing).

Can you demonstrate that this is true of the Universe, considering physical laws don't pre-date the Universe?

beyond the beginning, in absence of time, there are no beginnings. the ""first" cause that brought the physical world to existence, would necessarily have no beginning/Don't need a cause.

You're just defining this logic into existence. Ultimately, you are still making a series of unfounded assumptions - firstly, that the Universe had a beginning (at least in the sense you are assuming); secondly, that something that pre-dates the existence of physical laws somehow adheres to said physical laws; thirdly, that the law of cause and effect is Universal (which it isn't); fourthly, that nothing can pre-date the Universe; fifth, that if anything is the cause of the Universe, it is somehow exempt from all the laws you have just explained (this is called special pleading).

 

[Zosimus]

Ha, your ego is so big, you just cannot see, we are all wrong, we can only know what we know through our mere senses, we feel the world out there only through our senses, and what we come up with is only that level, we cannot go beyond that level, so yes we are always wrong.

You have said, "We can only know what we know through [our senses]..."

This statement, hereinafter referred to as radical empiricism, is extremely doubtful. First of all, how can you claim to know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Could you demonstrate to me using nothing but sense experience that the above is true? If not, then you are basically saying that you know this to be true through a method that does not include sense experience. If true, this statement would be considered self refuting.

On the other hand, if you accept that some things can be known without recourse to sense experience, then what is to stop someone from merely saying that he or she knows (without need for evidence or sense experience) that God exists (or Allah, Zeus, Thor, or whomever). I can certainly understand your desire to extinguish these kinds of claims, but I cannot accept the idea that all knowledge comes from sense experience until you provide me with a sense experience that demonstrates it.

 

[psychoslice]

You have said, "We can only know what we know through [our senses]..."

This statement, hereinafter referred to as radical empiricism, is extremely doubtful. First of all, how can you claim to know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Could you demonstrate to me using nothing but sense experience that the above is true? If not, then you are basically saying that you know this to be true through a method that does not include sense experience. If true, this statement would be considered self refuting.

On the other hand, if you accept that some things can be known without recourse to sense experience, then what is to stop someone from merely saying that he or she knows (without need for evidence or sense experience) that God exists (or Allah, Zeus, Thor, or whomever). I can certainly understand your desire to extinguish these kinds of claims, but I cannot accept the idea that all knowledge comes from sense experience until you provide me with a sense experience that demonstrates it.

If you had no senses, no hearing, touch, smell, sight.........what would you be ?.

 

[Zosimus]

If you had no senses, no hearing, touch, smell, sight.........what would you be ?.

The immediate "flip" answer that came to my tongue was to say that I would be a psychosplice.

However, rather than lose the focus of this important topic, I want to redirect your attention to the question at hand. Can you demonstrate using only sense experience that all knowledge comes from sense experience? If you cannot, then why should we accept your claim?

 

[psychoslice]

The immediate "flip" answer that came to my tongue was to say that I would be a psychosplice.

However, rather than lose the focus of this important topic, I want to redirect your attention to the question at hand. Can you demonstrate using only sense experience that all knowledge comes from sense experience? If you cannot, then why should we accept your claim?

Of course I am demonstrating using my senses, how the hell do you think I am able to sit here typing, reading and so on.........its all through my senses, and nothing else, why make it so complicated when its simple, as they say, K.I.S.S.

 

[Zosimus]

Of course I am demonstrating using my senses, how the hell do you think I am able to sit here typing, reading and so on.........its all through my senses, and nothing else, why make it so complicated when its simple, as they say, K.I.S.S.

I will take that pitiful response as a confession that no, you cannot demonstrate that all knowledge comes through sense experience.

 

[psychoslice]

I will take that pitiful response as a confession that no, you cannot demonstrate that all knowledge comes through sense experience.

Get your popcorn out and have a look at this.