How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Pogo]

Look .. you cried out that I have misunderstood Atheism .. this was followed up with name calling and false accusation .. ..

You make statements about God .. claiming God / Godly powers do not exist.. I simply asked you to define your terms .. define what you mean by Godly powers .. and gave a few examples of things given by others.

You refused to give a definition.. thus we know nothing about what you mean by "God" ... so we can substitute "Nothing" in place of God in your sentence.. .. "God does not exist" then becomes "Nothing does not exist" .. so you are saying that something exists .. substitute God back in and we get .. ding ding ding God Exists LOL .. circular fallacious nonsense is the foundation for your belief .. giong round and round.. banging head each time ..

Me Philosopher - Great Scientist -- SubD .. not so much .. so understand that crucifixion of your predeliction was well intended.

Now .. did you wish to give coherent thought to the question .. if HeyZeus strolled into the Bar .. sat next to you and professed to have Godly Powers . what would it take to make you a believer ! Fire from the sky through force of will .. telekenisis make the walls of the room blow out with a flick of the wrist... .. What is it that you don't belief in ? "Nothing" .. a hilarious answer directly the reverse of how the Bible Belt creationist will respond .. defining God as "The God of Everything" .. which when substituted into our little logic algorithm .. is reduced to the God of nothing .. based on the same failed logic just in reverse direction .

The big difference is .. We know who implanted the "Thought stopping" algorithm in the Religious right . what is the excuse in the case of the secular respondent ?? this I dont get .. and dont take it personally .. go boo hoo complaining about being rude .. as this is not limited to you .. this is most every atheist so far .. would be at least 6 including yourself in this thread ... and I find this quit disturbing to be sure but at the same time extremely curious as to the source of this imbalance in the force.

Maybe this will move things a little, as far as I understand it, a god is something with undefined properties and without evidence, it may not even qualify as a thing. For lack of any further information I do not assume its existence if existence is even meaningful in this sense.

 

[Sargonski]

Maybe this will move things a little, as far as I understand it, a god is something with undefined properties and without evidence, it may not even qualify as a thing. For lack of any further information I do not assume its existence if existence is even meaningful in this sense.

If God is "undefined" then any statement, conversation, claim using this term is meaningless .. or assumptions for that matter.

The statement "I don't believe in God (nothing) " .. completely meaningless nonsense other than it is equal (=) to the claim "I don't believe in nothing" .. which means the claimant believes in something .. and when we substitute God back into the claim we get "I believe in God" and thus logical circle jerk

So .. the next time someone tells you "I believe in "undefined" realize that responding back " I don't believe in undefined" is equally nonsensical.

I tell you true I am befuddled by the large number those arguing a secular perspective (such as myself) step into this logical hole.. and end up with foundation for belief based on fallacy .. in a very similar way to the religious right creationist .. two ends of the same fallacious coin.

The befuddling part is not with the creationist .. I understand their use of "Thought stoping devices" implanted in them by devious Cult leaders using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. but when I see such things coming out of the Secular crowd.

Now "to move things a little" you say ?? .. NO .. there is no moving anywhere .. no possible way anying can move at all.. without defiing ones terms .. Logic 01 .. under heading "The Basics" Sub Heading "Rule Number One (1)" Terms must be defined for any positive movement.

So how about telling me about a "Godly Power" that you don't believe in.. say like being able to summon lightning bolts from the sky on a clear day through force of will. would that not be a "Godly Power.. such that you would claim the individual wielding that power was at least partially divine .. ??

 

[Pogo]

If God is "undefined" then any statement, conversation, claim using this term is meaningless .. or assumptions for that matter.

You got it, if god is undefined any claim using the term is meaningless.
So whether I believe or don't believe or declare it not to exist or to exist is meaningless.

The statement "I don't believe in God (nothing) " .. completely meaningless nonsense other than it is equal (=) to the claim "I don't believe in nothing" .. which means the claimant believes in something .. and when we substitute God back into the claim we get "I believe in God" and thus logical circle jerk

Here the problem is you have defined god as nothing (not sure what your definition of nothing is) and thus I agree it is equal to I don't believe in nothing, but it is no longer a meaningless claim.
Unfortunately, your next claim "which means the claimant believes in something" logically translates to not not x = y. Which is true if nothing = something but we are back to the definition problem, but otherwise false. Assuming nothing does not equal something, then either your syllogism is false or you can conclude that god as defined as nothing is meaqningless in terms of your intended proof. You haven't defined god so God is undefined which as we agree is meaningless.

If you want to discuss a god that has meaning, you are going to have to define it because our definition is undefined.


The rest of this we could maybe discuss after you understand the above and define what you are talking about.

So .. the next time someone tells you "I believe in "undefined" realize that responding back " I don't believe in undefined" is equally nonsensical.

I tell you true I am befuddled by the large number those arguing a secular perspective (such as myself) step into this logical hole.. and end up with foundation for belief based on fallacy .. in a very similar way to the religious right creationist .. two ends of the same fallacious coin.

The befuddling part is not with the creationist .. I understand their use of "Thought stoping devices" implanted in them by devious Cult leaders using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. but when I see such things coming out of the Secular crowd.

Now "to move things a little" you say ?? .. NO .. there is no moving anywhere .. no possible way anying can move at all.. without defiing ones terms .. Logic 01 .. under heading "The Basics" Sub Heading "Rule Number One (1)" Terms must be defined for any positive movement.

So how about telling me about a "Godly Power" that you don't believe in.. say like being able to summon lightning bolts from the sky on a clear day through force of will. would that not be a "Godly Power.. such that you would claim the individual wielding that power was at least partially divine .. ??

 

[Sargonski]

You got it, if god is undefined any claim using the term is meaningless.
So whether I believe or don't believe or declare it not to exist or to exist is meaningless.

Here the problem is you have defined god as nothing (not sure what your definition of nothing is) and thus I agree it is equal to I don't believe in nothing, but it is no longer a meaningless claim.
Unfortunately, your next claim "which means the claimant believes in something" logically translates to not not x = y. Which is true if nothing = something but we are back to the definition problem, but otherwise false. Assuming nothing does not equal something, then either your syllogism is false or you can conclude that god as defined as nothing is meaqningless in terms of your intended proof. You haven't defined god so God is undefined which as we agree is meaningless.

If you want to discuss a god that has meaning, you are going to have to define it because our definition is undefined.


The rest of this we could maybe discuss after you understand the above and define what you are talking about.

I am not the one who has used the term God .. what I was asking was for the one that did use the term to define it .. commenting on the pointless logical fallacy of any conversation untill such term is defined.

You proffered the label "Undefined" .. which is equal in practice to nothing.. as nothing has been defined.. such that X = Y.

and this is how you have defined God X = Undefined : Y = Nothing

Thus God = Undefined = Nothing .. So when we substitute into the equation "I do not believe in God" .. this is the same as saying "I do not believe in Nothing"

I do not believe in Nothing = You believe in Something .. and if God is defined as Something (not nothing) .. then You believe in God .. LOLOLOL

 

[YoursTrue]

All the whining you do about how much atheists insult you and here you are, doing the very thing you claim to be better than...

You are still ignoring the fact that you have double standards when it comes to evidencing your beliefs and evidencing abiogenesis.
In fact, you are going to great lengths to avoid it.
to the extent of doing the very thing you whine s

So on one hand you don't believe God created the heavens and the earth (you don't believe "Goddidit,") and on the other hand scientists say there is the possibility that you may never know how life got started on the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So on one hand you don't believe God created the heavens and the earth (you don't believe "Goddidit,") and on the other hand scientists say there is the possibility that you may never know how life got started on the earth.

You seem to think that is unreasonable. Can you tell us why?

 

[McBell]

So on one hand you don't believe God created the heavens and the earth (you don't believe "Goddidit,") and on the other hand scientists say there is the possibility that you may never know how life got started on the earth.

I am not the one taking issue with the truth.

That truth being "I Do Not Know".

That you feel the need to pretend to know something is a you problem.
Not a me problem.


AND...
You are STILL dancing around the fact that you have double standards when it comes to evidencing your beliefs and evidencing abiogenesis.

 

[John53]

I am not the one taking issue with the truth.

That truth being "I Do Not Know".

That you feel the need to pretend to know something is a you problem.
Not a me problem.


AND...
You are STILL dancing around the fact that you have double standards when it comes to evidencing your beliefs and evidencing abiogenesis.

I'm not sure what the point is of adding "scientists say" is. Will I be disfellowshipped if I don't agree with them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False .. you responded to me.. who is not the one making claims of belief or disbelief in Gods .. You responded to my request to another poster who was expressing a disbelief in God .. "Godly powers"

I asked what how was God being defined .. and to this you started bellyaching about how a definition is not needed . at which point you were informed that without a definition .. the statement "I do not believe in God" is nonsense.

Now do you understand why it is that your beliefs are based in fallacy. Believing that you can be an atheist without having a definition for God .. is a belief based on fallacy.

Now that you have been corrected .. go and change your perspective

I already explained this to you.
When atheists talk about god, they are ALWAYS talking about a subject that was brought up by someone else.

Nobody wakes up thinking "you know what, i don't believe gooblydockbloblo exists". Nobody sane anyway.
Someone else first would need to bring up gooblydockbloblo and claim it exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already explained this to you.
When atheists talk about god, they are ALWAYS talking about a subject that was brought up by someone else.

Nobody wakes up thinking "you know what, i don't believe gooblydockbloblo exists". Nobody sane anyway.
Someone else first would need to bring up gooblydockbloblo and claim it exists.

I gave up. Some people do not want to know how they are wrong.

 

[Pogo]

I already explained this to you.
When atheists talk about god, they are ALWAYS talking about a subject that was brought up by someone else.

Nobody wakes up thinking "you know what, i don't believe gooblydockbloblo exists". Nobody sane anyway.
Someone else first would need to bring up gooblydockbloblo and claim it exists.

But there is something out there that we believe that he will prove us wrong because he knows if only we will tell him what it is. LOL
Sure beats expressing a coherent opinion.

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure what the point is of adding "scientists say" is. Will I be disfellowshipped if I don't agree with them?

It could be nothing more than habit.

I notice that a lot of people on message boards add un-needed conditional modifiers even when not needed.

I have even found myself doing it.

 

[Pogo]

It could be nothing more than habit.

I notice that a lot of people on message boards add un-needed conditional modifiers even when not needed.

I have even found myself doing it.

Needless to say. you are stating the obvious.

 

[McBell]

Needless to say. you are stating the obvious.

Does your acknowledging it mean I get to be promoted up from Captain?

 

[Pogo]

Does your acknowledging it mean I get to be promoted up from Captain?

OK, Admiral Obvious it is.

 

[McBell]

WOO HOO!

 

[John53]

It could be nothing more than habit.

I notice that a lot of people on message boards add un-needed conditional modifiers even when not needed.

I have even found myself doing it.

The only problem being that the bit after "scientists say" is rarely what scientists say.

 

[McBell]

The only problem being that the bit after "scientists say" is rarely what scientists say.

Well, yes, I agree that that is problematic....

 

[QuestioningMind]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

Natural processes occurring over vast periods of time seems far less complex than some fantastical non-material being that exists outside of time and space and can conjure up an entire universe. You're rejecting a simpler explanation that falls within the bounds of what we know does exist for one that is greatly more complex and unlikely and requires us to imagine into existence some being that is basically beyond comprehension.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If God is "undefined" then any statement, conversation, claim using this term is meaningless .. or assumptions for that matter.

The statement "I don't believe in God (nothing) " .. completely meaningless nonsense other than it is equal (=) to the claim "I don't believe in nothing" .. which means the claimant believes in something .. and when we substitute God back into the claim we get "I believe in God" and thus logical circle jerk

So .. the next time someone tells you "I believe in "undefined" realize that responding back " I don't believe in undefined" is equally nonsensical.

I tell you true I am befuddled by the large number those arguing a secular perspective (such as myself) step into this logical hole.. and end up with foundation for belief based on fallacy .. in a very similar way to the religious right creationist .. two ends of the same fallacious coin.

The befuddling part is not with the creationist .. I understand their use of "Thought stoping devices" implanted in them by devious Cult leaders using sophisticated mind control techniques. .. but when I see such things coming out of the Secular crowd.

Now "to move things a little" you say ?? .. NO .. there is no moving anywhere .. no possible way anying can move at all.. without defiing ones terms .. Logic 01 .. under heading "The Basics" Sub Heading "Rule Number One (1)" Terms must be defined for any positive movement.

So how about telling me about a "Godly Power" that you don't believe in.. say like being able to summon lightning bolts from the sky on a clear day through force of will. would that not be a "Godly Power.. such that you would claim the individual wielding that power was at least partially divine .. ??

So .. the next time someone tells you "I believe in "undefined" realize that responding back " I don't believe in undefined" is equally nonsensical.

I don't agree. If someone claims to believe in something that isn't defined sufficiently for me to understand it then I can confidently say that I don't believe in this something that hasn't been properly defined.