Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[loverofhumanity]

This has nothing to do with evolution, as the ToE speaks to speciation via extremely subtle mutations over millions of years. What would different vegetables appearing at different seasons have to do with the subject at hand? It seems ludicrous to even draw a comparison.

Yes but you're leaving out the spiritual and scientific evolution. Where is that in the animal. Where is the religious and scientific animal? We are the only species in existence in all evolution to display these attributes.

 

[leibowde84]

The embryo proves we can remain the same species and evolve at the same time does it not???

Not at all. An embryo develops into a human being. It doesn't evolve into one. Evolution in this context refers to gradual changes via mutation when DNA is passed from generation to generation. These changes take vast amounts of time. For example, a puppy doesn't evolve into a dog, it develops.

 

[leibowde84]

The proof that man did not evolve from any other species is that no other species contain all the qualities of man such as I have explained. The spiritual as well as scientific achievements. Have never had science or religion in their portfolio which distinguishes man from other species.

But this is true of other species as well. Certain fish became able to walk on land via evolutionary changes. Just because lizards have legs and fish don't doesn't in any way mean that they don't come from a common anscestor.

 

[JustWondering]

It is logical for instance that a television follows programmed instructions and that it did not manufacture itself. That is clearly self explanatory, reasonable, entirely rational and reasonable. No wishful thinking there. Apply the same principle to the universe. It is logical argument that it did not manufacture itself.

Your argument negates itself when you establish a line of reasoning that something that has complexity to it NEEDS a creator and then turn around and say that the creator itself, which is likely the MOST complex thing/being there can be, doesn't need a creator. You are basically saying that astoundingly complex things CAN exist without a creator/being manufactured. So if your unproven god can JUST exist, then the universe as we know it can also JUST exist.

Its human nature to want answers but isn't it more rational to except we simply don't know something rather than filling our gaps of knowledge with supernatural stories made up by ancient superstitious men? At one point people actually believed lightning came from angry gods who lived in the sky.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

 

[leibowde84]

Yes but you're leaving out the spiritual and scientific evolution. Where is that in the animal. Where is the religious and scientific animal? We are the only species in existence in all evolution to display these attributes.

That's true, but that just means we are the first to consider such things due to the evolution of our brains and mental capacity.
Why would this go against evolution in any way?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes but you're leaving out the spiritual and scientific evolution. Where is that in the animal. Where is the religious and scientific animal? We are the only species in existence in all evolution to display these attributes.

Give our fellow primates time. Chimpanzees have already been observed using stone tools - that's right - they're in the Stone Age and engaging in behaviour which could be religious in nature which could give us better clues as to what point on our evolutionary path our ancestors started doing these same things.

 

[McBell]

I don't know what you mean. I understood you were inferring I shouldn't be in this thread as my views are not the same as others and I don't want to upset anyone so maybe you are right as it is not a thread about religion. It's easy to jump from thread to thread forgetting the topic. I apologise again.

I was saying that your "evidence" is nothing more than a choir sermon.

Meaning the only ones it will convince are those who already agree with you.

There are several members in this thread that disagree with your position.
Thus when you present a sermon for the choir, it doe snot help your position with those outside the choir.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I was saying that your "evidence" is nothing more than a choir sermon.

Meaning the only ones it will convince are those who already agree with you.

There are several members in this thread that disagree with your position.
Thus when you present a sermon for the choir, it doe snot help your position with those outside the choir.

I see your point and appreciate you pointing it out.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Give our fellow primates time. Chimpanzees have already been observed using stone tools - that's right - they're in the Stone Age and engaging in behaviour which could be religious in nature which could give us better clues as to what point on our evolutionary path our ancestors started doing these same things.

Yes we must give them time.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's true, but that just means we are the first to consider such things due to the evolution of our brains and mental capacity.
Why would this go against evolution in any way?

Coming afterwards is no proof we evolved from other species. There are no signs of spiritual and scientific advances amongst any lower forms, which proves we are a distinct species as we are the only ones to possess these qualities.

You need to produce a monkey scientist or prophet as proof we are evolved from them.

If they are the root and we are a branch, how can the root be inferior to the branch?

“Some say that human existence is among those things that have appeared in the world of being and that are due to the exigencies of nature. Were this true, man would be the branch and nature the root. But is it possible that there could exist a will, a consciousness, and certain perfections in the branch which are absent in the root?”

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your argument negates itself when you establish a line of reasoning that something that has complexity to it NEEDS a creator and then turn around and say that the creator itself, which is likely the MOST complex thing/being there can be, doesn't need a creator. You are basically saying that astoundingly complex things CAN exist without a creator/being manufactured. So if your unproven god can JUST exist, then the universe as we know it can also JUST exist.

Its human nature to want answers but isn't it more rational to except we simply don't know something rather than filling our gaps of knowledge with supernatural stories made up by ancient superstitious men? At one point people actually believed lightning came from angry gods who lived in the sky.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

It's only possible that the universe had no beginning if there was also a God that had no beginning as the universe has no creative power or consciousness but follows strict laws so there must be a Law Giver.

Nothing we see brought itself into existence. Everything we have are made or manufactured. Without man there would be no things like cars, planes and telephones. Can you imagine there being cars, planes and phones without man???? It's impossible as these things cannot just come out of the ground and manufacture themselves.

It is entirely irrational argument to say the universe exists without a creator just like if we try and say that all our things just invented and manufactured themselves. It is a highly irrational and illogical assumption because a creation presupposes a creator.

If one does not want to accept the idea of a creator then that us more an emotional stance but a highly illogical and irrational one as we can see.

A painting exists without a painter ? Impossible!

 

[loverofhumanity]

But this is true of other species as well. Certain fish became able to walk on land via evolutionary changes. Just because lizards have legs and fish don't doesn't in any way mean that they don't come from a common anscestor.

Show me a fish that became a scientist or the monkey prophet. They are a different species not man. We can become engineers, doctors, lawyers and fly planes and drive cars.

You are overlooking spiritual and intellectual qualities which distinguish us from all other forms of life on this planet.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Not at all. An embryo develops into a human being. It doesn't evolve into one. Evolution in this context refers to gradual changes via mutation when DNA is passed from generation to generation. These changes take vast amounts of time. For example, a puppy doesn't evolve into a dog, it develops.

The embryo eventually develops into a person which has spiritual and scientific qualities not possessed by other firms of life.

 

[Willamena]

The embryo eventually develops into a person which has spiritual and scientific qualities not possessed by other firms of life.

"Eventually" is not a reality. It's a convenient fiction.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"Eventually" is not a reality.

Maybe I should have said evolved or developed? Anyway thanks for pointing that out.

 

[JustWondering]

It's only possible that the universe had no beginning if there was also a God that had no beginning as the universe has no creative power or consciousness but follows strict laws so there must be a Law Giver.

Nothing we see brought itself into existence. Everything we have are made or manufactured. Without man there would be no things like cars, planes and telephones. Can you imagine there being cars, planes and phones without man???? It's impossible as these things cannot just come out of the ground and manufacture themselves.

It is entirely irrational argument to say the universe exists without a creator just like if we try and say that all our things just invented and manufactured themselves. It is a highly irrational and illogical assumption because a creation presupposes a creator.

If one does not want to accept the idea of a creator then that us more an emotional stance but a highly illogical and irrational one as we can see.

A painting exists without a painter ? Impossible!

Your reasoning is still flawed, even after I pointed out what was obviously wrong with your argument. Who created your God? God must be much more complex than a human being, so what created your God? The linchpin of your argument is that complex things cannot exist without a creator, yes? So tell me who created your God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your reasoning is still flawed, even after I pointed out what was obviously wrong with your argument. Who created your God? God must be much more complex than a human being, so what created your God? The linchpin of your argument is that complex things cannot exist without a creator, yes? So tell me who created your God.

It's impossible my argument is flawed by saying a creation must have a creator or a painting means there was a painter. You're claiming the painting painted itself, the tv manufactured itself. Would you care to explain how? How does a painting exist without a painter? I know no one can dispute that but please explain how a painting could exist without a painter because that's what you're trying to say.

You must either prove a painting painted itself or accept there is a painter in this case a God. Let's call God the Painter and creation the painting. There is no logic or rational or reasonable argument in existence that can show the painting painted itself.

It doesn't matter if there's just one dot of paint on the canvas - simplicity - or it is the Mona Lisa it can't paint itself.

Who created the painter? He's not even inside the painting. He's outside it meaning the Painter exists independently of the painting just as God exists independent of creation and He always existed as His Own Entity outside of creation just like the painter exists as an entity outside the painting.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your reasoning is still flawed, even after I pointed out what was obviously wrong with your argument. Who created your God? God must be much more complex than a human being, so what created your God? The linchpin of your argument is that complex things cannot exist without a creator, yes? So tell me who created your God.

I want to add that I really enjoy reading your posts and enjoy your challenging questions. I'm learning a lot from you. You make many excellent points.

 

[psychoslice]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

If this is true, you would be the first person in history to prove there is a god, but you can't, can you ?.

 

[psychoslice]

I want to add that I really enjoy reading your posts and enjoy your challenging questions. I'm learning a lot from you. You make many excellent points.

Yes as long as we want to hear what we want to hear, no ?.