Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[ImmortalFlame]

As far as I'm concerned, I AM making sense..

That's called an "insanity signifier".

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
- C.S. Lewis -

So you just assume that the universe is "non-sense", because you have no physical proof of 'One' superior who is responsible for our existence?

Where have I ever said that?

Have you got an explanation for our own self-aware, rational, volitional, conscious agency other than Almighty God?

Our brains.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's called an "insanity signifier"
. . .
Our brains.

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.
- C.S. Lewis -


I couldn't agree more!



If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
- Douglas Wilson -

Yes .. it might be convenient to deny that spirituality has no meaning other than "moving atoms", but that negates our converstion having any real meaning also!

I do believe that our conversation DOES have a purpose, and IS significant :rainbow1:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.
- C.S. Lewis -

Why do you think I would care what C.S Lewis - a children's author who was born over a hundred years ago - thinks about the human brain? The guy is no more qualified to tell me any of this than a badger is.

I couldn't agree more!

It's not surprising that you're so quick to believe any statement that already coincides perfectly with your narrow world view.

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
- Douglas Wilson -

And? All Douglas Wilson is doing here is making an appeal to emotion. His argument is based on nothing but emotive wording and pleading to people's desperate desire for there to be something intrinsically magic in our own existence. There isn't. The fact that he doesn't like that idea does not instantly make it dismissable.

Yes .. it might be convenient to deny that spirituality has no meaning other than "moving atoms", but that negates our converstion having any real meaning also!

I do believe that our conversation DOES have a purpose, and IS significant :rainbow1:

Where have I ever said anything to the contrary? You're arguing against points that I never made.

I'll ask again: What is your evidence for God?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'll ask again: What is your evidence for God?

You can't 'see' the evidence when it "stares you in the face"
You "instantly dismiss" Douglas Adam's perception, referring to "magic" ..

"This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality"

OK .. why is he wrong, then?

 

[PolyHedral]

"This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality"

OK .. why is he wrong, then?

Because he doesn't do anything at all to support his assertion.

And because I have a counterexample.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't 'see' the evidence when it "stares you in the face"

If it's staring me in the face, then I would believe it. Since I don't believe it, evidently it is not staring me in the face.

Present evidence of God, please.

You "instantly dismiss" Douglas Adam's perception,

You mean Douglas Wilson. Douglas Adams would most definitely disagree with Wilson's statement.

referring to "magic" ..

"This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality"

OK .. why is he wrong, then?

Because we do have a reason. Life exists, and we are naturally inclined to enhance it - this alone gives meaning to life. Meaning is not dependent on God, nor is meaning entirely dependent on there existing one, single, unifying purpose or intent to life. Meaning is what you make of it, and each person alone assigns his or her own meaning to his or her own life.

If you do not understand this, then I believe you truly don't understand life, much less any meaning to it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality"

Because we do have a reason. Life exists, and we are naturally inclined to enhance it .

'Life' is just a 'bag of chemicals', and the brain and its electro-chemical reactions are responsible for reason .. according to you.

How does "we are naturally inclined to enhance it" (I presume you mean because evolution, as nature, dictates it) give meaning to 'truth and falsity' ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

'Life' is just a 'bag of chemicals', and the brain and its electro-chemical reactions are responsible for reason .. according to you.

I just explained that. So what if life is just the result of natural chemical processes? That doesn't mean it can't have meaning.

Don't ignore most of my points. I have the decency to try and respond to each and every argument you mean. You should show me the same courtesy by not simply responding to one, out-of-context sentence.

How does "we are naturally inclined to enhance it" (I presume you mean because evolution, as nature, dictates it) give meaning to 'truth and falsity' ?

Give meaning to "truth and falsity"? What are you talking about? This is more nonsense language.

Now, where is your evidence of God?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Give meaning to "truth and falsity"? What are you talking about? This is more nonsense language.

It's not nonsense at all !
Meaning .. yes, meaning! Where does our universal understanding of truth & falsehood come from, just because of atoms moving about in our individual brains?

"How come that"?

 

[Looncall]

It's not nonsense at all !
Meaning .. yes, meaning! Where does our universal understanding of truth & falsehood come from, just because of atoms moving about in our individual brains?

"How come that"?

That meaning comes from the definitions we give to those words, just like the meaning of any other words.

On another of your posts: The fact that we are made of chemicals is irrelevant, as it is the structure those chemicals are in that counts. Your "bag of chemicals" ploy is merely dishonest rhetoric.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not nonsense at all !
Meaning .. yes, meaning! Where does our universal understanding of truth & falsehood come from, just because of atoms moving about in our individual brains?

"How come that"?

Yet more nonsense. You're not making sense, nor are you even addressing my arguments.

Present evidence of God.

 

[riley2112]

Yet more nonsense. You're not making sense, nor are you even addressing my arguments.

Present evidence of God.

any evidence of
God that could be presented can not be studied by examination. You know this, so I am beginning to question your motive for asking

 

[ImmortalFlame]

any evidence of
God that could be presented can not be studied by examination.

Then it wouldn't be evidence. Evidence has to be examined.

You know this, so I am beginning to question your motive for asking

I'm asking because he claimed to possess it, and has thus far been nothing but reluctant to present anything approaching any kind of evidence - and has called me names and insulted me simply for asking.

 

[riley2112]

Then it wouldn't be evidence. Evidence has to be examined..

It has been examined, but only by one person. Does that count?:sarcastic

I'm asking because he claimed to possess it, and has thus far been nothing but reluctant to present anything approaching any kind of evidence - and has called me names and insulted me simply for asking.

I am a Christian,( I think) But you and I both know that he can claim to possess it all day long and even he knows he can not produce it , as for the name calling and insulting , that is because he has lost the argument and it ****** him off. You have made your point that he can not show cause and he has made his point that he is an ***. :bow:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has been examined, but only by one person. Does that count?:sarcastic

Depends if it can be re-examined and investigated by other people. If it's not repeatedly and independantly verifiable, it's not evidence.

I am a Christian,( I think) But you and I both know that he can claim to possess it all day long and even he knows he can not produce it , as for the name calling and insulting , that is because he has lost the argument and it ****** him off. You have made your point that he can not show cause and he has made his point that he is an ***. :bow:

Oh, I know that. I just kind of enjoy watching the claims slowly dwindle away, and see him desperately try and evade the question. Most theists aren't anywhere near this bad, but he claimed to have "reams" of evidence and contrived a horrible series of excuses not to present any of it. I'm kind of like a rottweiler when people do that - I just don't let it go.

 

[riley2112]

Depends if it can be re-examined and investigated by other people. If it's not repeatedly and independantly verifiable, it's not evidence..

Oh well , it was worth a try.

Oh, I know that. I just kind of enjoy watching the claims slowly dwindle away, and see him desperately try and evade the question. Most theists aren't anywhere near this bad, but he claimed to have "reams" of evidence and contrived a horrible series of excuses not to present any of it. I'm kind of like a rottweiler when people do that - I just don't let it go.

Ok , now I see the motive. I have been watching this and I have to admit that I too, have had a laugh or two at the excuses he has come up with, If he does come up with anything of any intelligence to say I will be surprised. I think I will hang around and see what he does next.:beach:

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yet more nonsense. You're not making sense..

Fine! I would say that you are the one evading "the question" .. not me

You are claiming that I make no sense, but imho, you don't like the question..
Would you like me to explain in greater detail, or am I wasting my time?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fine! I would say that you are the one evading "the question" .. not me

It's hard to answer questions whihc make no sense/bare no relation whatsoever to the topic that we're debating or the points I have made.

You are claiming that I make no sense, but imho, you don't like the question..

I tend not to like questions which are asinine.

Would you like me to explain in greater detail, or am I wasting my time?

You'd be wasting your time, since your questions are meaningless. Mine, on the other hand, is simple:

What is your evidence of God?

If you ignore this question one more time, I will happily conclude that you have no evidence.

 

[camanintx]

It's not nonsense at all !
Meaning .. yes, meaning! Where does our universal understanding of truth & falsehood come from, just because of atoms moving about in our individual brains?

"How come that"?

Just because something is "universal" does not make it "objective".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just because something is "universal" does not make it "objective".

A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

I don't see why the fact that we all recognise certain concepts, such as truth & morality for example, doesn't make them objective according to the above def. - I'm referring to the concepts..

It's all too easy to claim that we're just here because we
ie. "poof, and its happened"

but this is not a valid explanation .. it's like saying that intelligent life is just "a freak occurence"
ie. pure chance without a reason / meaning