Why are there still Monkeys?

[idav]

The closer I have come to seeing any sense in it is by guessing that some people sincerely believe that everything does need a clear, knowable cause or creator and that they feel so troubled by the infinite regression that such a belief entails that they end up needing to hold a belief in an exception - a transcendental exception, of course - and to call it "God".

That mostly is where I am at with it. Simply put I feel what QM shows is the inner stuff transcends what we observe as objective reality. Thats actually enough for me. Once you get to a singularity they say physics as we know/understand it breaks down. I take it as it is simply transcendent to anything we feel is intuitively true, creation may just be a given but when we can't really know what the rules are thats as much speculation but I know what the rules are not. The rules are not physic, not space or time, there is no where or when.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough. At some point we may just as well simply admit that we do not have all the answers, and perhaps never will.

I just don't think that is much of a reason to claim that God exists. At the very least, that would mean that we are claiming certainty of the existence of something just because we fail to understand it at all.

Not a very good argument IMO.

 

[idav]

Fair enough. At some point we may just as well simply admit that we do not have all the answers, and perhaps never will.

I just don't think that is much of a reason to claim that God exists. At the very least, that would mean that we are claiming certainty of the existence of something just because we fail to understand it at all.

Not a very good argument IMO.

Based on what I know it is not, it fits the definition I feel is the label god. Basically everything we are not except within where multiple worlds are potentials and time and space are not a factor. Thats what physics shows us, so its the philosophical ramifications. People can call it whatever, they certainly do.

 

[McBell]

Nothing moves without Something to move it.

Spirit first.

Substance cannot 'self' initiate.
Substance cannot beget life.

Making something up to fill in the gap does not help your argument.
Why not just skip the made up bull **** and go straight to goddidit?

 

[McBell]

The simple synthetic life that were made by chemicals proves that things can never be made without intensive studies and researches which isn't the case with the unconscious nature.

You really need to work on your goal post moving back peddling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Based on what I know it is not, it fits the definition I feel is the label god. Basically everything we are not except within where multiple worlds are potentials and time and space are not a factor. Thats what physics shows us, so its the philosophical ramifications. People can call it whatever, they certainly do.

To the extent that I understand what you are saying, I find it very reasonable.

What troubles me is the insistence of some people in claiming that some conception of a Creator God must be true for such unrelated reasons. It is difficult to be gracious when faced with such non sequiturs.

 

[idav]

To the extent that I understand what you are saying, I find it very reasonable.

What troubles me is the insistence of some people in claiming that some conception of a Creator God must be true for such unrelated reasons. It is difficult to be gracious when faced with such non sequiturs.

I agree, I have an issue with the word creator because it harbors baggage and implies things that don't really explain how existence can be. It becomes a replacement for the unknown that we already have to deal without really solving anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? I'm almost 69 and I've never had a single person ask me this. You should hang with a different crowd.

I am truly envious. Here, you are either discussing evolution with someone who understands it, which doesn't happen very often, or stuck in making a choice of ignoring the stupidity of the "wheres are there still monkeys?" question or get involved in a futile effort of trying to educate the legions scientifically illiterate. Even within my family, I am literally the only one that even realizes evolution never states that monkeys turned into people. My mom even once dug herself into a very deep hole trying to attack evolution and defend her fundamentalist beliefs when she said "we didn't come from the dirt." Even American politics are known for breaking the "there's no such thing as a dumb question" rule when they open their mouths about evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

My mom even once dug herself into a very deep hole trying to attack evolution and defend her fundamentalist beliefs when she said "we didn't come from the dirt."

I take it that she then realized that according to the Bible we did come from the dirt?

 

[Bunyip]

The Cosmological argument for the existence of God is more than a bit odd.

It makes an arbitrary, unfounded statement (that everything that exists has to have a specific cause or creator) in order to attempt to prove its opposite (that God is an exception) and an unrelated supposed consequence (that God is also the creator of existence itself).

Arguments don't come much more dogmatic, speculative and unconvincing than that.

The closer I have come to seeing any sense in it is by guessing that some people sincerely believe that everything does need a clear, knowable cause or creator and that they feel so troubled by the infinite regression that such a belief entails that they end up needing to hold a belief in an exception - a transcendental exception, of course - and to call it "God".

Or maybe it is the other way around? Some people are so attached to the need to believe in a Creator God that they convince themselves that it is the only way to "explain" existence?

More probably both. In any case, it is sad that people actually expect to convince non-theists with such a spurious so-called "argument".

I agree completely - the cosmological argument is self defeating. It is a semantic trick - a little slight of hand with word meanings and nothing more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I take it that she then realized that according to the Bible we did come from the dirt?

I didn't bother pointing the obvious out to her, because by that point there weren't enough palms available to bury my face in. It's also hard telling with her; the mental gymnastics required to put herself in the right is something she often resorts to.

 

[Bunyip]

Everyone is free to believe in what makes sense to him. :yes:



Did religion say that we'll never be able to fly.

O tribe of jinn and of men, if you are able to pass through the confines of heaven and earth, pass through them! You shall not pass through except with an authority.(55:33)

The simple synthetic life that were made by chemicals proves that things can never be made without intensive studies and researches which isn't the case with the unconscious nature.

Erm...'.so we will never do it', changed into 'we will never do it without a lot of research' huh?

 

[FearGod]

Erm...'.so we will never do it', changed into 'we will never do it without a lot of research' huh?

Who said to you that we did it ? Don't you know what synthetic means ?

To mimic life isn't creating life, but i just made an important note out of this nonsense that even trying it can't be done without intensive study and research and hence to say that the nature did it is a stupid thing to think about.

David Baltimorea (geneticist at Caltech) had said “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” . He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.

 

[Bunyip]

Who said to you that we did it ? Don't you know what synthetic means ?

Yes mate, it means that people made it. What do you think 'synthetic' means?

To mimic life isn't creating life, but i just made an important note out of this nonsense that even trying it can't be done without intensive study and research and hence to say that the nature did it is a stupid thing to think about.

They didn't mimic life, they created life.

David Baltimorea (geneticist at Caltech) had said “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” . He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.

That is Baltimore's opinion, why is he significant to you?

 

[FearGod]

Yes mate, it means that people made it. What do you think 'synthetic' means?

Means not real but synthetic

They didn't mimic life, they created life.

That is your opinion

That is Baltimore's opinion, why is he significant to you?

Because that is his field and he is far more knowledgeable than me and you.

 

[Bunyip]

Means not real but synthetic

LOL! No mate, it means man made instead of natural.

That is your opinion



Because that is his field and he is far more knowledgeable than me and you.

There's an old saying - 'For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert'.

What it means is that you can find an 'expert' to deny or confirm anything - it is not an arguement.

 

[FearGod]

LOL! No mate, it means man made instead of natural.

So synthetic silk is exactly the same as natural silk but only a man made.

Why artificial silk is much cheaper than natural silk

There's an old saying - 'For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert'.

What it means is that you can find an 'expert' to deny or confirm anything - it is not an arguement.

Trying hard to create life is by itself a great evidence that who created life is an intelligent being and not stone, but you just feel comfortable to exclude God because you don't want to think about the afterlife.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trying hard to create life is by itself a great evidence that who created life is an intelligent being and not stone,

I just don't see why. This is a big planet out there, with quite a few million years of history. A lot can happen in those circunstances, and did.

but you just feel comfortable to exclude God because you don't want to think about the afterlife.

Uh? Why would one thing connect to the other? As in, at all?

Are you perhaps assuming that we atheists fear afterlife punishment?

You would be surprised. :beach:

There is no reason whatsoever for us to fear an afterlife.

 

[Bunyip]

So synthetic silk is exactly the same as natural silk but only a man made.

Why artificial silk is much cheaper than natural silk

You have been polite so far, clearly you did not know what 'synthetic' means - why not just accept that you made a mistake instead of digging a deeper hole?

Trying hard to create life is by itself a great evidence that who created life is an intelligent being and not stone, but you just feel comfortable to exclude God because you don't want to think about the afterlife.

Well then that intelligent being would be even more unlikely to just pop into existence from nothing right? If something as simple as a bacteria can not come into existence without the involvement of an intelligent being - how could you expect me to believe that a far more complicated intelligent being just popped out of nowhere?

 

[FearGod]

I just don't see why. This is a big planet out there, with quite a few million years of history. A lot can happen in those circunstances, and did.

You can think as you wish that the nature did it by chances and circumstances of billions of years, but that doesn't make it true, just a wishful thinking.

Uh? Why would one thing connect to the other? As in, at all?

Are you perhaps assuming that we atheists fear afterlife punishment?

You would be surprised. :beach:

There is no reason whatsoever for us to fear an afterlife.

Don't you ever hear about self-deception.

Yes,why to fear the day of judgement, you have already your excuses and which is that you thought the nature did it and that can be an enough and wise excuse to escape punishment.