"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
Arguments speak for themselves. If I have highly-educated arguments, then it stands to reason that I'm highly educated on the subject.
I'll let you decide whether or not my arguments are highly educated, and if you believe they are not, I'll be eagerly awaiting your counterarguments.
Anything less than a 1080p, high-definition video recording fails to meet the Christ-denier's standards of evidence. Apparently, the level of evidence we use for every other historical figure -- credible written accounts -- doesn't apply here.
Selective skepticism at its finest (or would that be worst?).
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
You're conflating evidence and proof.
Evidence is any data which increases the probability that a proposition is true.
Proof is what is reached once the probability of a proposition being true reaches the point that it cannot be credibly denied.
So, with that in mind, tell us, how do credible written accounts for Jesus Christ's existence not increase the probability that Jesus Christ existed? If you don't believe those written accounts are credible, then why not?
Did The Prophet exist? Did Bhudda, Cnfucious, Aritstotle, Plato, heck...did George Washington exist?
If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..
You know what's weird? Depending on how I look up the word, 'teleology', I get apparently contradictory definitions.
Merriam-Webster seems to agree with what you're saying:
Yet when I look up the word using my Google Dictionary function in Chrome, here's what pops up:a : the study of evidences of design in nature
b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature
c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
What the . . . ?The explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes
As to the education of GRH on the subject, I don't think he's talking about having a degree in a specific collegiate field, but rather that he's 'done his homework' on topics, concepts, arguments, themes related to the kinds of things we've been discussing here. I've read into it myself over the last few years (though I don't think to the extent he has), and from what I'm seeing, I think he has 'done his homework' on it and in this context is 'highly educated'. Not to say he can't be wrong about any given thing, just that I don't think he's pulling this out of his ***, either.
By the way, didn't James Cameron have a documentary a few years back where they thought they found evidence of Christ having a wife and/or kids?
This is all I really read from you. I hear you attacking the holes in Darwinian evolution, but I never hear a legitimate, scientific argument for Intelligent Design.
I can play that game too: "Intelligent Design theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. 'I don't understand how it happens and science hasn't explained it yet, therefore,
Godan intelligent agent must have done it.' You could replace all of their arguments with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of their arguments."
The key thing here, is that Intelligent Design simply is not science. It fails to qualify as a scientific theory. It asserts a conclusion that is not scientifically testable or sustained by further explanation. It hasn't proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. It's a position devoted almost entirely to attacking Darwinian evolution. It's the "God of the gaps" argument, which argues that because there are gaps in scientific knowledge, this MUST be evidence or proof for the existence of God.
"Welp, we can't explain this yet. Must be God." and "This biological structure looks and operates like a machine! Wait a minute...machines are MADE! But only intelligent beings make machines. Machines don't occur naturally. Oh wait, I got it. God!" is all I really hear from ID proponents.
Of course, ID proponents don't acutally use the term "God" because then they wouldn't be able to get ID into public school textbooks. Interesting that the term "intelligent design," as we know it today, popped up shortly after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, which ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools was unconstitutional.
So they renamed creationism "intelligent design" and once again tried to get it into public schools. And in the 2005, teaching intelligent design in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal case. The judge in the case, John E. Jones III (a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, by the way), wrote in his ruling, "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." (You can read the ruling here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf)
If you haven't already, I encourage you all to watch the PBS documentary about this case, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI).To save GRH some time rebutting that case, you can just go here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879 .
Again, this is all fine if you believe it. Some of you have stated that God cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken on faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't try to argue that it is science.
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON
I hope I live to see the day that all these people looking for the big secret to our existence, find out that we are basically just a very complex form of bacteria with a rather basic purpose.
Think about it for a second. The world is our host, and we are slowly, but surely, eating away at it, bit by bit. Name something on earth we don't destroy or consume? Take away our artificial sense of self worth and superiority, that every living thing probably has for reasons of survival, and what do you have? Well, I personally see a large group of organisms that breed at an extremely high rate and consume way more than they "need" to survive. And if god is looking the world through a microscope from far away, it would probably look pretty similar to bacteria destroying its host.
If it wasn't for our ridiculous need to feel important and superior, we might realize the easiest way to find our "reason" for existence is to study YOUR BEHAVIOR and how that fits into the big scheme of things. You don't learn about YOURSELF by looking at your environment, sure there are bits of information that apply to you, but at the end of the day you are studying the environment. Just like you don't learn much about a monkey by studying a tree and you don't learn much about a dog by studying his yard. So why the hell would you be looking for a god or trying to figure out how everything started to find a reason for YOUR existence? Do you expect him to tell you? Wouldn't that just lead you to more questions if anything?
It took us a long time to come up with the big bang theory, lol. That is a theory that basically everything started by nothing, exploding. What an incredible theory! I'm sure that is exactly what happened.
There is a definitely a reason for our existence. But it doesn't necessarily mean it is gonna be interesting.
What other reason for our existence could there be? Are we really a special being? Do we behave like one? Is Honey Boo Boo and her Mom.......Gods' image? What have we really given the world that was good for anything other than us? Is anything on earth, better off for our presence? Wouldn't we bring something substantial to the table if we had a special purpose? Would we choose to spread like cancer and destroy if we were godly in any way? I personally don't think so.
And I don't believe we have the capability of finding any of these answers because they don't exist in our reality. We are not special, we are not godly in any way, and we do not offer much to the rest of existence. I know that doesn't appeal to most people. And the truth is, we'll ask question after question until the world has gotten what it needed from us and we'll never have found any real answers, just more questions. I mean, we've already been at it for thousands of years and what have we really learned of value in this quest? Nothing. We have developed theories but people are no more sure about their place in the universe than they were 1000 years ago. For everything we learn, we prove something else isn't quite what we thought it to be. A god you can't prove exists, or that we evolved from monkeys are probably our best work to date. And it took us a long time to come to these conclusions, lol. We are not nearly as smart as we think we are people.
Look at GRH for example. That dude is so convinced he already knows something. But read his posts on this and what do you really have there? Did he offer up anything new, or of great worth? Did he clue you in on why you are here?
He also is so arrogant about this, he believes we are gonna learn something substantial in the next 50 years. Think about that. We haven't even scratched the surface in studying our own minds or the environment we occupy, we have yet to step foot on anything outside of our own orbit. But we are gonna understand something so much more than that in just 50 more years? There is a lot of ground to cover and it's pretty ambitious to believe you'll ever understand, let alone in a relatively short period of time.
Would you define that belief as intelligent? Or maybe the thinking of a simple minded organism with an inflated sense of worth and ability?
And I'm not trying to degrade him or his opinions either, he is obviously someone who is well read on scientific theory and the specifics. He is also far more well spoken than I am on the matter. And I respect the fact he is passionate about what he believes and confident about it. But sometimes I think that "education" can hinder you from going into it with an open mind, which is crucial in a quest for truth, and not just self serving brain food.
Last edited by Taterhead; 05-02-2013 at 12:54 PM.
There's hard evidence to believe there was zero life at all on earth in the beginning, then at some point, somewhere, life was delivered via a collision with another stellar body, resulting in the formation of the moon, stabilizing the earth's orbit and allowing life to grow.
The issue with me is always, where the original mass came from. I sincerely doubt we'll ever be able to trace it but that's the smoking gun if there is one.
I don't subscribe to "God of the gaps" thinking, and I don't think this one necessarily applies because I see a real logic here.
Specifically this concept, that the more we learn about the human body down to the genetic/atomic level the more we see order, structure, programming, that remind us of a machine or a computer, and the fact that every other example of this is constructed from an intelligent designer or designers, shouldn't that make us pause and 'do the math' at least a little bit?
That doesn't mean I then assume anything about a religion being true, it doesn't mean I know anything about this hypothetical designer, it doesn't mean I then jump to other conclusions, it just means that in this instance you would think that something like the human body would be intelligently designed. At least I would.
I think the counterargument is that since the universe is theoretically unlimited, that in a world of chaos, eventually the perfect combination of events happens to accidentally produce this, but that just seems incredible to me. Like if I keep blowing up enough ink factories, eventually one of them is going to paint the walls with a novel or an encyclopedia or something like that. I know God always sounds like "fantasy magic" to people but then again the alternative also sounds kind of ridiculous to me, too.
A smaller counterargument I heard recently was from Neil Degrasse Tyson, where he pointed out how flawed the human body is, citing in particular the fact that we share the same pathway for breathing and swallowing food, which of course often results in people choking and/or dying.
That does give me pause, I won't lie.
On one hand, who said God was trying to make us perfect to begin with?
On the other hand, why did he set us up to choke in particular?
It's a silly concept, but yet I'm forced to seriously consider it.
As for the creation of the moon, my question about that is that is something so violent were to happen that could cause that, why do both the earth and moon today essentially look like nicely shaped spheres? Something that devastating, I would think, would leave one or both looking like some jagged or otherwise misshapen or mangled hunk of rock versus the result being two pretty clean spheres. That part always seemed pretty strange to me.
Separately, let's say for a moment that we eventually somehow determined that some kind of God did create the world/universe. Wouldn't we have to teach that at that point? Not as a religious belief but as the truth as we know it?
Yeah, in the meantime, trying to get intelligent design in classrooms at the moment seems extremely premature to me at best, an attempt to promote a given religion at worst.So they renamed creationism "intelligent design" and once again tried to get it into public schools. And in the 2005, teaching intelligent design in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal case. The judge in the case, John E. Jones III (a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, by the way), wrote in his ruling, "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." (You can read the ruling here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf)
And I would agree that anything not explicitly established by science has no business being taught in science class. I'm sure things will evolve (ha!) over time, but don't put the cart before the horse. Let science play out first, then put it in the classroom, one way or another.Again, this is all fine if you believe it. Some of you have stated that God cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken on faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't try to argue that it is science.
Last edited by Aw Heck; 05-02-2013 at 01:51 PM.
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON
That's not a terribly big statement. How would we know if any planet has life, outside of our own solar system? For all we know, millions of them could be sustaining life.
I don't like making assumptions, but the odds of there being life (even intelligent life) out there are far, far higher than there being none.
Again I point to the fact that the earth was most likely barren itself until a cosmic even changed it. No reason to think the same thing couldn't have happened to any of the other billions of planets out there.
Last edited by Kstat; 05-02-2013 at 01:56 PM.
Last edited by Aw Heck; 05-02-2013 at 02:01 PM.
WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON