Originally Posted by PUFFPWN

I understand that this is an old quote, but I would like to refute your statement about Deuteronomy 13. I am a conservative Christian, and I have studied the Bible in great detail. All of the books of the old testament are under what is know as the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants involved the command to kill the native Canaanites. Why? Because they would corrupt the Israelites. According to the New Testament, we are in the Messianic covenant, which does not involve the genocide of people who do not agree with us. The Old Testament is not a book of "Christian" beliefs, it is the history of Judaism, which was replaced by Christianity by those who follow Christ. I also believe that God (being an all powerful being) could reveal himself to any tribe that lived apart from the western world. Also, look at the fact that almost every civilization in every part of the world has a story of a worldwide flood, and that a small group survived it.
I would also like to add that there is significant proof that Evolution (not evolution) is a poorly drawn theory. First of all, where did the information come from to create us, with trillions of cells from a bacteria with one cell? Second of all, have you even considered the chances of a single protein (not a cell) forming? The chances of the simplest protein forming are about 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0

To put that in perspective, it takes thousands of such proteins to form a single cell, and many are many powers of ten more complex. Therefore, abiogenesis itself is out the window.

Vox Moderated Message:

User was given a 5 day ban for making shit up on the spot as if he knew anything.

Incidentally if you are wondering, responses to bullshit are fine, all posts are fine provided they obey the discussion rules, so if you want to respond to this guy go for it.

I really don't appreciate being banned for my beliefs either. Here are your facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Originally Posted by hanz0

... I'm pretty sure your source actually refutes your claim. Congratulations, you've made it unnecessary for me to respond to that ridiculous argument at all.

I really hope you're joking, because a) "had you actually read that source, you would've discovered it was a page dedicated to debunking exactly what you were trying to prove" is exactly what I said, and b) I should hope that I've demonstrated in pretty much every "oh my god evolution" thread that I've posted in that I'm pretty goddamn knowledgeable about that subject.
Otherwise: The fuck are you talking about?

Btw: check the genetic model of Mendel. Basic knowledge you should try, good stuff.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

I don't think you know what you're talking about hanz0, you should go read up on Mendelian genetics.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

FYI: ten to the thirteenth is 10,000,000,000,000, not 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0
I'm not going to count the zeros, but you were off by a factor of magnitude of at least 25.

Originally Posted by Redundant

Now let us take a look at the so called proofs for the existence of god by Thomas Aquinas.
Now, before we go on, we need to look at the principle that almost all defenses of God conforms to:
Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor (atleast in philosphy) posits that we are justified in explaining inexplicable phenomenon, and of all possible explanations, the simplest, most reasonably sound one is the one that should be adhered to.

Proof for the existence of god

Show

---

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

That statement is based on an assumption that has yet to be proven.
We do not know if there needs to be an infinite series of movers.
Completely correct.
Actually, you are correct in a way. You have yet to refute the whole argument, only the first mover/cause premises. The first mover and first clause provide God as the causal explanation for the universe. The necessary being posits God as being the preservative explanation for the universe, though it doesn't really explain why. God must be posited as a preservative explanation because if not, he could have simply created the cosmos, and ceased to have anything to do with the world. A sort of Titanic Atlas, if you will (you know, the titan that holds up the world).

Moar proof

Show

---

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

I find it very hard to believe that people call that a proof for the existence of god.
I can make the same argument with all sorts of thing.
Soda tastes good, there are greater sodas and lesser sodas, therefore there must be one truly magnificent soda and that soda is god.
okay…
Your analogy is no where on the paper. God must be The Supreme Being. That is a term I am throwing around here, but here is the argument for The Supreme Being: The Ontological Argument

Ontological Argument by Anselm

Show

---

1.Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be thought of.
2.The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6.Therefore, God exists.

Keep in mind that this is not a proof of God necessarily, but that God is Supreme Being.
I never explained why.
In the following thought experiment, I shall attempt to demonstrate why this does not conclude correctly.
1. Our understanding of the greatest chicken egg is a chicken which no greater chicken egg can be thought of.
2. The idea of the greatest chicken egg exists in the mind
3. The greatest chicken egg only exists in the mind, but a greater chicken egg exists in reality.
4. If only the greatest chicken egg exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater egg—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than this egg
6. Therefore, this egg exists.

Now now, before you start running with this, this metaphor is very wrong in a lot of places. An egg is by no means a great entity. It possesses no qualities that can be considered great. And when we refer to a great egg, we qualify with qualities ascribed to the class of object known as egg. None of these is omnipotence and the like.

This is the point I try to make with this metaphor. There is no reason for there to be a great supernatural chicken egg. There is no necessity expressed. There is no inference made. This is simply a thought experiment. The only idea added to the overall argument by Anselm is the notion that God must be considered as The Supreme Being, and that existence is greater than non-existence. This is qualitatively so, and not categorically so, such as a hundred dollars that are actually in your wallet are greater than imaginary hundred dollars.

even moar proof

Show

---

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

We already have proven that evolution is a fact, natural selection is pretty much a proven theory based on that fact etc.
We do not know what the cause for existence itself is…yet. Being satisfied but that kind of statement is very lame and does not help us in any form.
We need to be curious to discover new things. That argument tells us to be happy with what we know. A typical “goddidit” statement.
Those who explain things by saying "Goddidit" is just as intellectually lazy as not studying something scientifically. Now, it is not necessarily the animals and plants that lack intelligence for an end. It is the existence of the cosmos that has no end. The Cosmos needs an efficient cause.
Allow me to elaborate. In this proof, I take it that Aquinas would agree with this upcoming metaphor.
Let us compare the world to a painting. The natural processes and actions and "things that lack intelligence that act for an end" are what is being painted on the canvas. This is all we can perceive. God is the painter. He is the artist who instructs the natural world, he is the intelligence behind the brush.

This metaphor cannot simply be the case. To say that the paint itself is something we cannot study, draw meaning from, learn how it works, and why it works is equal to saying that science cannot study, draw meaning from, learn the workings and reasons of nature.

Originally Posted by William

There is nothing truely good,it's just a subjective term.Everyone percieves it in a way.So,I guess what most people find morally good should be the standard?I disagree with that system too.Another system,what serves best for the whole society,imo that's too idealistic to ever be true.

About relegion,No one can ever be 100 percent sure about anything,you're correct.What bothers me most about relegion is it's egotistic believers that think that they're better than you because of they're belief.They're just pathetic human beings who are trying to fix their shitty life.The bible makes a nice story actually,although I have always founded flaws in it,and I don't really agree with most of it.

Also,yes for everyone who applied!