Beleiving in God is the Norm

[brekfustuvluzerz]

messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

[curiosityandthecat]

messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

Hey, now. Even if Messenger has a worldview and opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the people on this board doesn't mean you need to insult him/her (I only say that because I don't know) like that. This board is intended for those who (if you read the header) are interested in "secular discussion." That means anyone interested in discussing religion or theistic positions (since it's the obvious contrary position) are welcome.

If you want to refute what Messenger says, the best way is to argue it, not spout off. Messenger has every right to espouse his/her own views. Argue them rationally without crass insults. Messenger's statement about evolution is ridiculously simplistic and easily falsifiable. Address that.

[Messenger]

Hey, now. Even if Messenger has a worldview and opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the people on this board doesn't mean you need to insult him/her (I only say that because I don't know) like that. This board is intended for those who (if you read the header) are interested in "secular discussion." That means anyone interested in discussing religion or theistic positions (since it's the obvious contrary position) are welcome.

If you want to refute what Messenger says, the best way is to argue it, not spout off. Messenger has every right to espouse his/her own views. Argue them rationally without crass insults. Messenger's statement about evolution is ridiculously simplistic and easily falsifiable. Address that.

Thank you and I hope that God guide you to the right way!

[Messenger]

I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

[curiosityandthecat]

Thank you and I hope that God guide you to the right way!

That doesn't mean I believe your inanity, just that I'm defending your right to spout it.

Incidentally, it's "guides".

[bowmore]

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

[karadan]

I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

Excluding evolution, to me, would be like denying the existence of stars outside our solar system. It has no practical use as an example because it makes no sense to exclude it. Even if we were to exclude evolution when using an example, it wouldn't add credence to the notion of a higher power. It would just mean there is a different scientific explanation for how animals and plants came to be.

Magic is never, and will never be the answer.

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean it had a creator. Just because you cannot fathom how it came to be, doesn't mean a higher power created it. That, in my opinion, is a cop-out. It is the easiest way to explain something because it doesn't require any intelligent thought or critical analysis whatsoever.

[Messenger]

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

[karadan]

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

It would be no more logical than to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No, rational people want to find answers to the big questions without resorting to magic and mysticism.

Creationism is the philisophical crutch of the irrational simpleton.

[bowmore]

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

[Messenger]

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not; Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

[Kyuuketsuki]

messenger you are a fucking idiot! you're an "expert in logic" as you claimed in a previous thread (linked to on the first page)? what a joke. you have the logical reasoning skills typical of someone who could buy into religion. please get off this board. it is meant for people who want to know truth, not spread ignorance.

ROFLLMFAO  ... well said!

Kyu

[karadan]

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

No they don't.

Intelligent beings, can create simple things. (paper weight)
And unintelligent mechanisms can create complexity. (snow flake)

This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not; Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

So, God creates all snow flakes? Is that what you are saying? He is weilding a great snow blower in the sky then, i assume?

If not, then i'll try to explain how a snowflake is formed to support bowmore's suggestions.

A cloud is made up of water vapour. When the temperature is just right, the vapour in the cloud freezes. When water turns to ice, it crystalises in a lattice formation and because of the shape of the H2O molecule, dictates it's usually hexagonal, symmetrical shape. Also, the freezing process brings these molecules together so that when they coagulate, are unable to support their own weight in the cloud, and then fall to earth as snow.

It is simply a hydroscopic nuclei falling from a visible manifestation of condensation.

It certainly is NOT god's dandruff.

Please elaborate what you mean by:
"Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?"

I can think of many but your question is a little vague. I just want to know i have the gist of what you are saying before i answer.

[bowmore]

This is circular logic, you used snow flakes which is the point of discussion (God creation) to prove your point

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Can you generate/make a random process that can create uniform, complex things?
No you can not;

I guess you've never heard of fractals...

Evolution will be the only thing you can imagine

hehe nope.

[Messenger]

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

We can only use things that we both know and agree on

For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created  3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

So based on many similar examples we can relate complexity to intelligence creation

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html