Evolution or Creation?

[Raz]

Snatcher! Protect the children!

 

[Yoshiboy]

Jesus was an invisible goblin.

You can't disprove it. Not even with your precious precious logic and evidence!

 

[Ancientwanker]

My reasoning? Simple: You have no idea what a Soul is. You have no idea what rules bind a soul. You have no idea what REALLY happens when you die. You can logic 'till you're blue in the face, but if you don't know the basics of what soul really is or isn't, all your logic is worthless. At least I have a book that says.

Well, in 2cd edition Dungeons and Dragons you could bind a demon's soul with a specific set of items and a spell. In morrowind you could also bind souls into gems.  Unless you are claiming that the bible is somehow more accurate than dungeons and dragons or Morrowind, in which case I would ask to see your evidence for that claim.  I don't remember the bible discussing capture rules which leads me to believe that it is less complete.

 

[macethump]

My reasoning? Simple: You have no idea what a Soul is. You have no idea what rules bind a soul. You have no idea what REALLY happens when you die. You can logic 'till you're blue in the face, but if you don't know the basics of what soul really is or isn't, all your logic is worthless. At least I have a book that says.

Well, in 2cd edition Dungeons and Dragons you could bind a demon's soul with a specific set of items and a spell. In morrowind you could also bind souls into gems.  Unless you are claiming that the bible is somehow more accurate than dungeons and dragons or Morrowind, in which case I would ask to see your evidence for that claim.  I don't remember the bible discussing capture rules which leads me to believe that it is less complete.

Not true!!!!
"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.  He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."  [Revelation 20:2-3]

Faith is "belief in things unseen."  Going along with "without faith it is impossible to please God."  It requires going beyond the provable, seeable, even "sensible."  Some will have no desire or reason to make this leap without some proof.  But if proven, it becomes fact, not faith.  It takes no faith - an act of will - to believe in a fact, such as gravity.  That can be proven even to the most skeptical simply by stepping off a balcony.  Therefore matters of faith can never be proven empirically, since that would destroy the opportunity to choose faith and remove the possibility of pleasing God.  How's that for circular reasoning!

 

[Archonsod]

The existence of something is not dependant on our ability to experience, study, categorize, and explain it.

No, but it is dependent on it's ability to affect the universe, which we can experience. Otherwise it falls outside of the universe and by definition doesn't exist. We went through this earlier.

Jumping from "there's no evidence" to "therefore it doesn't exist" is about as logical and valid as a Jack Chick tract.

On the contrary. I have no evidence that I am on fire, ergo if I were to act like I was on fire I believe nine out of ten cats would state it was illogical behaviour.

 

[leprechaun]

Snatcher! Protect the children!

This thread just got funny.

 

[Róisín]

The existence of something is not dependant on our ability to experience, study, categorize, and explain it.

No, but it is dependent on it's ability to affect the universe, which we can experience. Otherwise it falls outside of the universe and by definition doesn't exist.

That's absurd.  First of all, God effected the universe, which I'm pretty sure counts as affecting it in a way we can experience.  Secondly, there's no reason to believe we can experience everything that affects the universe.  In a completely deaf society, a hearing man suddenly has "ESP" because he can know things that happen which he couldn't possibly have seen.  Ooo, magic!  Then people like you call him a liar and a fake and go on about how the fact that you can't hear means that hearing doesn't exist.

Jumping from "there's no evidence" to "therefore it doesn't exist" is about as logical and valid as a Jack Chick tract.

On the contrary. I have no evidence that I am on fire, ergo if I were to act like I was on fire I believe nine out of ten cats would state it was illogical behaviour.

Your logic is the fail today.  What you have is extensive evidence that you're NOT on fire.  Before he died, my father-in-law had no evidence that he had a heart condition.  Guess what.  He did.

How many times do you have to hear "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" before it actually occurs to you that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack?

 

[Archonsod]

That's absurd.  First of all, God effected the universe, which I'm pretty sure counts as affecting it in a way we can experience. 

No he didn't, Ra brought forth the world, as any fool knows.

Secondly, there's no reason to believe we can experience everything that affects the universe.  In a completely deaf society, a hearing man suddenly has "ESP" because he can know things that happen which he couldn't possibly have seen.  Ooo, magic! 

Except of course that sound waves are detectable by more than simply the ears, such as the skin, can be detected via artificial equipment, can be proven by means which require absolutely no listening ability whatsoever and can be shown to have an effect on the universe without ever having to be listened too (unless you're some kind of freak capable of listening into the ultrasonic range anyway). God on the other hand is not only detectable, but he has absolutely no discernible effect on the universe. Go figure.

Your logic is the fail today.  What you have is extensive evidence that you're NOT on fire.

No, you can't prove a negative.

How many times do you have to hear "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" before it actually occurs to you that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack?

No, you're thinking of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lack of evidence is most definitely evidence of a lack. Mainly of evidence I should think. However, when the term is used it generally refers to things for which there is, if not indirect evidence, at least some mechanism or otherwise effect which may indicate the possibility of it's existence. God has neither. On the other hand, we do have a lot of evidence for other things which rather contradicts God, at least so far as he's described in the bible.
Now, I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, however I do have a lot of evidence for other things which contradict Santa Claus as he's portrayed in myth. Why then is it fine for me to profess a belief in God right up until I die, yet a laughable matter for anyone over the age of 12 to claim Santa Claus exists?

 

[Grunwalder]

Because Saint Nicholas wasn't the little voice in my head that told me to duck, only to find a bullet smack into the stucco right where my head had been.

Coincidence my lanky ass.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Direct contradiction numero uno.
God doesn't directly interfere remember? That's why there's suffering in the world. Because God won't directly interfere, it's his plan, free will etc.
So either it WAS coincidence or he simply chooses to save a Polish soldiers and ignore the AIDs infested, starving children of Africa.
Why SHOULD God have saved you? What makes you more worthy than the other guy? Saving you could have cost the other guys life and if History's proven anything, God doesn't take sides.

 

[Grunwalder]

Direct contradiction numero uno.
God doesn't directly interfere remember? That's why there's suffering in the world. Because God won't directly interfere, it's his plan, free will etc.
So either it WAS coincidence or he simply chooses to save a Polish soldiers and ignore the AIDs infested, starving children of Africa.
Why SHOULD God have saved you? What makes you more worthy than the other guy? Saving you could have cost the other guys life and if History's proven anything, God doesn't take sides.

Huh. You see things the same way I do...

I don't know why, really.

But He did.

I personally, have always believed he doesn't give a rat's ass about humanity as a whole. His Son did. He doesn't.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience to afraid to laugh" is a quote I always liked.

I also subscribe to the Clockmaker analogy. God made it, then got the hell out. Why? Who knows. I am not Him.

And I've got more important things to worry about.

 

[forksaint]

I have no evidence that I am on fire, ergo if I were to act like I was on fire I believe nine out of ten cats would state it was illogical behaviour.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Huh. You see things the same way I do...

I don't know why, really.

But He did.

I personally, have always believed he doesn't give a rat's ass about humanity as a whole. His Son did. He doesn't.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience to afraid to laugh" is a quote I always liked.

I also subscribe to the Clockmaker analogy. God made it, then got the hell out. Why? Who knows. I am not Him.

And I've got more important things to worry about.

Indeed, but surely dodging a bullet in a war zone isn't that miraculous. If I was in your shoes, I'd have be ducking every 3.7 seconds.
Coincidences happen, my law teacher was once standing in for a particularly ****ty school (which came in useful for the amount of times the little ****s tried to sue her) and she bent down to pick something up right as a blade dug into the whiteboard behind her.

 

[Grunwalder]

I'd partly agree, excepting that you can't dodge a bullet from a Dragunov, especially his first shot.

That's why it's a bit more meaningful in my eyes. It was a single sniper- must have figured that he could pop one of us and move on.

They liked to do things like that. If they missed, they got a little antsy.

My reaffirmation in God's impressive lack of care about humanity comes in the form of things like Hitler's aide's inability to make a decent bomb.

Or the ability of NATO to find that ****er Mladic[but just mentioning him sends me off on an angry tangent].

I do also believe in pure chance. There are cases where I've seen it happen before my eyes. At Medina Ridge, I 'fondly' recall a dud round from a Rep-G tank smacking into the ass-end of our tank. We all should have been dead from that, yet it just so happens that the Soviets weren't big on checking the quality of things they sold. 

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Well, either you're very lucky on the new Messiah.

 

[Grunwalder]

Well, either you're very lucky on the new Messiah.

Damn well ain't a messiah.

I still remember during my drinking years, trying to turn water into wine. Didn't work, and I just drank some more.

And I doubt the Messiah will be dead in ten or less years due to said drinking. 

 

[Archonsod]

I'd partly agree, excepting that you can't dodge a bullet from a Dragunov, especially his first shot.

Murphy's law of combat no 7 - There's always one who, even if given a laser guided missile, will fail to successfully hit the target
Law number 8 - he's usually the one everyone else calls 'sir'.

 

[Grunwalder]

I chuckled at that.

I've heard a version of that somewhere.

However, I wouldn't apply that to them. Sick ****s, they were good. They practiced on civilians.

Regardless, I'm assuming you saw the point I was making Arch?

I didn't particularly want to argue it- others can if you want, but common sense tells me to dodge these threads like they're a bus. Just wanted to get it off my chest.

 

[PDJ]

How many times do you have to hear "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" before it actually occurs to you that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack?

You murdered 12 babies.  The lack evidence does not mean you didn't.

 

[Archonsod]

However, I wouldn't apply that to them. Sick ****s, they were good. They practiced on civilians.

If he was aiming for your chest instead your ducking would have resulted in you faceplanting a bullet. It's human nature to attribute some significance to the event, but it's likely more down to human error than coincidence. The guy was cocky, figured he could nail you between the eyes and you just happen (for whatever reason) to duck as he's squeezing off the shot. It happens quite regularly (I recall one story of a Russian sniper in Stalingrad awarded a commendation or medal for thirty kills complaining he would have had thirty more if the Germans knew how to fasten their shoelaces properly, though I suspect it's one of those 'insert force and location' tales that does the rounds).

It seems to be a failing of our own nature and is likely the reason for religion. I wonder if it's a necessary part of the risk assessment process in our subconcious to be honest, it's like we have a mental block when it comes to chance. Seems we can't accept that a hundred to one chance will sometimes occur without some kind of 'wilful intervention'.

Regardless, I'm assuming you saw the point I was making Arch?

As Pratchett said, it takes a certain kind of dedicated athiest to hit their thumb with a hammer and hop up and down shouting "Oh, Random fluctuations in the space time continuum!"