Then why, if TM's arguments are so invalid, do you label his belief system as silly and unfounded ? He is bringing up a valid point. There is huge, "miraculous" complexity in our uniiverse. Why should your opinion that it arrived by chance mechanistic process be any more valid than his? If your position is so much better than his, then show the proof. Otherwise, stop labelling everyone else's beliefs as ridiculous and unjustified...
"There's a HUGE underlying assumption here. Why does creation have to be determined?" Your sentence is a little ambiguous, so im not quite sure how I should respond. Ill say what I meant in another way. If you want to DETERMINE wether something is created on not, there is a process you go through by gathering evidence. I have not seen ANY evidence that the universe was created by a god or gods. I have AMPLE evidence that my home PC was created by a human. See the difference? I am not allowed the luxury of simply believing in creationism without a shred of evidence. "Now why should anyone believe your Secular Humanist proposal for the origin of the universe through multiple universes, etc. versus a Deistic approach? " 1) Don't label me a Secular Humanist. 2) I have not proposed how the universe was created. " Why is it easier for you to believe that some sort of impersonal, mechanistic First Cause created this extraordinary universe that we live in?" Who said I believe this? I never made such claims. When I discredit your creationist arguments, you are assuming that this means I openly accept the mechanistic First Cause argument. This is not the case. Im simply pointing out the fact that scientists at least have a lot of evidence to weight in on their side. You have none. "I ask if your belief is based on the hard sciences (astronomy, geology, etc.) or based on the fact that you have a bias against theism, i.e. "I don't like the doctrine of hell. Christians are obnoxious hyypocrits. Noone in the NAS believes in God. I've never had any supernatural experiences, etc."" My beliefs are based on hard sciences and the weight of current evidence. "Why do you have any confidence that you are more correct than the typical Deist?" Deists claim there is a god which they have no evidence for. They have at least ONE more thing in their belief system that they have failed to prove than I do. " I argue that you have absolutely no reason and therefore should discotinue labelling those who believe in God with the "silly fable" label. " I in fact have a very good reason. Theists have as much proof for their beliefs as fables do for the existence of their characters. peace axeman
Posts: 1328 10-13-03 12:44 PM Is there a sticker on my body that says "built by god #344,554,234,576? No. "TM: WRONG: You face, your fingerprint, your unique character that nobody else has" Non-sequitor. Twins also disprove this. Is there a god factory I can find humans and universes being built it? No. "TM:YES: The female body" Non-sequitor. Before you " blow me off" ....i think you should read YOUR questions again..I believe we were uniquely built by God and i offered Proof not opinion when I talked about the unique stamp each person has...regarding the Female body, I believe that is a God factory....did you know that we still cannot figure out how a SINGLE fertilized egg cell....divides into two, then 4, and then one group becomes the heart, one become the brain ect......It's an incredible factory that God has created and if you think in terms of mathematical %.......it is nearly impossible for all living things on this earth to have occurred naturally.......from the insect, the animal, the plant world to the human being.....the idea of a big bang and some cells coming to life and forming all this are slim and none.
"what is the difference between the BIG Bang theory and the idea of a creator, God????" Ooooh I dont know.... maybe a hundred years of scientific findings? Maybe enough data to fill a dump truck with??? What evidence do we have for a creator god? Big fat zippo. peace axeman
show one bit of evidence of a big bang..... 100 years of science on 7 billion years ?????...ok prove the big bang????
TM's arguments are invalid because they are not even arguments. " Why should your opinion that it arrived by chance mechanistic process be any more valid than his?"" 1) First of all, you need to STOP quoting MY opinion when you in fact have NO IDEA what it is. 2) His opinion, is merely that. It is NO BETTER than me pointing at a womans body and claiming that superior aliens created it. How can I make this any clearer???? Can I point at dog shit and claim that it was engineered by little green men on mars????????????? Can I???????? Using TM's logic I can. I MUST PROVE THAT IT WAS ENGINEERED BY LITTLE GREEN MEN ON MARS. The simple existence of dog shit does NOT QUALIFY AS PROOF of little green men on mars simply because I claim it does. Sheeeshhh.... This is sooooooo elementary. You guys would fail out of a college critical thinking course in about 10 minutes What about your god? Can you point at a womans body and claim YOUR god created it? Does this constitute evidence? OF COURSE IT DOESNT. Why? Because ANYONE believing in ANY god can make the very same claim. No no no... MY GOD created the womans body. NO no no...MY god did... and so on and so on. It provides us with ZERO information., It is a WORTHLESS statement by any measurable means. peace axeman
Now we are getting somewhere. This imo shows your bias. You assume that your PC is made by humans because you look at your PC and it has certain characteristics that you would expect from a human manufacturer. A Deist looks at the universe and says, "The universe looks designed. It is like a complex watch on the beach. It is obviously highly tuned for life. I think this has God's label all over it." Now I go back to my same question. Why is he any less valid than you? What hard scientific evidence are you talking about that you have that would lead one to believe that the miraculous Big Bang event was done by mechanistic, impersonal processes?
No I don't care to prove the big bang. It's a theory. Im agnostic on it. I can only claim it has evidence supporting it. But if you insist for one bit, here ya go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2271377.stm peace axeman
Your going in circles. "Now we are getting somewhere. This imo shows your bias. You assume that your PC is made by humans because you look at your PC and it has certain characteristics that you would expect from a human manufacturer." WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Did you FAIL to read what I wrote??? I CAREFULLY explained why I thought it was created by a human AND NOWHERE DID I SAY BECAUSE IT HAS CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS. I believe it was created because I CAN PROVE IT WAS CREATED, by tracking it to its source. By watching one being built. By looking up the schematics. By finding the manufacturers label on it, etc, etc, etc I can produce a HUGE pile of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans built my pc. "A Deist looks at the universe and says, "The universe looks designed. It is like a complex watch on the beach. It is obviously highly tuned for life. I think this has God's label all over it."" You THINK it does, but your merely guessing. In fact, you cannot point me at ANY such label. You can only CLAIM there is a label. But there isnt. You may CLAIM that DNA is a label. but I might as well point at a mole on my ass and claim its a secret insignia of an alien race. There are better explainations for DNA than a creator god. "Now I go back to my same question. Why is he any less valid than you? What hard scientific evidence are you talking about that you have that would lead one to believe that the miraculous Big Bang event was done by mechanistic, impersonal processes? " I will refuse to reply if you make it obvious that your are not even reading my replies. I already explained this. I wont type it again. Go back and read it. peace axeman