• "Try God" billboard vandalized
    184 replies, posted
As unfortunate as it is that a billboard has to be vandalized, Atheism really needs a larger world presence and recognition. Retarded atheist neckbeards on reddit don't count since they aren't doing anything except arguing with retarded Christians on reddit. It's a loop and it doesn't do anything except make both sides look bad and if they met each other face to face they'd probably explode from how much in common they have. The real problem is the Government and the common people. Many people could not even really tell you what an atheist is and what they believe/don't believe, and if anyone here thinks that the Government is a totally religiously neutral party you're a joke. I have heard Europe is a much more, for the most part, relaxed and atheist place, but Europe is the exception unfortunately.
In all seriousness, that's a clever joke they made. I've seen some stuff in the same vein on church signs that they put up themselves. Example: [IMG]http://media.rd.com/rd/images/rdc/slideshows/13-Funny-Church-Signs/church-sign-af.jpg[/IMG]
I click on the thread, and of course a good number of posts become dedicated to discussing a god's existence. Good job. Anyway, if I was the radio station? I'd be annoyed. "Hey, that's [I]my[/I] ad. I don't need you putting that crap over it." But from a third person perspective? I think it's a funny prank. I got a laugh out of it. :v: [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoShogun;41977254]In all seriousness, that's a clever joke they made. I've seen some stuff in the same vein on church signs that they put up themselves. Example: [IMG]http://media.rd.com/rd/images/rdc/slideshows/13-Funny-Church-Signs/church-sign-af.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The church by me: "No shirt? No shoes? You'll still get service." I love it when they know to be light hearted every now and then.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977230]So you're saying that the Universe when it's condensed down to less than the size of an atom had the same physical laws that we see today? No scientist who studies the big bang or the universe believes this.[/QUOTE] As close to the big bang as we have been able to see, there has been no change in the physical laws of the universe. Whatever happened at the point of and before the big bang is completely different of course as at those times the universe did not exist, so naturally the laws of the universe didn't either. Within the universe though, the physical laws have remained constant, a statement that you incorrectly said was wrong. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977230]I haven't given a reason? Yes I have. It's simpler. It's cleaner. It's easier. If you have no reason to believe something, why should you?[/QUOTE] That's not a very good reason to assume naturalism, you're essentially saying, "I do not believe in God, therefore there is only natural processes". The jump in logic is extremely evident and makes for a wholly unconvincing argument, even if it were true that there is no evidence for God. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977230]No. I fail to agree that a being like that is the simpler, or even, the likely answer for things. If such a being exists, surely there would be some evidence of it in our current lives, no? What is this? The sheer existence of the universe is not proof when the sheer existence of it doesn't lend itself to needing an all powerful super being.[/QUOTE] As I've stated, the critical nature of our physical laws and how they perfectly sustain the miracle of life, are two major pieces of evidence for the existence of God. You haven't shown any way that the physical laws within the universe have changed and your original argument for that point contradicts itself as the big bang theory requires the physical laws to be universal in nature. Also there is no proof that the universe doesn't need a creator to exist. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977230]If you go into an experiment or a thought experiment and you expect to get a result, and you're aiming to get a result, you're more than likely going to get that result. Building ideas off the evidence is better than building ideas into the evidence as you're saying. We can understand the universe in complex and sophisticated ways. We already do. We're only going to learn more. Philosophy on these subjects is VASTLY important to our future. That isn't the same as saying "well we're trying to prove god is real, here's proof we found".[/QUOTE] what do you mean by "building ideas into evidence"? I'm taking facts about the universe; the physical laws that have remained constant, how they perfectly sustain life and how life itself is so mysterious in its origins, and using these facts as evidence to drive my point. The statement that we're going to learn more doesn't discredit my points at all, instead it's a weak support for you to sustain your faith in the idea that naturalism is the ultimate answer regardless of scientific evidenc [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977230]We exist. We exist in a world that allows us to exist because that the only way we can exist. Your statement doesn't have any credit to it as it is.[/QUOTE] This doesn't discredit my statements at all, rather it just observes some things about the universe.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977473]As close to the big bang as we have been able to see, there has been no change in the physical laws of the universe. Whatever happened at the point of and before the big bang is completely different of course as at those times the universe did not exist, so naturally the laws of the universe didn't either. Within the universe though, the physical laws have remained constant, a statement that you incorrectly said was wrong.[/QUOTE] No. [QUOTE]The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.[/QUOTE] It went through various different states. The physical laws that bound the universe in the early hot states flowed into the states we see in other periods. There were changes, but the changes are the only ones we know of that could have happened for us to be here now. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977473]That's not a very good reason to assume naturalism, you're essentially saying, "I do not believe in God, therefore there is only natural processes". The jump in logic is extremely evident and makes for a wholly unconvincing argument, even if it were true that there is no evidence for God.[/QUOTE] What is a good reason to assume god? You keep acting like he's the default and simplest view. WHY. You have never said WHY. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977473]As I've stated, the critical nature of our physical laws and how they perfectly sustain the miracle of life, are two major pieces of evidence for the existence of God. You haven't shown any way that the physical laws within the universe have changed and your original argument for that point contradicts itself as the big bang theory requires the physical laws to be universal in nature. Also there is no proof that the universe doesn't need a creator to exist.[/QUOTE] This is not why. This is not an explanation. You say it is because some scientists do. But others equally qualified in that field disagree, and they're not valid? What is this hypocrisy? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977473]what do you mean by "building ideas into evidence"? I'm taking facts about the universe; the physical laws that have remained constant, how they perfectly sustain life and how life itself is so mysterious in its origins, and using these facts as evidence to drive my point. The statement that we're going to learn more doesn't discredit my points at all, instead it's a weak support for you to sustain your faith in the idea that naturalism is the ultimate answer regardless of scientific evidenc[/QUOTE] I'm talking about you looking at something and getting the answer you wanted out of it rather than looking at the evidence and concluding what it results in as free from bias as possible. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977473]This doesn't discredit my statements at all, rather it just observes some things about the universe.[/QUOTE] What makes your statements credited? This is an argument that revolves around people agreeing that one idea or the other is the default idea. For me, and for a lot of people, involving an all powerful, timeless, ageless, benevelent and all knowing entity and choosing to believe that he was ever involved in the process is honestly, a shit ton more complicated. So much more complicated. [QUOTE]if you try and prove anything without a shadow of a doubt you fail 99.9% of the time to do so.[/QUOTE] a statement like this kind of shows you me you don't want anything but conjecture and will consistently present simply ideas and hypothesis as close to facts or reality
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976825]That's the wonderful thing about theism(or at least some forms of theism) as it proposes an intelligent entity that transcends time and space. So an infinite entity that does not have a beginning or an end, so searching for such an entities origins is useless because it has none.[/QUOTE] Hold on, how do you get to the idea of an intelligent entity that transcends time and space? From all the evidence we have, intelligence is an emergent property of a complex physical brain (we know this because e.g. when someone suffers brain damage it can change their personality, ability to reason etc). It's also trait that's arises due to natural selection, evolved "for" the purpose of overcoming adversity and helping the survival of the organism it's part of. What reason would intelligence have to exist at all if there's no adversity or threat of death for the entity in question? How can an intelligent entity exist without the space for the brain to exist in or the time for it to function? You can say that it might be somehow possible that a brain could go without those things in a way we don't understand, or that a form of intelligence may somehow not require a physical brain at all or an evolutionary reason for existing, but those are all very big assumptions that we have no evidence to support. We have about as much evidence that an entity can have intelligence without space or time as we do that an entity can poop without space or time - it's an entirely arbitrary assumption to make, and it's just us anthropomorphizing things that aren't human in any way. The reason I'm an atheist is I don't think it's particularly sensible to make all these assumptions when the cause of the Universe could just as easily be another natural process we don't know very much about yet, just like everything else we've previously assigned to an intelligent entity - thunder, rainbows, evolution, you name it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977564]It went through various different states. The physical laws that bound the universe in the early hot states flowed into the states we see in other periods. There were changes, but the changes are the only ones we know of that could have happened for us to be here now.[/QUOTE] Your quote says nothing about the physical laws changing, just the universe being in different states. Since it matches an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the same subject word for word, I suggest you scroll down to the underlying assumptions section [QUOTE=Wikipedia]The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.[/QUOTE] So really if you don't believe that the laws of the universe are constant, you don't consider the big bang theory to be correct. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977564]What is a good reason to assume god? You keep acting like he's the default and simplest view. WHY. You have never said WHY. This is not why. This is not an explanation. You say it is because some scientists do. But others equally qualified in that field disagree, and they're not valid? What is this hypocrisy?[/QUOTE] I literally stated earlier on that I DON'T believe these things to be evidence because several scientists and philosophers do as well. I do because they're what you'd expect in a universe created by God, a universe created from nothing and life inexplicably appearing from its absence. I believe them because they make sense and do not fit into a naturalistic world view. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977564]I'm talking about you looking at something and getting the answer you wanted out of it rather than looking at the evidence and concluding what it results in as free from bias as possible.[/QUOTE] It isn't written in the stars that naturalism is true, same with the existence of God. You can't just look at facts alone and come to a conclusion, you have to interpret those facts, determine which idea is most supported by them. Again, the only thing that facts alone proclaim is that I think and that I exist. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41977564]What makes your statements credited? This is an argument that revolves around people agreeing that one idea or the other is the default idea. For me, and for a lot of people, involving an all powerful, timeless, ageless, benevelent and all knowing entity and choosing to believe that he was ever involved in the process is honestly, a shit ton more complicated. So much more complicated.[/QUOTE] Well technically none of our statements are credited as this is an anonymous forum and we are not displaying any credentials, you're the one that brought up the concept of credit in what I assumed to be a more figurative sense, I suppose not. In any case, if you really want to bring up Occam's Razor to this discussion, it has absolutely no validity because I'm the only one really proposing a full origins explanation for the universe. There is none for the naturalistic perspective and all attempts that there have been have involved adding more and more layers between this point and the still unknown origin. God offers a very simple origin of the universe starting from pure void, whereas naturalism is coming up with an increasingly convoluted process without even getting close to the actual origin yet. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41977968]Hold on, how do you get to the idea of an intelligent entity that transcends time and space? From all the evidence we have, intelligence is an emergent property of a complex physical brain (we know this because e.g. when someone suffers brain damage it can change their personality, ability to reason etc). It's also trait that's arises due to natural selection, evolved "for" the purpose of overcoming adversity and helping the survival of the organism it's part of. What reason would intelligence have to exist at all if there's no adversity or threat of death for the entity in question? How can an intelligent entity exist without the space for the brain to exist in or the time for it to function? You can say that it might be somehow possible that a brain could go without those things in a way we don't understand, or that a form of intelligence may somehow not require a physical brain at all or an evolutionary reason for existing, but those are all very big assumptions that we have no evidence to support. We have about as much evidence that an entity can have intelligence without space or time as we do that an entity can poop without space or time - it's an entirely arbitrary assumption to make, and it's just us anthropomorphizing things that aren't human in any way. The reason I'm an atheist is I don't think it's particularly sensible to make all these assumptions when the cause of the Universe could just as easily be another natural process we don't know very much about yet, just like everything else we've previously assigned to an intelligent entity - thunder, rainbows, evolution, you name it.[/QUOTE] There is no proof that intelligence is solely a factor of natural process, rather that its expression is affected by natural process. There really isn't any reasonable evolutionary evidence for intelligence either. The decision on whether it's purely physical or not is more based on your world view than an arbitrary choice. Anyway, Christianity has never equated thunder, rainbows or evolution to God's actions and is actually very demystifying in comparison to other religions that were around at its conception, so I wouldn't put it on par with other non-Abrahamic religions.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]God offers a very simple origin of the universe starting from pure void, whereas naturalism is coming up with an increasingly convoluted process without even getting close to the actual origin yet.[/QUOTE] An extremely intelligent entity somehow existing without a cause nor space or time for it to exist in is [I]definitely not[/I] a simple origin. Intelligence is an [I]extremely[/I] complex phenomenon, beyond even the scope of our current understanding. Asserting that intelligence exists without even an attempt at an explanation of through what it arises, how it functions, or where it came from, is about as far from a simple origin as you can get.
[QUOTE=Tweevle;41978079]An extremely intelligent entity somehow existing without a cause nor space or time for it to exist in is [I]definitely not[/I] a simple origin. Intelligence is an [I]extremely[/I] complex phenomenon, beyond even the scope of our current understanding. Asserting that intelligence exists without even an attempt at an explanation of through what it arises, how it functions, or where it came from, is about as far from a simple origin as you can get.[/QUOTE] I'm not proposing that the universe came from God, rather that it came from nothing. God simply was the one who made it so and being an infinite being, it's pointless to search for where his intelligence arose from or where it comes from being an infinite being by nature does not have these things. In any case, I'm talking about the universe and am claiming that the universe came from absolutely nothing, no matter, energy, space, time or physical laws. The existence of God makes that possible and makes it the most basic premise.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]There is no proof that intelligence is solely a factor of natural process, rather that its expression is affected by natural process.[/QUOTE] There is no evidence that it isn't soley natural process either. Why make the assumption that it isn't? Why do you make the assumption that intelligence isn't soley a natural process but not make the same assumption for pooping? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]There really isn't any reasonable evolutionary evidence for intelligence either.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence"]Not so sure about that.[/URL] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]The decision on whether it's purely physical or not is more based on your world view than an arbitrary choice.[/QUOTE] No, because we have evidence that intelligence is a property of a physical brain because, like I said, if you change the brain that has an effect on the mind and the intelligence. Since we have no evidence that intelligence can be separate from a physical brain, assuming that it can and does is arbitrary. Again, just as arbitrary as assuming that pooping can and does be separate from a physical digestive system. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]Anyway, Christianity has never equated thunder, rainbows or evolution to God's actions and is actually very demystifying in comparison to other religions that were around at its conception, so I wouldn't put it on par with other non-Abrahamic religions.[/QUOTE] IIRC the rainbow was considered a direct sign from god after the whole Noah's Ark thing. As far as evolution goes (or more properly the diversity of life on Earth that evolution explains), last I checked ~50% of the US population thought it was God's actions. Anyway, all that's irrelevant because even if you aren't doing that sort of thing in regards to rainbows and life on earth, you're still doing it with the origin of the Universe. It's the same God of the Gaps argument. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978171]I'm not proposing that the universe came from God, rather that it came from nothing. In any case, I'm talking about the universe and am claiming that the universe came from absolutely nothing, no matter, energy, space, time or physical laws. The existence of God makes that possible and makes it the most basic premise.[/QUOTE] I don't really see what any of that has to do with what I said. It doesn't matter whether a god created the Universe from nothing or from itself or whatever. You said that God offers a very simple origin of the universe starting, and my point was that it's [I]not a simple explanation at all[/I], because you're asserting the cause of the Universe is something as extremely complex as intelligence (pretty much the most complex thing we know of in the Universe), with not only no space or time for it to exist in but also no explanation or reason for it to exist at all. That's pretty much the most complex explanation you can come up with. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978171]God simply was the one who made it so and being an infinite being, it's pointless to search for where his intelligence arose from or where it comes from being an infinite being by nature does not have these things.[/QUOTE] Okay, that's another assumption without any evidence. Now not only does this proposed intelligence not have any space or time for it to exist in, but it's also always existed, when all evidence about intelligences we have so far shows that they're finite.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978171]I'm not proposing that the universe came from God, rather that it came from nothing. God simply was the one who made it so and being an infinite being, it's pointless to search for where his intelligence arose from or where it comes from being an infinite being by nature does not have these things. In any case, I'm talking about the universe and am claiming that the universe came from absolutely nothing, no matter, energy, space, time or physical laws. The existence of God makes that possible and makes it the most basic premise.[/QUOTE] No. This is not a basic premise.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;41977275]I click on the thread, and of course a good number of posts become dedicated to discussing a god's existence. Good job. Anyway, if I was the radio station? I'd be annoyed. "Hey, that's [I]my[/I] ad. I don't need you putting that crap over it." But from a third person perspective? I think it's a funny prank. I got a laugh out of it. :v: [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] The church by me: "No shirt? No shoes? You'll still get service." I love it when they know to be light hearted every now and then.[/QUOTE] I heard about a church that had its air conditioners stolen. The sign the next day was "Keep one of those, you're gonna need it where you're going"
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]Your quote says nothing about the physical laws changing, just the universe being in different states. Since it matches an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the same subject word for word, I suggest you scroll down to the underlying assumptions section[/QUOTE] Different states with the same matter that couldn't possibly happen today due to different physical constraints. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]So really if you don't believe that the laws of the universe are constant, you don't consider the big bang theory to be correct.[/QUOTE] What? This is nonsensical. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]I literally stated earlier on that I DON'T believe these things to be evidence because several scientists and philosophers do as well. I do because they're what you'd expect in a universe created by God, a universe created from nothing and life inexplicably appearing from its absence. I believe them because they make sense and do not fit into a naturalistic world view.[/QUOTE] You're basically saying "i'm right, god is real, denying this is naturalism, and we all know naturalism lacks reason, logic, and sense and is a bunch of baloney." but you don't offer evidence of it being false or less simplistic than the alternative. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]It isn't written in the stars that naturalism is true, same with the existence of God. You can't just look at facts alone and come to a conclusion, you have to interpret those facts, determine which idea is most supported by them. Again, the only thing that facts alone proclaim is that I think and that I exist.[/QUOTE] Yes. You interpret them. What you are doing is massively different than that. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]Well technically none of our statements are credited as this is an anonymous forum and we are not displaying any credentials, you're the one that brought up the concept of credit in what I assumed to be a more figurative sense, I suppose not. In any case, if you really want to bring up Occam's Razor to this discussion, it has absolutely no validity because I'm the only one really proposing a full origins explanation for the universe. There is none for the naturalistic perspective and all attempts that there have been have involved adding more and more layers between this point and the still unknown origin. God offers a very simple origin of the universe starting from pure void, whereas naturalism is coming up with an increasingly convoluted process without even getting close to the actual origin yet.[/QUOTE] I have no words for how useless this block of text is. Your origin explanation is a lot more complicated than mine. Which I have admitted we don't fully understand. For you, this means throw god into it. This doesn't make sense to me. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977979]There is no proof that intelligence is solely a factor of natural process, rather that its expression is affected by natural process. There really isn't any reasonable evolutionary evidence for intelligence either. The decision on whether it's purely physical or not is more based on your world view than an arbitrary choice. Anyway, Christianity has never equated thunder, rainbows or evolution to God's actions and is actually very demystifying in comparison to other religions that were around at its conception, so I wouldn't put it on par with other non-Abrahamic religions.[/QUOTE] What? Seriously? There's plenty of evidence as to how intelligence came about, and what it added to humanities fight for survival. You're ignorance of this isn't a great way to say it doesn't exist. Christianity has so much symbolism to say "never equated anything to thunder or rainbows" is a massive, and painful misunderstanding of the religion you're defending here. And what's to say that the abrahamic god is the god that exists? What are you doing that is logical by assuming one god exists but no other form of god exists?
[QUOTE=Tweevle;41978176]There is no evidence that it isn't soley natural process either. Why make the assumption that it isn't? Why do you make the assumption that intelligence isn't soley a natural process but not make the same assumption for pooping? No, because we have evidence that intelligence is a property of a physical brain because, like I said, if you change the brain that has an effect on the mind and the intelligence. Since we have no evidence that intelligence can be separate from a physical brain, assuming that it can and does is arbitrary. Again, just as arbitrary as assuming that pooping can and does be separate from a physical digestive system.[/QUOTE] I make the assumption based on the validity of my world view. I looked at your source and it offers several current conflicting models that all try to explain intelligence through an evolutionary interpretation. Even the stated predominant model among the other models hardly seems to have overwhelming evidence in support of it. In any case, the scientific evidence that intelligence originates in the brain actually just supports the theory that the expression of intelligence is affected by the brain. We hardly understand what cause intelligence scientifically. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41978176]IIRC the rainbow was considered a direct sign from god after the whole Noah's Ark thing. As far as evolution goes (or more properly the diversity of life on Earth that evolution explains), last I checked ~50% of the US population thought it was God's actions.[/QUOTE] The rainbow is considered a sign, yes. the dove is also considered a sign of peace, but that doesn't mystify it, or give it a patron deity, it just adds a significance to it. As for evolution, there's a difference between what people interpret the bible to say and what it says, the creation accounts do not close out the possibility of evolution. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41978176]I don't really see what any of that has to do with what I said. It doesn't matter whether a god created the Universe from nothing or from itself or whatever. You said that God offers a very simple origin of the universe starting, and my point was that it's [I]not a simple explanation at all[/I], because you're asserting the cause of the Universe is something as extremely complex as intelligence (pretty much the most complex thing we know of in the Universe), with not only no space or time for it to exist in but also no explanation or reason for it to exist at all. That's pretty much the most complex explanation you can come up with. Okay, that's another assumption without any evidence. Now not only does this proposed intelligence not have any space or time for it to exist in, but it's also always existed, when all evidence about intelligences we have so far shows that they're finite.[/QUOTE] Perhaps not basic in itself, you're right, intelligence is complex. Although I suppose there's really no other origin explanation to combat it, so in the end its complexity cannot be used for or against it until we have other reasonable origins theories. Also the infinity of God comes naturally from his transcendence of time, matter, energy of space which are all finite things.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669][B]I make the assumption based on the validity of my world view.[/B] I looked at your source and it offers several current conflicting models that all try to explain intelligence through an evolutionary interpretation. Even the stated predominant model among the other models hardly seems to have overwhelming evidence in support of it. In any case, the scientific evidence that intelligence originates in the brain actually just supports the theory that the expression of intelligence is affected by the brain. We hardly understand what cause intelligence scientifically.[/QUOTE] Bolded. "I'm right because I'm right". [QUOTE]The rainbow is considered a sign, yes. the dove is also considered a sign of peace, but that doesn't mystify it, or give it a patron deity, it just adds a significance to it. As for evolution, there's a difference between what people interpret the bible to say and what it says, the creation accounts do not close out the possibility of evolution.[/QUOTE] If the bible is highly, neigh, entirely inaccurate in it's factual description of events and creation, what point does it have to be a moralistic tale which is not what it was at it's time of creation, and is not of any use in todays world. [QUOTE]Perhaps not basic in itself, you're right, intelligence is complex. Although I suppose there's really no other origin explanation to combat it, so in the end its complexity cannot be used for or against it until we have other reasonable origins theories. Also the infinity of God comes naturally from his transcendence of time, matter, energy of space which are all finite things.[/QUOTE] Okay, see, you're saying words and acting like they have meaning and have a whole bunch of weight to them. They don't. They're not defining or explaning anything at all. You're doing a bunch of what is essentially empty rhetoric. [QUOTE]Perhaps not basic in itself, you're right, intelligence is complex.[/QUOTE] Then why are you acting like this is a simple, and easy solution when you yourself understand it's complex? Intelligence is complex, and it has a better solution for existing than a diety. [QUOTE]Although I suppose there's really no other origin explanation to combat it[/QUOTE] There are. You discard them as fake and worthless without a second glance because [QUOTE][B]I make the assumption based on the validity of my world view.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]so in the end its complexity cannot be used for or against it until we have other reasonable origins theories[/QUOTE] Yes it can. If it's too complex, and explains less than it makes questions for, it's not really going to turn out to be a great idea. Historically, those ideas are removed and forgotten about as they're realized not to fit with real life world views. [QUOTE]Also the infinity of God comes naturally[/QUOTE] This is not simple or natural for people to think about or assume is true on, again, only your word. [QUOTE]his transcendence of time, matter, energy of space which are all finite things.[/QUOTE] What evidence and proof do you have for this? You've called me faith filled already, but I'm really wondering how you don't see that you yourself are holding out more faith than can be considered reasonable in this argument.
[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;41974535]if this was an atheist billboard i bet more facepunchers would be mad.[/QUOTE] I'd really only be upset by vandalism if it was a memorial or my own house...
god cant exist cuz what created him big bang cant exist cuz what created it no evidence no belief welcome to the religion of ~nothing~
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669]I make the assumption based on the validity of my world view.[/QUOTE] What does this mean? I genuinely don't understand. It just sounds like "I'm right because I'm right", as HumanAbyss said. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669]I looked at your source and it offers several current conflicting models that all try to explain intelligence through an evolutionary interpretation. Even the stated predominant model among the other models hardly seems to have overwhelming evidence in support of it.[/QUOTE] Sure, there are different scientific explanations for human-level intelligence within evolutionary theory, but note that there are [I]none[/I] outside evolution. Just as there are different scientific explanations for why humans walk upright, but there are none that don't involve evolution, and it'd be silly to assert that humans walk upright because of some supernatural reason and it's possible for something to walk upright without space or time. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669] In any case, the scientific evidence that intelligence originates in the brain actually just supports the theory that the expression of intelligence is affected by the brain. We hardly understand what cause intelligence scientifically.[/QUOTE] Fair point, but the fact that intelligence is affected so strongly by altering the physical brain, coupled with the fact that we have as yet seen no evidence of intelligence existing without a physical brain, does indicate that it is a product of the brain and we have no reason to assume otherwise. Like, you could say that perhaps voices aren't the product of the body; the vocal chords and such just affect the expression of the voice, but we have no reason to think that. The simplest explanation is that a voice is a direct product of them. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669]As for evolution, there's a difference between what people interpret the bible to say and what it says, the creation accounts do not close out the possibility of evolution.[/QUOTE] Yes, but a lot of Christians have closed it out and still do, you can't deny this. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978669]Perhaps not basic in itself, you're right, intelligence is complex. Although I suppose there's really no other origin explanation to combat it, so in the end its complexity cannot be used for or against it until we have other reasonable origins theories. Also the infinity of God comes naturally from his transcendence of time, matter, energy of space which are all finite things.[/QUOTE] There is another origin explanation to combat it - replace "an intelligent entity caused the universe to happen" with "an entity caused the universe to happen" (i.e. a natural, unthinking process). This has all the explaining power of the god proposal, without all the unfounded assumptions you need to make when asserting that an intelligent entity somehow exists without time or space and without any explanation.
[QUOTE=Tweevle;41979098]What does this mean? I genuinely don't understand. It just sounds like "I'm right because I'm right", as HumanAbyss said.[/QUOTE] It seems there's a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to say whether my view was correct or not, I simply meant to state that my reason for believing human intelligence to be more than physical process is based off of my world view. I was just answering your question, no more. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979098]Sure, there are different scientific explanations for human-level intelligence within evolutionary theory, but note that there are [I]none[/I] outside evolution. Just as there are different scientific explanations for why humans walk upright, but there are none that don't involve evolution, and it'd be silly to assert that humans walk upright because of some supernatural reason and it's possible for something to walk upright without space or time.[/QUOTE] Just because there are no theories that do not employ evolutionary theory does not automatically make one theory correct. That simply means that intelligence has been studied under the context of naturalism and evolutionary theory. In any case these studies don't prove that other animals have things like the theory of self, or that it's something naturally developed through evolution. Studies that have been done on such things don't necessarily prove other animals to have a theory of self either. The example of standing upright is completely different though, it's far less abstract than intelligence and revolves around a mechanism for movement. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979098]Fair point, but the fact that intelligence is affected so strongly by altering the physical brain, coupled with the fact that we have as yet seen no evidence of intelligence existing without a physical brain, does indicate that it is a product of the brain and we have no reason to assume otherwise. Like, you could say that perhaps voices aren't the product of the body; the vocal chords and such just affect the expression of the voice, but we have no reason to think that. The simplest explanation is that a voice is a direct product of them.[/QUOTE] Well, if the brain is a sort of method of control over a body for a mind, when the method of control breaks down, the mind loses control. the strong effects of brain damage don't necessarily point to one or the other. again, your analogy is not perfect as you are referring to something far less abstract and more understood. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979098]Yes, but a lot of Christians have closed it out and still do, you can't deny this.[/QUOTE] I can't deny this, but the creation accounts are incredibly vague, they don't necessarily suggest any important doctrinal claims and to get dogmatic about any one interpretation that is well crafted and in accordance to the language is pointless. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979098]There is another origin explanation to combat it - replace "an intelligent entity caused the universe to happen" with "an entity caused the universe to happen" (i.e. a natural, unthinking process). This has all the explaining power of the god proposal, without all the unfounded assumptions you need to make when asserting that an intelligent entity somehow exists without time or space and without any explanation.[/QUOTE] Well, by definition natural would mean of the physical universe correct? So suggesting that something within the universe created the universe before it existed makes no logical sense. In that case the entity would also be finite so you would have to find a cause for it, you would also have to explain how the universal physical laws that also govern this entity were created by it, why they seem perfect for permitting life to exist in the universe and how life came into existence through this entity.
[QUOTE=Wingz;41978910]god cant exist cuz what created him big bang cant exist cuz what created it no evidence no belief welcome to the religion of ~nothing~[/QUOTE] What's your point? Nothing wrong with beig skeptical of some mystical ~infinite~ being that somehow exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time while beig able to create the place it exists and fails to exist in simultaneously. Seriously, "God did it" is not a simple answer, slapping God into everything you don't understand complicates things. For God to create shit, a God must exists, but what caused that God to exist? It breaks causality. Something that current models can avoid breaking with ease. Might as well say "a wizard did it", equally as valid.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]It seems there's a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to say whether my view was correct or not, I simply meant to state that my reason for believing human intelligence to be more than physical process is based off of my world view. I was just answering your question, no more.[/QUOTE] So you said something of no value. [QUOTE]Just because there are no theories that do not employ evolutionary theory does not automatically make one theory correct. That simply means that intelligence has been studied under the context of naturalism and evolutionary theory. In any case these studies don't prove that other animals have things like the theory of self, or that it's something naturally developed through evolution. Studies that have been done on such things don't necessarily prove other animals to have a theory of self either. The example of standing upright is completely different though, it's far less abstract than intelligence and revolves around a mechanism for movement.[/QUOTE] This is not how science works. Certain animals are self aware. Are you arguing they're not? [QUOTE]Well, if the brain is a sort of method of control over a body for a mind, when the method of control breaks down, the mind loses control. the strong effects of brain damage don't necessarily point to one or the other. again, your analogy is not perfect as you are referring to something far less abstract and more understood.[/QUOTE] No. This is the problem that I have with the soul argument and idea. take a brain damage victim. Let's go with Phineas Gage because it's a famous case of brain damage. Phineas had a long piece of metal launched through his head. It caused brain damage. He survived, and lived a normal life after. BUT, he was a markedly different person. Now here's the problem with the "soul" 1) The soul is physical, and is the heart of a persons mind and body(personality), so a brain damage victim goes to say, heaven, with that brain damage as their soul has been damaged physically. This scenario also allows for us to physically test for the soul as anything physical can affect it, then it MUST be observable. 2) The soul is ethreal and is the heart of a persons body and mind(personality), but brain damage does nothing to this "ethreal" soul. But yet, a person has changed without their soul having changed. This suggests that the so called soul is not actually the heart and mind of a person and thus, this scenario is false. 3) The soul is metaphorical, and is really just the sum of brain interactions and a chemical and physical level and is thus not actually a formal soul that fits in your world view. [QUOTE]I can't deny this, but the creation accounts are incredibly vague, they don't necessarily suggest any important doctrinal claims and to get dogmatic about any one interpretation that is well crafted and in accordance to the language is pointless. Well, by definition natural would mean of the physical universe correct? So suggesting that something within the universe created the universe before it existed makes no logical sense. In that case the entity would also be finite so you would have to find a cause for it [/QUOTE] Natural is the state of things as they are. Suggesting that the universe created itself from inside itself is ludicrous. It's also not the Big Bang theory you're describing so it's an inaccurate jab at it at best. [QUOTE]you would also have to explain how the universal physical laws that also govern this entity were created by it, why they seem perfect for permitting life to exist in the universe and how life came into existence through this entity.[/QUOTE] No more so than you do. And what scientists can, and have done, is explain, and done their best to figure out just how this has happened. They do not come to the conclusion of a timeless deity being more likely, and being an easier and more understandable explanation. You must explain why that is a natural, normal, easy, and plain assumption to make about reality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41979441]So you said something of no value.[/QUOTE] I answered a question, no need to be hostile about it. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41979441]This is not how science works. Certain animals are self aware. Are you arguing they're not?[/QUOTE] I don't quite get what you mean, science does not involve finding support for certain theories? Isn't that pretty much all scientists do, apart from gathering abstract data? Anyway, I'm arguing that the mirror tests that have been done to not confirm that animals have a theory of self. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41979441]No. This is the problem that I have with the soul argument and idea. take a brain damage victim. Let's go with Phineas Gage because it's a famous case of brain damage. Phineas had a long piece of metal launched through his head. It caused brain damage. He survived, and lived a normal life after. BUT, he was a markedly different person. Now here's the problem with the "soul" 1) The soul is physical, and is the heart of a persons mind and body(personality), so a brain damage victim goes to say, heaven, with that brain damage as their soul has been damaged physically. This scenario also allows for us to physically test for the soul as anything physical can affect it, then it MUST be observable. 2) The soul is ethreal and is the heart of a persons body and mind(personality), but brain damage does nothing to this "ethreal" soul. But yet, a person has changed without their soul having changed. This suggests that the so called soul is not actually the heart and mind of a person and thus, this scenario is false. 3) The soul is metaphorical, and is really just the sum of brain interactions and a chemical and physical level and is thus not actually a formal soul that fits in your world view.[/QUOTE] A very good argument against the idea of a soul that is completely disconnected with the body, in Christian doctrine that is not what is taught though. Instead the body and soul are seen as joined together, the effects of one effect the other. people with bipolar disorder and homosexuals are born with or develop their cognitive states their environment, this in-turn affects their mind. The other side of the coin though is that a person's mind can affect their body, certain behaviors and lifestyles lead to changes in the brain. While the idea of the soul controlling the body through brain works to a certain extent, it's not a perfect description I admit. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41979441]Natural is the state of things as they are. Suggesting that the universe created itself from inside itself is ludicrous. It's also not the Big Bang theory you're describing so it's an inaccurate jab at it at best.[/QUOTE] Well, the definition I gave is essentially what the word natural means, but if that is what was meant by the use of the word that eliminates many of the problems I stated, but brings up others. What reason would you have to believe that the causal agent of the universe(note you would be making all the same assumptions that I did for God except for the intelligence) is without purpose if the laws of said universe are just right for life, there's also the fact that life did arise in this universe whose laws are perfect for letting it survive. These two points do not point towards a purposeless random force, you could say that we were just lucky that way, but then basic probability would make it clear your view is most likely wrong. You could mention that maybe we are one universe among infinite random ones, but then you'd have to prove that there are in fact an infinite amount of randomly generated universes. So not only would your explanation of a mindless causal require more assumptions, it would either be extremely improbable that it exists, or it would lack evidence in its support, thus making even more assumptions
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]It seems there's a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to say whether my view was correct or not, I simply meant to state that my reason for believing human intelligence to be more than physical process is based off of my world view. I was just answering your question, no more.[/QUOTE] But if you have no evidence that intelligence is more than a physical process, then why is it your world view? It's a non-answer. It seems like you believe that because you want to believe it, or something. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]Just because there are no theories that do not employ evolutionary theory does not automatically make one theory correct. That simply means that intelligence has been studied under the context of naturalism and evolutionary theory. In any case these studies don't prove that other animals have things like the theory of self, or that it's something naturally developed through evolution. Studies that have been done on such things don't necessarily prove other animals to have a theory of self either.[/QUOTE] No, but it shows that's where all the scientific evidence lies at the moment. The evidence we have leads us to the conclusion that there is an evolutionary explanation for intelligence, and there's no evidence for something other than that, so at this point there's no reason to assume intelligence is not something that arose out of evolution. If by theory of self you mean conciousness, IIRC there's evidence to suggest that's enabled by language, which in itself is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't really see how that's relevant, anyway. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]The example of standing upright is completely different though, it's far less abstract than intelligence and revolves around a mechanism for movement.[/QUOTE] Intelligence isn't abstract, it's just sufficiently complex that it appears so. The workings of a computer might appear abstract to someone who doesn't know how it works, but that doesn't mean what it does isn't a result of its physical workings or there's any reason to assume there's supernatural elements involved. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]Well, if the brain is a sort of method of control over a body for a mind, when the method of control breaks down, the mind loses control. the strong effects of brain damage don't necessarily point to one or the other.[/QUOTE] No, what happens to a brain directly affects what the mind is, it's not just a "method of control". People who have suffered brain damage sometimes get complete changes in their personality, effectively changing what sort of person (and mind) they are, yet still just as functional as they were beforehand. That's not the mind losing control of the body, that's an alteration of the mind. EDIT: Also, there's research showing that the physical structure of the brain (e.g. how big some bits are relative to others) is linked to the sort of personality people have. It'd be incredibly convenient if that just so happened to match up with a "soul's" personality. On the other hand, if the personality is not part of the "soul" what the hell [I]is [/I]purpose of the soul and why assume there is one if everything traditionally attributed to it can be adequately explained by a physical brain? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]again, your analogy is not perfect as you are referring to something far less abstract and more understood.[/QUOTE] That's kinda the point. We can understand things like the voice so they appear less abstract, and there's no reason to think intelligence is any different. If someone in the past who didn't understand how voices work assigned a supernatural cause to them instead of a physical process, would that be a reasonable position to hold? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]I can't deny this, but the creation accounts are incredibly vague, they don't necessarily suggest any important doctrinal claims and to get dogmatic about any one interpretation that is well crafted and in accordance to the language is pointless.[/QUOTE] You should probably tell the creationists that, not me. :P [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]Well, by definition natural would mean of the physical universe correct? So suggesting that something within the universe created the universe before it existed makes no logical sense. In that case the entity would also be finite so you would have to find a cause for it, you would also have to explain how the universal physical laws that also govern this entity were created by it,[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, just non-artificial and unthinking. But if you consider natural to mean part of the physical universe, then go ahead and call it a non-intelligent entity that doesn't exist within the Universe. It still explains pretty much everything that an intelligent entity would explain without all the unfounded assumptions required for that intelligence to exist. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979330]why they seem perfect for permitting life to exist in the universe and how life came into existence through this entity.[/QUOTE] Could simply be that things inherently work like that, like how [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant"]Langton's Ant[/URL] will inherently always create a highway, even though no one designed it to make highways. Other explanations could be things such as the anthropic principal, or a multiverse. As yet, we don't know what caused the Universe to exist, but as you seem to realise, pretty much any explanation you could come up with would be simpler than proposing something as incredibly complex as intelligence existing without a cause and without space or time. It's a baseless, overly complex and arbitrary explanation to pick, and it seems the only reason people do is, like you say, because it's based off their already existing worldview.
Damn, I am *really* a lapsed Catholic. It took me like five hours to get the whole transubstantiation joke, which makes it like ten times funnier.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41979706]I answered a question, no need to be hostile about it.[/QUOTE] But that's the point. You didn't answer it. You didn't explain anything. You said a statement. That statement didn't have any value to anyone in the discussion but you because no one could learn a thing from that statement. [QUOTE]I don't quite get what you mean, science does not involve finding support for certain theories? Isn't that pretty much all scientists do, apart from gathering abstract data?[/QUOTE] Science involves studying the universe and the world around us in the most objective way they possibly can. They do not go into this study with pre established theories and ideas and match it to what they want it to match to. They do the opposite. They're not doing what you're doing. [QUOTE]Anyway, I'm arguing that the mirror tests that have been done to not confirm that animals have a theory of self.[/QUOTE] Have been done not to confirm it? So you're saying they have no theory of self. No, they have no theory of self. But they're self aware, and highly capable of surpassing now outdated ideas of animal intelligence. [QUOTE]A very good argument against the idea of a soul that is completely disconnected with the body, in Christian doctrine that is not what is taught though. Instead the body and soul are seen as joined together, the effects of one effect the other. people with bipolar disorder and homosexuals are born with or develop their cognitive states their environment, this in-turn affects their mind. The other side of the coin though is that a person's mind can affect their body, certain behaviors and lifestyles lead to changes in the brain. While the idea of the soul controlling the body through brain works to a certain extent, it's not a perfect description I admit.[/QUOTE] You didn't even read it. That much is clear when you start talking right over what I said to you. An argument? This is you repeating yourself. [QUOTE]Well, the definition I gave is essentially what the word natural means, but if that is what was meant by the use of the word that eliminates many of the problems I stated, but brings up others.[/QUOTE] Natural. Nothing that happens in the universe is unnatural. natural is the only state of things. If it was unnatural it wouldn't happen. [QUOTE]What reason would you have to believe that the causal agent of the universe(note you would be making all the same assumptions that I did for God except for the intelligence) is without purpose if the laws of said universe are just right for life, there's also the fact that life did arise in this universe whose laws are perfect for letting it survive. These two points do not point towards a purposeless random force, you could say that we were just lucky that way, but then basic probability would make it clear your view is most likely wrong. You could mention that maybe we are one universe among infinite random ones, but then you'd have to prove that there are in fact an infinite amount of randomly generated universes.[/QUOTE] Because saying "well the only difference here is that I think it's an intelligent entity and not just a result of physical processes" is a HUGE, and I mean god damn gargantuan, intellectual leap. [QUOTE]So not only would your explanation of a mindless causal require more assumptions, it would either be extremely improbable that it exists, or it would lack evidence in its support, thus making even more assumptions[/QUOTE] No. How does it? Your explanation for an all time being like God is "well he's timeless so he can't be explained, no point in even trying" as you have LITERALLY said in this thread is not an explanation. It's a statement of assumptions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41980017]Science involves studying the universe and the world around us in the most objective way they possibly can. They do not go into this study with pre established theories and ideas and match it to what they want it to match to. They do the opposite. They're not doing what you're doing.[/QUOTE] Indeed, if anything science involves disproving theories, rather than finding support for them. The only reason we're relatively sure about the current theories is because generations of top scientists have done their best to find counter-evidence and found none.
That's a pretty good prank. Also what's with the debate, all you guys are doing is dick waving as no ones opinions will be changed.
[QUOTE=plunger435;41980179]That's a pretty good prank. Also what's with the debate, all you guys are doing is dick waving as no ones opinions will be changed.[/QUOTE] yeah we'll just stop talking it's like these forums keep filling up with people talking about shit the fuck is wrong with them. [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] and good job, you're easily the first person to post that in this thread
[QUOTE=Tweevle;41979840]But if you have no evidence that intelligence is more than a physical process, then why is it your world view? It's a non-answer. It seems like you believe that because you want to believe it, or something.[/QUOTE] A misunderstanding again, my world view is Christianity, which involves the belief in a soul. [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979840]No, but it shows that's where all the scientific evidence lies at the moment. The evidence we have leads us to the conclusion that there is an evolutionary explanation for intelligence, and there's no evidence for something other than that, so at this point there's no reason to assume intelligence is not something that arose out of evolution. If by theory of self you mean conciousness, IIRC there's evidence to suggest that's enabled by language, which in itself is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't really see how that's relevant, anyway. Intelligence isn't abstract, it's just sufficiently complex that it appears so. The workings of a computer might appear abstract to someone who doesn't know how it works, but that doesn't mean what it does isn't a result of its physical workings or there's any reason to assume there's supernatural elements involved. No, what happens to a brain directly affects what the mind is, it's not just a "method of control". People who have suffered brain damage sometimes get complete changes in their personality, effectively changing what sort of person (and mind) they are, yet still just as functional as they were beforehand. That's not the mind losing control of the body, that's an alteration of the mind. EDIT: Also, there's research showing that the physical structure of the brain (e.g. how big some bits are relative to others) is linked to the sort of personality people have. It'd be incredibly convenient if that just so happened to match up with a "soul's" personality. On the other hand, if the personality is not part of the "soul" what the hell [I]is [/I]purpose of the soul and why assume there is one if everything traditionally attributed to it can be adequately explained by a physical brain?[/QUOTE] All of these statements are made in the context of a naturalistic world view though, these things don't disprove the existence of a soul, only that the soul and body mutually affect each other which is exactly the teaching of Christianity. Again, this issue doesn't really affect support for either world view in this context as either can based purely off of the scientific evidence. Instead the important question is which world view is correct. What I was trying to convey before is that people with brain damage such that gives them incredible short memory spans or no vision or the inability to comprehend language are not necessarily eternally doomed to carry on these disorders in a Christian context. Yes, the idea of the soul piloting the brain only works to a certain extent, as I stated in my last post, it is Christian doctrine that the soul and body are conjoined. I cannot say what the nature of this connection is though. Also it's not a coincidence that the soul's personality matches what is shown in the brain That's kinda the point. We can understand things like the voice so they appear less abstract, and there's no reason to think intelligence is any different. If someone in the past who didn't understand how voices work assigned a supernatural cause to them instead of a physical process, would that be a reasonable position to hold? [QUOTE=Tweevle;41979840]Not necessarily, just non-artificial and unthinking. But if you consider natural to mean part of the physical universe, then go ahead and call it a non-intelligent entity that doesn't exist within the Universe. It still explains pretty much everything that an intelligent entity would explain without all the unfounded assumptions required for that intelligence to exist. Could simply be that things inherently work like that, like how [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant"]Langton's Ant[/URL] will inherently always create a highway, even though no one designed it to make highways. Other explanations could be things such as the anthropic principal, or a multiverse. As yet, we don't know what caused the Universe to exist, but as you seem to realise, pretty much any explanation you could come up with would be simpler than proposing something as incredibly complex as intelligence existing without a cause and without space or time. It's a baseless, overly complex and arbitrary explanation to pick, and it seems the only reason people do is, like you say, because it's based off their already existing worldview.[/QUOTE] Well, then you would have to explain why the laws of the universe seem fine-tuned for life. Whether it's life on earth or life in general it doesn't matter as both point towards a purposeful creator. Really the only thing going for a naturalistic explanation is multiverse theory, but then either the probability is extremely low that one of the universes created happened to support life making the whole theory extremely unlikely, or there's an infinite amount of infinitely different universes which has no evidence to back it up at all. There's also the issue of the origin of life and how a purposeless and unintelligent causal agent would most likely if not definitely not create life in precisely the right universe for it to exist in. Also as an aside to HumanAbyss, my statement had one typo that completely changed it, this is what I meant to say. [QUOTE]Anyway, I'm arguing that the mirror tests that have been done do not confirm that animals have a theory of self.[/QUOTE] These tests only confirm that they can recognize a reflection of their body is in fact a reflection of their body, that does not mean they consciously think "I must be that animal".
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220] Well, then you would have to explain why the laws of the universe seem fine-tuned for life. Whether it's life on earth or life in general it doesn't matter as both point towards a purposeful creator. Really the only thing going for a naturalistic explanation is multiverse theory, but then either the probability is extremely low that one of the universes created happened to support life making the whole theory extremely unlikely, or there's an infinite amount of infinitely different universes which has no evidence to back it up at all. There's also the issue of the origin of life and how a purposeless and unintelligent causal agent would most likely if not definitely not create life in precisely the right universe for it to exist in.[/QUOTE] We already explained the anthropic principal to you. And you're begging the question again. Where exactly are you numbers showing the chance of a universe being able to support life? Not that it matters, given infinite chances.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.