topal63 wrote:
Maybe you think this is sophisticated thinking, but if you do it is only evidence of your lack of knowledge of arguments and facts that are contrary to your weak unreasoned rationalistic faith based opinion.
1.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
even though it is retarded to argue over religion on this forum... I find that religion and science DO NOT conflict... they complement each other.
Religion and science do conflict; it is a matter of mythology versus a factual knowledge base that describes what you actually know. All religions everyone that has ever existed and any that did not lose its faith-base thus becoming an extinct religion (i.e.; the numerous Gods of Sumeria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Nordic, etc.) ARE BASED UPON MYTH not fact; Judeo-Christianity is no different - it is based upon MYTH. The stories our ancestors told are not devoid of truth - but they are certainly not accurate by any means - and myth does not compliment science. Myth needs an explanation (not faith/belief in it). Science is explanation.
Example: the Nordic myth of trolls in the epic poem of Beowulf.
There is no such thing as a troll, it is mythology, but the myth is probably founded in something truthful (at some time). A truth distorted by the lens of time - a truth distorted and displaced in time. The concept of trolls is a story retold by countless generations. It is most likely the real conflict of Cro-Magnon Man in competition with Neanderthal Man. Modern Man (slighter in build yet smarter) versus what seemed a super-human (the Neanderthal). This story was probably retold for eons until it was immortalized in written poetic myth; but this conflict with super-humans is displaced in time (and told/written-of thousands or even tens of thousands of years after the real event/conflict happened) and then ennobled by poetry, myth and the human imagination (it is a distorted anachronism).
Science is not based upon myth; nor is science based upon traditions founded in myth. Your knowledge of the conception of God - is merely something told to you. It is tradition - not experience. This is a philosophical debate that was lost a long time ago. It is rationalism vs. empiricism - it is a priori knowledge (not dependent upon experience) vs. a posteriori knowledge (dependent upon experience). The rationalist (a priori) crowd lost the debate. It is rather simple - they lost because they are flat out WRONG. All knowledge is dependent upon some kind of empirical experience - else you know nothing; and you cannot rise above anything other than an evolved survival extinct. But even things you don’t learn by experience are experienced; you do not have a priori knowledge of your own emotions - you experience your own emotions. Evolution has delivered you something you don’t have to learn (by experience): emotion, pain, etc - but until you experience these sensations hardwired into your body - you possess NO-KNOWLEGDE of them.
FACT: you do not possess any knowledge of God; whether it be: God as creator God, God as a supreme-being, God as a Christian-God (Jesus as a loving Savior of Mankind), God as the only true being that exists and you merely exist in the Mind of God, the self (you) as an illusion of fractured being feeling separated from God - but not actually being-so. It does not matter what form the conjecture of God takes. It is an abstraction of being based upon myth, tradition and human imagination. It is precisely the opposite of knowing - it is NOT KNOWING. It is mere conjecture of the unknown and unknowable.
FAITH and BELIEF are words commonly used to describe people’s knowledge of God. The dictionary can only give you a weak, minimal understanding of these words. As conceptions in mind they contain specific truthful philosophical/spiritual inevitabilities. The most important being the distinctions of: reason vs. un-reasoned, experience vs. conjecture, and knowing vs. not-knowing. In every sense “faith and belief” are equivalent to not-knowing based upon un-reasoned non-empirical conjecture.
The words are also used in different context; some contexts make their use logical and reasonable; other uses make it illogical and unreasonable.
These two uses illustrate the use and misuse of the words:
a.) I believe/have faith the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
Based upon where you live upon the Earth - this belief is based upon experience and reason that it has happened before (experience) and (with reason) will occur in same manner as it has always happened before.
b.) I believe in God (I have faith god exists).
This is based upon what? It isn’t actual experience. Maybe the myth of someone else experiencing God in an ancient story (but that is tradition; not actual experience). There is no foundation for the belief/faith - not one single reason. It is unreasoned; unreasonable; it has to be; it is myth. By the very definition faith has no-evidence. And it gets worse - and fast. Those who claim faith as knowledge of God also have convinced themselves it is in equality with “truth” - the “what is truth?” philosophical stupidity. People who claim faith as knowledge of God are hiding behind others fuzzy confused notions of truth, God and faith - but when critically examined there is nothing there - but tradition, myth and mere conjecture about the unknown and unknowable.
FAITH and BELIEF (beyond simple usage in the context of colloquial human expressions) means absolutely NOTHING. It means succinctly to not be in possession of any real-knowledge. It as an abstract-conjecture does not point to any single knowable detail aspect of the unknown-unknowable; and thus traditionally labeled “God.”
2.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
… it is a mater of fact that science does not prove that God does not exist... it can't.
and this
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
… evolution does not prove that God does not exist
Nor does science need to prove God does not exist; nor does science try to prove God does not exist. It can’t because that statement (above) is an absurdity of logic. Non-existence does not require proof; and there is NO SUCH THING as a proof of a non-existent thing - it is obviously absurd. An empirical-proof requires actual evidence that can be experienced. There is no SUCH THING as empirical-proof of a non-empirical thing - it is stupid to even suggest it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of mere traditional conjecture based upon myth - of course there is no-evidence for God; or against. The idiotic conception that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a rationalist hiding behind the linguistic semantic meanings of words that exist often as fuzzy misunderstood terms in peoples minds. There is no reasonable reason to assume God exists; nor that anyone possesses any knowledge of that abstraction either.
3.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
I personally do not believe in evolution, and science does not prove evolution...
This sentence is a logical absurdity. For one you do not need to believe in evolution - it is a fact. And in fact science has beyond any reasonable-doubt proved that evolution is a fact. Your problem is misplaced belief and lack of experience. It is reasonable to believe that Christians are good people and desire to be good people; do they know how to go about that perfectly; of course not for no one does. The attempt is more important than reaching the unattainable goal. And the same is true for scientists - they possess a level of integrity you do not understand; nor are they perfect. There is not a single desire existing within the science/science community to deceive a single person about evolution. In fact the goal is the opposite; it is desire to shed light upon what we can actually know about the observable Universe. Your belief that scientists lack the knowledge-base and integrity to discern between facts (experience of reality) and belief (un-reasoned traditions, myth, etc, not based upon empirical facts/proof) - is an unfounded belief.
Evolution is a fact of nature you simply do not understand anymore than quantum-physics. If you are “out of the know” and do not understand a theory/fact - it is reasonable to say “I do not understand how evolution (or quantum-physics) works or what the specific implications are to my traditionally learned beliefs” but it is not reasonable to say “I do not believe in evolution (or quantum-physics).”
Evolution has been demonstrated to happen: heredity, DNA, fossils, etc, etc, etc all point to a common ancestry; the evidence is overwhelming literally (and no I am not going to educate upon the mountain of evidence; asking me to bring you into “the know” is of no concern to me). Your “belief” that God as a creator; comes from myth and tradition; not any evidence - then and therefore not an actual reasons; nor a single reason. This is the apparent opposition and conflict with science. Science/skeptical reasoning always demystifies or debunks myth and tradition. The Egyptian God Osiris as Judge and Jury over the dead is not a myth science could ever support - without extraordinary evidence. The goal of anthropology (science) is to demystify the myth or merely explain/tell-of its traditions. Not to support it.
Your atheism to the concept of the myth of Osiris is similar to my atheism to all mythology. The obvious should be stated: you are an atheist to countless myths and traditions - save one. You do not possess any reason nor acquired knowledge to discount them and be an unbeliever of the countless religions/myths/traditions that exist have existed in human history - yet you are - or better yet you might be beginning to realize this common truth (true to everyone): you possess no knowledge of the unknown - traditionally labeled "God."
4.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
… no matter what everything came from something, and even evolution does not explain where the first elements of matter came from... so i would appreciate that anyone who is interested in this topic read my essay that i wrote below...
If the relation of something to nothing; or energy existing in an infinite-void; or reality (as an energy medium) in relation to a necessary non-existence (non-reality) so that energy can have freedom of movement; has existed in a unified-polar opposition state forever is beyond certain know-ability. So your statement is both in error and based upon more unreasoned rationalistic (non-empirical proof) conjecture. There is no reason to think that something; energy in some form or another; has not existed forever. All of reality is based upon the interaction of energy with energy or even the possibly of energy interacting with itself - this is what we know. Energy changing from one form to another does not imply creation (or that “everything came from something”). There is no evidence that energy came from nothing (ex nihilo); nor is there any evidence that the energy in the Universe is made of God-stuff (came from a God). The only evidence in existence about energy is that it changes form. An event labeled the “big-bang” does not even imply the creation of this Universe. It implies an event called singularity; not creation. It is a statement that exactly means energy changing form; it implies that time is apparently coupled with space. It is an indication of the expansion of time-space; or energy changing form. It is in no way an explanation of the relation of nothing to something; nor that energy itself has an origin. Anyone telling you otherwise or leading into that belief is full of it (belief that is).
This concept of everything came from something is nonsense - the credulity of even a child is challenged by such“… if so then were did God come from.” If the conjecture of God can be an uncreated thing than so can energy-nature; and everything in known nature implies the opposite of something coming from a creator; it is consistent in nature that energy only changes form.
5.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
Philosophic Explanation on discovering the existence of God through Human Reason.
This of course is already demystified as being an error of logic; or as Bertrand Russell put a long time ago “… all such ontological proofs are nothing but a case of bad grammar.” It should already be understood in this day and age that there is no such thing as a rationalistic-proof of God based upon human reasoning. There is only knowing and not-knowing. Either there is empirical-proof (both direct and indirect proof) and reasons based upon experience or there is no-proof and thus no-reason/reasons. Your supposition that the myth of God/Gods can be rationalized is unfounded nonsense grounded in absolutely nothing but erroneous assumption after demonstrably erroneous assumption.
6.)
It is rather comical that you; think assumption, conjecture, and belief amounts to reasoning.
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
Using only the human reason, it is possible to discover that an all-powerful God exists. There are primarily two main ways, which are called arguments, which our reason can use to come to the conclusive decision that God exists. These two main ways are by contemplating our universe and by contemplating the human nature, these two primary methods are then broken down into the various arguments which confirm the judgment that God exists. By contemplating the universe one comes to two arguments: the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument; and by contemplating the human nature one comes upon: the Moral Argument and the Historical Argument. Through these arguments one can come to the rational conclusion that there is a God.
The Teleological Argument rests its case on the order and plan in our universe. Our reason tells us that where ever one sees order and plan it shows that an intelligent being is at work; and because every affect has a cause, the greater the plan and order the higher the level of intelligence is required perform it. Therefore when one sees our universe which is so full of an unimaginable amount of plan and order shown through the universe’s natural works of art full of beauty, grandeur, perfection and variety that greatly overshadows any human craftsmanship, one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that it was all created by an All-powerful God.
This is just plain stupid - the teleological is anything but logical - it is anything but reason - and is not anything other than trivial nonsense. The concept that a “watch” implies a “watchmaker” or that “design” implies “designer” is only true for artifacts - not for nature. Rivers are not made by the hand of God; they meander and change based upon he forces of nature. Snowflakes are not created by the hand of God - what is necessary is water-vapor and the proper conditions; the forces of nature will produce the rest. But both have a clear defined structure, a clear form (design) and yet are utterly un-designed by any supernatural-force. This “TRUTH” can be extended to energy mutating and continuously existing and changing forever - for there is no reason/and no-proof to the contrary. The only proofs/evidence that exist are empirical in scope and speak of nature - not super-nature. There is in FACT no such thing as a teleological proof - only the errors of assumption contained therein and labeled “arguments for God.”
(Assumption a.) The existence of design in our Universe. Design implies a Designer. The Intelligent design, purpose and order of the Universe indicates an intelligent Designer.
(Assumption b.) The size of the earth, distance from the sun, tilt of the earth, our moon, lightning, ozone, water, atmospheric dust, cells in our body, existence of DNA, etc., all indicate an Intelligent Designer and not random chance.
(a) Design implies a Designer = this most often is a wordplay fallacy; the premise is the conclusion i.e.; design implies design(er); the conclusion contains no new information - it is the assumed premise; so nothing is implied; the premise-conclusion is the same and merely assumed; and what is assumed is logically suspect.
Consider this nonsense:
Complexity implies a complexitor (or a complexinator).
Snowflake implies a snowflake maker.
The rising-and falling of tides implies a tidal-god.
Infinity implies an infininator (or an infinitor).
Dying implies a grim-reaper.
I think nature is intelligently designed this implies an intelligent designer.
Deciding to be an invisible god implies not wanting to be known.
A hole in the ground implies someone has dug one (a human (material) or spirit hole-digger). Unless of course it’s a sinkhole; or a crater; or a natural occurring geyser (better back off stupid; it’s gonna blow!)
Is there a God - a transcendent creator to this Universe? Does an abstraction residing (temporally as a thought) in mind equate to the reality of it being (and that this assumed thought = being = possesses the quality of permanence)? Is this god-abstraction particularized in any detail - explicit within the conceptualization of the abstraction (If you think of a detail [or aspect] of this transcendent-being - aren’t they all simply [thoughts temporarily existing in mind] mere guesses at what the [abstract-god] concept is? YES of COURSE they ARE!).
Basically it’s a hit or miss guess - yet you don’t know if you hit the target. This is “Transcendental Darts” the abstraction game.
You’re throwing invisible darts at an invisible dart board - and you’re trying to keep score!The biggest error with any creationist, intelligent design, teleological or other mythological-theological argument is not whether there is a transcendent creating-force to the Universe; but rather that; it simply describes - nothing - other than the mythological-based abstraction/assumption of existence.
Consider for a moment that this unreasoned traditional belief; that this abstraction-dart hit the invisible dart board dead center and now you know this: Yes! There is a mysterious transcendent creating-force (that might be like being; as you think your existence is like being); and that this force was involved in the formation of the visible non-abstract forms you perceive as reality; yet it remains transcendent and non-visible in form; and unlike reality; as we perceive it. OK, now what? This is useless knowledge; this (conceded in theory; but not actually conceded) mythological assumed-to-be-true abstraction yields no value; and no new practical knowledge - or any real knowledge for that matter - all current scientific facts and theories remain as they are; unchanged.
Even if a universal transcendent force underneath reality is conceded in the abstract (but it can’t be conceded; it’s a senseless concession); the actual supposed-creation still remains undocumented in aspect and detail. Science theory(s) and our factual knowledge-base(s) document/define all aspects and details of what we actually know. A meaningless philosophical concession to the abstraction/abstract-assumed-answer of this transcendent god-question - generates no new information about the real (that we can perceive [witness] and/or detect).
Conclusion.a.) “God-labeling” or “god-naming” of natural processes simply describes nothing - other than the mythological-abstraction itself; this unknowable abstraction assigned the label “God.”
b.) “Designed by” arguments are an example of fallacious reasoning, an implied analogy that does not logically transfer nor define anything other than the original suspect assumption.
c.) Mythological abstractions-assumptions yield no practical scientific knowledge; all current scientific facts and theories remain as they are; unchanged.
d.) Ontological assumptions are not true; ever; they are often merely mistakes in grammar.
e.) Abstractions of transcendence - yield no new scientific information; NONE.
f.) God-naming: is merely a re-labeling of the Universe (nature); and its unknowns to “God” (unknowable super-nature).
g.) God-abstract-assumption to the “bible is true” - is a false leap and another false assumption. The possible existence (or abstraction) of a transcendent-being does not transfer to a mythological-provincial tradition. Transcendent-being or creator ≠ Yeshua or Yahweh.
h.) The new teleological ontological error of reasoning is: Intelligent design (Irreducible Complexity).
When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?
If a watch is found lying on the ground in a wood, upon examining we can see that it is very complex and we might conclude that this object is too complicated to have emerged out of nothing, we might assert that there must have been a watchmaker. Since the Universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it follows that the Universe must also have had a designer. (A summation of the famous watchmaker's argument by William Paley)
The errors of the arguments (above) are actually open and notorious; it’s odd that one could even conceive that this is sound thinking in any way.
1.) If a [man-made] object which is clearly man-made like a watch, is found; did a man make it?
2.) What if the object is more primitive, like a broken rock (broken by a man) used for cutting the hide off of an animal? If a [man-made] object which is not clearly man-made, is found; did a man make it?
3.) What if the object [intelligently designed, but not man made] is actually from an alien (other world) design; say a complex signaling device with never before seen stylistic symbols on it; if this item is found; did a man make it?
In all 3 scenarios, the simple omission of the words: god, intelligent and design have been left out, and has been replaced with a placeholder-type []. The inference of a supernatural agent is intentionally eliminated in the questioning statement; that god is not a possible cause. And in all 3 scenarios; in the first premise-statement; the maker of the object was revealed, 1.) man, 2.) man and 3.) an alien. . . . If you omit the facts (who made it) within the premise; and you substitute god (and not intelligence) as a possible originator (maker), does the reasoning make sense?
4.) If an object which is clearly not a naturally occurring object like a watch; is found; did god make it?
5.) If an object which might not occur by natural process, is found; did god make it?
6.) What if a complex signaling device with stylistic symbols on it that has never been known to exist before; is found; did god make it?
In all 3 cases, knowing the facts from 1-3, together with the wording of the argument (choosing god over intelligence) prejudices the validity of the questioning statements in 4-6. There is no logic, or validity, inherent within a false questioning-statement when the facts are known. Irregardless (of the facts though) is there solid reasoning within the logic? Let’s change the all the statements and questions again . . .
7.) If a naturally occurring 6-pointed perfect symmetrical snowflake is examined who do you attribute the construction of the snowflake to – god, or cold air combined with airborne moisture?
8.) If a new species of animal that has never been documented; or mentioned in history; before is discovered do we attribute it to recent spontaneous creation by god, or simply to - we just never encountered it before?
9.) While walking over a steel suspension bridge we wonder who is responsible for the “intelligent design” of this engineering. Do we attribute the design to god or a man?
The attempt to infer supernatural influence logically doesn’t take hold in the 7-9 statement-questions either. And the reasonable conclusions are certainly not supernatural. 7.) Generally a, snowflake simply happens, when there is falling moisture and a temperature that is cold enough fur such. 8.) A new species is simply one that has not been discovered until now. 9.) A human engineered the “intelligent design” that went into the making of the bridge.
Do we infer supernatural forces are responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon, or by the natural process of erosion of the water flow within the river? There apparently is no design to the river and thus no intelligent designer behind this formation; yet there is purpose; and value; and design elements within the natural construct of a river. Is a river random or governed by a set of natural laws? It is governed by natural physical laws and is only apparently random.
And life is the same. It is not actually a random occurrence – how can it be. If life was simply a random occurrence then there could not be any physics; chemistry; etc – yet there is; and there are many natural laws. Life and evolution are a law; an order; upon another order; law subject to law. But do we infer nature or super-nature when defining these structures? Do we start out in a calculus-text-book with “God created calculus?” No – the text covers the rules; the order; the laws; the structure; theory and knowledge; attributing the any order; any law; any rule within the Universe to an unknowable God is fine; personally; but it has no merit whatsoever within any argument; theory; or science text-book; it is not part of science. It is not part of the definition of the laws inherent within knowable nature.
It cannot be denied by anyone that DNA encodes life, change it and the life form is changed. Therefore a life-form is not constant in detail; if the details can be changed. Who is responsible for the changes that have occurred, and do occur, chance (nature: random modification) or god (a micro intuitive designer)? The orderly modifications are natural and randomly occurring (unimpeded by any supernatural force) based upon another order; the laws of chemistry and physics.
Consider this “intelligent design”,
10.) If a red tomato is chosen over a green tomato; by a customer; is it because god made the red tomato more appealing by design; or did a molecular biologist modify the DNA (the design) of the tomato?
The DNA was modified (the design was changed) by a man. Did the micro-intuitive-god stop this? No. Why not? Most likely because there is no supernatural forces at work preventing the tomato DNA from being changed; this would extend to both man (direct and intelligent) and to nature (indirect; apparently random; non-intelligent; yet governed by physical laws). The changing of DNA is a process unimpeded by supernatural forces; life changes as the design changes; if DNA changes so does the life form. Evolution is a process unimpeded by supernatural forces.
I think the eye is the least mysterious of all confounds that perplex the “intelligent design” advocates. How could an eye develop? The simpler you think on this idea the easier it is to conceive of.
I have (possible future eyes; in-a-sense) sense receptors covering nearly every square inch of my body. Can these sense receptors actually see though? No, but they send signals to my brain. I possess the same structure that a long distant common ancestor; an animal had; a nervous-system - a pre-evolved structure ripe for modification. Any localized sensitivity to light within these sense-receptors already hardwired to the nervous-system; could cause signals transmitted to the nervous system. In an organism significantly simpler; that could over time equate to the simple recognition of shadow and light by this primitive nervous system. Any advantage to this minor variation in cell use; that leads to continued existence will cause the heredity of this DNA code change to be passed on.
This is an example of simple integration of pre-evolved structures. The original uses have been modified and an interdependent system has risen by chance and survival-benefit. A group of surface cells that evolved for one reason are now used for a different reason other than their original naturally designed purpose. A group of nerve cells now transmit new and different data; its original naturally evolved purpose has been modified by chance and value; creating a new purpose for the nerve cells. The system is complicated, integrated and interdependent; but it is not irreducibly complex.
7.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
The Teleological Argument has been attacked by unbelievers with several arguments; the greatest of these is the blind chance argument which tries to attribute the order and plan in the universe to random chance. This false notion has been recently resurfaced by Darwin and his evolutionary theory, but this theory is proven wrong because it contradicts Newton’s law of entropy, that all things in nature degrade for the worse, entirely destroying the “blind chance” theory, not to mention that “blind chance” does not give any explanation of the original source of the universe.
The teleological argument is not under “attack” by “unbelievers” that is ignorant rhetoric. It is no more valid; and equally stupid as saying “. . . an assumed Invisible Unknowable Supreme-Being transcending actual reality is insulted by non-belief in its untenable proof-less nature.”
Chance is NOT a statistical falsehood either; chance of life occurring only has to be NON-ZERO; it does not matter what assumption of improbability there is to the existence of life - it only need be non-zero. The fact that life exists does not imply the myth of a creator God - it only implies that it is statistically a non-zero chance.
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
. . . it contradicts Newton’s law of entropy, that all things in nature degrade for the worse. .
Uh - no it does not - entropy has nothing to do with evolution. This is an error when a physical theory/property of say an atomic material/substance/chemical such as gas is misapplied to biology. The thermodynamics of a gas or plasma body have nothing in common with an evolved biological organism; other than the underling energy that makes-up all matter. If you reduce biological organisms to their chemical/atomic components then yes it is true. Entropy may prove true - in the long term - say a hundred billion or more years - it is probable that life will not exist forever in this Universe and that it will be rendered into a simpler state (a dead frozen mist of atomic or sub-atomic elements). Or an other situation is possible - a Universal collapse (the Big-Crunch); followed by another Universal Expansion. As far as life arising by chance - it is statistically non-zero; and that is all that it needs to be. Life might arise in every Universe - it might even be inevitable in a Universe. But no where is a transcendent mythical creator being suggested by the only knowable truths - empirical truths.
How in hell did you conceive of this essay?
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
. .. This . . . has . . . recently resurfaced . . .
Evolution has not resurfaced; it has been going strong and getting stronger for a hundred years. What has resurfaced is the ridiculous teleological argument in the form of Intelligent Design Theory. Anyone, any web-site, any faith-based book suggesting you should believe this - that evolution as theory is in trouble, etc, or the like - is merely asking you to accept another myth.
8.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
Another common refutation of the Teleological Argument is that nature contains many things that have no apparent “purpose” such as rudimentary body organs, but as scientists have been discovering, many of these “worthless” items do have vital purposes. Another attempt to refute the Teleological Argument is the presence of pain, suffering, pests, vermin, and disease in the world, but in perspective each has it purpose and in the case of pain and suffering it was sent as a punishment after Adam fell, and as a way not only for God to punish men, but for man to atone for his sins.
This is just mythology - of which you have no idea of its origins in Sumerian Myth and Egyptian Myth. The theology (bad assumptive reasoning) that has gone into the concept of disobedience, suffering, and atonement by God for the original-sin is an evolution of mythical assumptive thinking. It is not even worth mentioning - YET! But I might latter.
And contrary to your mistakes in actual-knowing - vestigial appendages (or structures) do exist. The concept implies the following nothing more: the existence of it is not part of its original natural evolved purpose. While I have a tail-bone I have no need of it - the same is true for my appendix - it has some purpose - but its naturally evolved purposes has been reduced to having no personal-survival need now. My appendix can only kill me now - not help me survive - the removal of a ruptured-one by surgical means - is the only way I can survive and have continued existence. It serves no purpose to my continued existence - since it can be removed - and I can mate and produce offspring. Whales have vestigial appendages as well (a hip-bone remnant; yet they have no hind legs). I think your confusion is founded in the scientific assumption that genes are filled to the brim with vestigial-genes - this is simply an assumption that was inspected by science and turn out to be incorrect. BUT THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS; unlike myth; an assumption in science is overturned when it is empirically tested. DNA is a game of 20 billion questions (more or less, depending on the life form); some structures that do not appear to encode proteins (in genes) are still part of the 20 billion question game (some but necessarily all).
9.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
The Cosmological argument proves that God exits through showing that all matter, force and motion must have a cause, which is God. Nothing can come from nothing, therefore something, a Necessary Being, must have created all matter and life. In addition, our universe is filled with motion and according to Newton’s first law which states that every object will remain at rest unless force causes it to move and that once in motion an object will remain in motion until force causes it to rest. Since there would be no motion without a God, the only sensible conclusion is that evidently there is a God because something must be the primary all powerful Force behind all motion in the Universe. There have been several attempts to refute the Cosmological argument: that motion is an attribute of matter, but this has been renounced by Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics; that life simply sprung from matter, which was proven as false by the scientific work of Louis Pasteur; and the commonly used argument against the fact of God’s creation of all things is that ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing is made out of nothing) but God did not create the universe from nothing. God is thee necessary and self-sufficient Being, so when He created the universe it came from an act of His infinite Will, meaning that in fact the universe did not come from nothing.
a.) First off - this causal link might be infinite; if you cannot point to the origin; then it is unknown and/or unknowable. You’re right back to the same error from before:
This concept of everything came from something is nonsense - the credulity of even a child is challenged by such“… if so then were did God come from.” If the conjecture of the myth of God can be an uncreated thing than so can energy-nature; and everything in known nature implies the opposite of something coming from a creator; it is consistent in nature that energy only changes form.
Where did energy come from? It might not come from anything. Nothing is uncreated; it exists as a polar opposite of something; which might be uncreated as well. Given no-way to know the answer in any actual specific detail - then the same truth is suggested as it was before - as of yet - the origin of all-known natures/or energies is unknown and or unknowable.
b.) Louis Pastor only proved that organisms beget more organisms. That a complex fully-formed organism does not come into existence out of nothing - that bacteria/germs/etc do not just pop into existence. This is a no-brainer; but people used to actually believe they did - he proved they didn’t. He did not prove how life itself originated. Nor does it explain away evolution; not by a long shot; since his only motive was to dispel the myth of spontaneous eruption of complex biological organisms into existence was a falsehood; nothing else should be/or is inferred.
10.)
IsaacLeavitt wrote:
The Moral Argument rests mainly on the fact that man has a conscience which is the sense of right and wrong written in the hearts of all men, along with a sense of moral obligation to do right. That voice in our heads, which tells us what is right and wrong, torments us when we have done wrong, rewards us when we have done good and forces a moral obligation upon us, is the conscience. All mankind has a conscience and even though man is free, he is governed by this conscience. When taking these facts about the conscience into consideration, it becomes evident that the conscience must be the tool God uses for instructing and enforcing His natural laws. The conscience is and always has been seen as a foreign voice, because it often contradicts one’s will; therefore, man has always recognized the conscience as the voice of God. The Moral argument has been challenged by unbelievers who claim that the conscience is a result of an education and environment, but it is easy to see how this is false when the basic principles of morality are held in high esteem by all men: from the most uncivilized and ignorant to even the most highly cultured and extensively educated. The Historical Argument shows that there is a God because not only is man religious by nature but that all nations, civilized or not, have held knowledge of a Supreme God who created man and rules over them. By looking at history anyone can see that man has always worshiped some god/s which they attributed the creation of the universe, and through the voice of their conscience man has realized that their god must be the author and enforcer of moral law. When looking at this fact the inevitable conclusion is that man is religious by his nature and will; man’s knowledge of a God is an instinctive thing, and as Aristotle said “what all men, impelled as by instinct, hold to be true, is a natural truth”.
Through these arguments it becomes clear that man, through his reasoning, can easily discern that there is a God. Through the Teleological Argument we can see that there is a God through the order and plan in our universe. By the Cosmological argument we can prove that God exits through laws of the universe. And through the Moral and Historical Arguments we can prove God’s existence by through man’s religious nature and mans historical record of acknowledging a Supreme Ruler and Creator. Therefore, through His infinite Goodness, God has given man the means of knowing and proving His existence so that all men can believe in Him with an unshakable Faith.
a.) Theses (2) arguments are even more ridiculous than the teleological or cosmological ontological arguments; which I will remind you - amount to un-reasoned non-knowledge.
This (historical) conception that a traditionally held belief amounts to knowing something - is once again - ridiculous; utterly worthy of ridicule. Believing that the Sun goes round the Earth, based upon untested traditional hearsay, does not amount to a proof that the Sun goes round the Earth. The fact than anyone believes something in face of actually knowing amounts to a giant bag of nothings (nothing actually being known).
b.) I have seen this retarded (Moral) argument many times before:
A definition from Webster’s Dictionary
Moral: (Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom).
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments>.
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>.
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior .
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>.
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>.
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>.
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <the Colonel’s moral was low>.
It is easy to see just from the simple dictionary definition; that morality is implied as being a custom of a peoples. The conforming to an accepted standard (of conduct) in regards to perceptions of what is right and wrong. There is no universally accepted code of morality; with regards to personal conduct. When in Rome do as (be as) a Roman. When at a cannibalistic Papua New Guinea dinner party just hope you’re not on the menu!
One man will persecute you for what you believe; based upon his beliefs.
Another man may not care what you believe - but believes that to eat you - is to consume your power.
Morality does not exist as a universal from one society to the next; the evidence points to the contrary. Morality does not exist as a universal from religious sect to religious sect. A Muslim who believes that a Christian (or a Jew) is morally impure and evil, is convinced through scripture, and peer pressure that he is wholly right in his religious belief. Righteous; moral in rightness and certitude - he can kill; execute (Jihad away); without remorse. He is behaving moral; his conduct is in conformance with both his religious beliefs and normal social (Muslim theocratic) conceptions of what is right and wrong. (This is not an example of universal morality.)
And in equal demonic Jihad delight - Christians have killed Christians while possessing righteousness and moral certitude - in mass witch hunts, inquisitions, and sectarian persecutions. The Cathars (the Albigenese Crusades) being a noted highlight of Christian darkness; and persecution to fellow Christian. An example when it’s OK for evil to serve the greater Christian good. (This is not an example of universal morality either.)
While murder, persecutions (ending in death), and mass killings (as in war) are probably considered universally wrong (at least one can hope so!) if they are defined properly; and if we live free from religious persecution; but other social conduct/behavior assigned to morality; is not absolute nor universal. . . . Sexual modes, personal conduct, dress-codes, ethics, values, the value of moral-conduct, etc, these vary to such a great degree they can hardly be considered as containing any aspect associated with: absolute or universal; rights or wrongs. If we consider conduct outside the realms of violent acts; there is a lot of social conduct that hardly seems relevant at all.
But while someone is concerned with the irrelevances of sexual morays; distracted by their own moral certitude; real world events indicate a lack of morality and a lack of real individual moral-concern.
Here is a partial list of persecutions, wars and political atrocities (and a few major disasters for comparison. Note: the disaster numbers while large - pale in comparison - to men killing men):
Year Type Location Fatalities
200-450+/- Fall of the Roman Empire 8,000,000
775-781 Lushan Revolt China 36,000,000
600-1800+/- Mid-East Slave trade 19,000,000
1095-1291 The Crusades 2,000,000
1138 Quake Syria 230,000
1200-1300 Wars Mongol Conquests Mid-east;East +/- 40,000,000
1200-1838 Thuggee (Thagai)Cult India 9,000,000
1208-1249 Christian Slaughter of Albigensians 1,000,000
1337-1347 Hundred Years of War France England 1,500,000
1300-1400 Black Death Plague Europe ?
1350-1450 Christian slaughter of rest. Europe 10,000,000 ?
1366 Mohammedan Conquest India 500,000
1369-1405 Timur Lenk India 17,000,000
1300-1800+/- Atlantic Slave trade 18,000,000
1400-1800+/- Christian witch Hunts Europe 60,000
1455-85 War of the Roses England 105,000
1456-62 Vlad Dracula the Impaler 75,000
1478-1834 The Spanish Inquisition 350,000
1492-1900+/- Native American Genocide/Famines/Wars 25,000,000
1556 Quake China 830,000
1562 France: Catholic vs. Huguenot Wars 3,000,000
1598-1613 Russia: Time of Troubles 5,000,000
1616-44 Manchu Conquests China 36,000,000
1618-48 The Thirty Year War Across Europe 7,000,000
1641-52 British Civil War Britain 100,000
1737 Quake Kolkata 300,000
1803-15 Napoleonic Wars 4,000,000
1879-1900 British Col. Famines India 17,000,000
1815 Eruption Indonesia 90,000
1850-64 Taiping Rebellion China 20,000,000
1883 Eruption/Tsunami Indonesia 36,000
1886-1908 Congo Free State Congo-Africa 8,000,000
1887 Flood China 1,000,000
1893 Quake Iran 150,000
1896 Tsunami Japan 27,000
1899-1902 Insurgency Philippines 220,000
1900 Indian Genocide Brazil 500,000
1900-12 Rubber Co.Work deaths Amazon 250,000
1900-25 Forced Labor Deaths Portuguese Col. 325,000
1900-40 Forced Labor Deaths French Colonies 500,000
1902 Eruption Martinique 40,000
1904-05 Russo-Japan War Russia Japan 130,000
1905 Revolt German E. Africa 175,000
1908 Quake/Floods Italy 100,000
1910 Mexican Revolution Mexico 8,000,000
1911-13 Rest. To Italy Libya 125,000
1912-14 Balkan Wars 140,000
1914-18 First World War Europe 15,000,000
1915-23 Armenian Massacres Armenia 1,500,000
1917-22 Russian Civil War Russia 9,000,000
1917-28 China Warlord Period China 800,000
1919-22 Greek Turkish War Greece Turkey 250,000
1920 Quake China 200,000
1923 Quake Japan 143,000
1924-53 Stalin’s Regime Russia 20,000,000
1925 Kurdish uprising Turkey 100,000
1928-37 Nationalist Period China 3,100,000
1935-41 Ethiopian War Ethiopia 400,000
1936-39 Franco Regime Spain 400,000
1937-45 Second World War World 55,000,000
1939-40 Russo-Fin War Russia Finland 150,000
1943-49 Civil War Greece 160,000
1944-80 Tito Regime Yugoslavia 200,000
1945-47 Post War Expulsions Poland,Cech. 2,100,000
1945-49 Chinese Civil War China 2,500,000
1945-54 1st Indochina War Indochina 400,000
1946-58 Political Columbia 200,000
1947 Civil Unrest India 500,000
1948 Quake Turkmenistan 110,000
1948 Communist Regime Korea 2,000,000
1948-? War Burma/Myanmar 150,000
1948-89 Communist Regime Romania 150,000
1949-75 Mao Zedong’s Regime China 40,000,000
1950 Chinese Occupation Tibet 600,000
1950-53 Korean War Korea 2,800,000
1954-62 Algerian conflict Algeria 680,000
1955-72 Wars Sudan 500,000
1959-95 Massacres Rwanda, Burundi 1,200,000
1960-75 Vietnam War Indochina 3,500,000
1960-96 Polit. Killings War Guatemala 200,000
1962-92 Civil War/unrest Ethiopia 1,400,000
1965-66 Army massacres Indonesia 450,000
1966-70 Un-Civil Brutality Nigeria 1,000,000
1970 Cyclone Bangladesh 500,000
1971 Civil War Bangladesh 1,200,000
1972-79 Idi Amin’s Regime Uganda 300,000
1975 Khmer Rouge Cambodia 1,700,000
1975-? Wars Angola 550,000
1975-93 War Mozambique 1,000,000
1975-99 Conquest War East Timor 200,000
1975-90 War Lebanon 150,000
1976 Quake China 255,000-750,000
1976-? Communist Regime Vietnam 430,000
1978-91 Civil War Cambodia 225,000
1979-2001 Soviet Occupation Afghanistan 1,800,000
1979-2003 Saddam Hussein Regime Iraq 330,000
1979-86 Civil War Uganda 300,000
1980-88 Iran-Iraq War Iran-Iraq 1,000,000
1980-90 Kurdistan War Iraq 300,000
1983 Genocide Sudan 1,900,000
1984-85 Famine Ethiopia 900,000
1988 Quake Armenia 25,000
1989-97 Civil War Liberia 150,000
1990-2001 Iraq Food Embargo Iraq 350,000-750,000
1991 Cyclone Bangladesh 138,000
1991-? War-Starvation Somalia 400,000
1991 1st Iraq Pummeling Iraq 100,000 ?
1992-95 War Bosnia Herzegovina 175,000
1997 Civil War Zaire(Dem. Congo) 200,000
1998 Hurricane Honduras,Nicar. 10,000
1998 Civil War Congo 3,300,000
2003 2nd Iraq Pummeling Iraq 100,000 ?
2003 Quake Bam, Iran 31,000
2004 Quake/Tsunami Indonesia 154,000
The existence of Universal morals is a provable “false concept” if the numbers were used as proof(!); the conclusion would be no God, and no morals; apparently the violent immorality scenario is the rule and not the exception.
If the universe (order from chaos) and man (definitely evolved) are random chance arrangements then no morality exists. This is actually true - let’s face it. Morality doesn’t exist out-there; in the recesses of a black-hole or at the bottom of the sea; or in a mind that fails to reason it into existence. It’s not some mystical universally guiding force - it’s a reason. It takes reasoning to establish morality. It should be clear to anyone that man is a social being (and that his conduct; emotional-base; derives from the same origins as any other social animal). Our desire to work together is natural to a specific extent (ending at our evolved tribalistic-nature). Our difference is our capacity for reason - this combined with our natural social behavior.
“If there is no God, there is no logical basis for absolute morals” = true; the ABSOLUTE is a false notion. And so what, believing in a mythical god concept will not stop genocide, a religious persecution or a future nuclear holocaust. Only reason can prevent this; not belief; one must see the destruction men cause to others - with open eyes. There are no witches, warlocks, wizard, devils or (real) enemies (antagonists - yes) in this world. . . . We do not live in a demon-haunted world - and it is pure madness to speak of the devil when referring to anyone; the neighbor, a good looking woman, or someone called “the enemy,” etc. There are only men and women in this world and we (men) must learn to be better men.
Wrong in violence - is wrong - and against the right; against the knowledge of consequence of actions taken. Do right, and don’t inflict harm, for this simple reason, just because it’s the right thing to do - and not for the sake of some mythical god concept; the old rules are all gone. Can you behave rightly? Yes. . .
No eternal punishment, nor any eternal reward, is required for me to behave morally in this regard. I do not assume that there are no rules in the absence of a mythical god concept. There are always consequences to actions taken.
