|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 16:36:05 GMT
That's an interesting rule. Who made it up, you? Why? Does it seem at all plausible to you that one day we might reach the limit of what can be known with the ordinary senses? It seems necessary to me. When we get there, if you keep believing in anything else it has to be a magic sky genie. "Who made it up, you? Why?" Obivously not, God of the Gaps is a pretty well known meme. As for "why", trying to say "God done did it" is just intellectuall laziness and can hold back human progress and thinking. People used to think the sun was a god, imagine if people with your attitude had their way? We would still be bowing down to a giant ball of gas. People used to think rain was caused by rain gods, imagine if people like like you had their way? We would still be praying for rain whenever there's a drought. We used to think seizures and other brain disorders were caused by demons, imagine if people like you had their way? We would be trying people down with brain tumors and performing pointless exorcisms instead of performing brain surgery. You see where I'm going with this right? "Does it seem at all plausible to you that one day we might reach the limit of what can be known with the ordinary senses?" Perhaps, that doesn't really invalidate what I said. You're essentially just arguing from ignorance at that point. I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else. That does invalidate what you said. Never mind citing rules you can't understand.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 26, 2020 16:37:16 GMT
Have any brave Christian or Muslim scientists come out and said something like, 'if there is life on Venus, it's because God put it there...end of story!'?
Don't you see the irony here though? It seems you as an atheist are saying if there is life on Venus there is no God. Life on Venus has no bearing on the question of whether there is or is not a God. You're just as myopic as any theist. And just as discovering life on Venus...or any other planet/moon would shed NO light on the existence of God...neither would some scientist producing 'life' in a laboratory.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 16:40:23 GMT
"Who made it up, you? Why?" Obivously not, God of the Gaps is a pretty well known meme. As for "why", trying to say "God done did it" is just intellectuall laziness and can hold back human progress and thinking. People used to think the sun was a god, imagine if people with your attitude had their way? We would still be bowing down to a giant ball of gas. People used to think rain was caused by rain gods, imagine if people like like you had their way? We would still be praying for rain whenever there's a drought. We used to think seizures and other brain disorders were caused by demons, imagine if people like you had their way? We would be trying people down with brain tumors and performing pointless exorcisms instead of performing brain surgery. You see where I'm going with this right? "Does it seem at all plausible to you that one day we might reach the limit of what can be known with the ordinary senses?" Perhaps, that doesn't really invalidate what I said. You're essentially just arguing from ignorance at that point. I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else. That does invalidate what you said. Never mind citing rules you can't understand. "I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. " I dunno what that even means, just sound likes more gibberish from you. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else." Uh no, God of the Gaps has already been explained to you, I suspect you're just purposely being dishonest at this point. I'll take this as another of your admissions of "I have to lie to make an argument". "Never mind citing rules you can't understand." Uh you're the one that completely misconstrued what "God of the Gaps" actually means.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 16:53:10 GMT
I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else. That does invalidate what you said. Never mind citing rules you can't understand. "I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. " I dunno what that even means, just sound likes more gibberish from you. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else." Uh no, God of the Gaps has already been explained to you, I suspect you're just purposely being dishonest at this point. I'll take this as another of your admissions of "I have to lie to make an argument". "Never mind citing rules you can't understand." Uh you're the one that completely misconstrued what "God of the Gaps" actually means. It means you're using arguments from the nineteenth century.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 17:03:47 GMT
"I'm sorry but your "Wait, we might discover another element" card has expired. " I dunno what that even means, just sound likes more gibberish from you. "God-of-the-gaps" is just the honest admission that if you still can't explain it, it might as well be a god as anything else." Uh no, God of the Gaps has already been explained to you, I suspect you're just purposely being dishonest at this point. I'll take this as another of your admissions of "I have to lie to make an argument". "Never mind citing rules you can't understand." Uh you're the one that completely misconstrued what "God of the Gaps" actually means. It means you're using arguments from the nineteenth century. I dunno what that has to with anything I said
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 17:15:49 GMT
It means you're using arguments from the nineteenth century. I dunno what that has to with anything I said In Darwin's time microscopes had still not advanced beyond the approximately 150 times magnification that van Leeuwenhoek used to discover what he thought were "animalcules" about 200 years before. At that magnification a euglena, a single celled organism, appears to be a tiny (indeed microscopic) drop of green jelly. It seems translucent because none of its complex inner structures can be discerned at that magnification. It literally appears to be as simple as "molecule." The arguments you use made some sense, to some people anyway, at that time. They are no longer valid. A euglena is actually more complicated than the automobile that tornadoes cannot construct.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 17:26:58 GMT
I dunno what that has to with anything I said In Darwin's time microscopes had still not advanced beyond the approximately 150 times magnification that van Leeuwenhouek used to discover what he thought were "animalcules" about 200 years before. At that magnification a euglena, a single celled organism, appears to be a tiny (indeed microscopic) drop of green jelly. It seems translucent because none of its complex inner structures can be discerned at that magnification. It literally appears to be as simple as "molecule." The arguments you use made some sense, to some people anyway, at that time. They are no longer valid. A euglena is actually more complicated than the automobile that tornadoes cannot construct. OK, so basically "stuff is complicated, therefore there must be a God". This argument has already been refuted a million times, you're "tornado making a car analogy" is just complete gibberish, that's not at all how biological evolution works if that's the point you think you're making. Again these "complicated structures need a Creator" type arguments are self refuting, then why doesn't that standard apply to God? Usually the only argument I hear against that is basically "It's magic!", so yeah, just intellectual laziness. So no, God of the Gaps is still perfectly valid.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 26, 2020 17:35:23 GMT
In Darwin's time microscopes had still not advanced beyond the approximately 150 times magnification that van Leeuwenhouek used to discover what he thought were "animalcules" about 200 years before. At that magnification a euglena, a single celled organism, appears to be a tiny (indeed microscopic) drop of green jelly. It seems translucent because none of its complex inner structures can be discerned at that magnification. It literally appears to be as simple as "molecule." The arguments you use made some sense, to some people anyway, at that time. They are no longer valid. A euglena is actually more complicated than the automobile that tornadoes cannot construct. OK, so basically "stuff is complicated, therefore there must be a God". This argument has already been refuted a million times, you're "tornado making a car analogy" is just complete gibberish, that's not at all how biological evolution works if that's the point you think you're making. Again these "complicated structures need a Creator" type arguments are self refuting, then why doesn't that standard apply to God? Usually the only argument I hear against that is basically "It's magic!", so yeah, just intellectual laziness. So no, God of the Gaps is still perfectly valid. "Because internet meme" still rules, but it won't much longer. Get ready. Go with the new consensus or pack your bags.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 17:36:39 GMT
OK, so basically "stuff is complicated, therefore there must be a God". This argument has already been refuted a million times, you're "tornado making a car analogy" is just complete gibberish, that's not at all how biological evolution works if that's the point you think you're making. Again these "complicated structures need a Creator" type arguments are self refuting, then why doesn't that standard apply to God? Usually the only argument I hear against that is basically "It's magic!", so yeah, just intellectual laziness. So no, God of the Gaps is still perfectly valid. "Because internet meme" still rules, but it won't much longer. Get ready. Go with the new consensus or pack your bags. That wasn't an argument. Predictably lame.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Sept 26, 2020 20:48:08 GMT
Some folks seem to believe that someday scientists will explain how masses of neurons and biological matter can produce 'consciousness'. It doesn't matter how finely you dissect the brain. You can map out every neuron and electrical impulse, consciousness as we experience it is unfathomable. Atheists are under the spell of 'species narcissism'. 'My big human brain can explain everything, if you give me enough time.' No, it can't. "Some folks seem to believe that someday scientists will explain how masses of neurons and biological matter can produce 'consciousness'. " Some folks? You mean highly educated neurologists that spend their entire lives studying this stuff? "It doesn't matter how finely you dissect the brain. You can map out every neuron and electrical impulse, consciousness as we experience it is unfathomable." You don't actually know that "Atheists are under the spell of 'species narcissism'. 'My big human brain can explain everything, if you give me enough time.' " If by "atheists" you mean naturalists/materialists/skeptics/etc, that's not at all what they say. Typically what they say is more like "We don't know how something works, perhaps one day we will, perhaps we won't, either way it doesn't mean we get just to arbitrarily insert a magic sky genie as the answer until then". You don't believe in any form of God? IMO faith in materialism is akin to belief in a magic sky genie, logic wise.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 26, 2020 20:49:23 GMT
"Some folks seem to believe that someday scientists will explain how masses of neurons and biological matter can produce 'consciousness'. " Some folks? You mean highly educated neurologists that spend their entire lives studying this stuff? "It doesn't matter how finely you dissect the brain. You can map out every neuron and electrical impulse, consciousness as we experience it is unfathomable." You don't actually know that "Atheists are under the spell of 'species narcissism'. 'My big human brain can explain everything, if you give me enough time.' " If by "atheists" you mean naturalists/materialists/skeptics/etc, that's not at all what they say. Typically what they say is more like "We don't know how something works, perhaps one day we will, perhaps we won't, either way it doesn't mean we get just to arbitrarily insert a magic sky genie as the answer until then". You don't believe in any form of God? IMO faith in materialism is akin to belief in a magic sky genie, logic wise. "IMO faith in materialism is akin to belief in a magic sky genie, logic wise." How so? By the way, I would say you're loading your language a bit there by putting in "faith". We know material matter exists (atoms, molecules), so it doesn't require "faith" (believing in something without evidence) to obstentially be a materialist and by proxy a rejection of the supernatural. We know one exists (material) while the other hasn't even been close to demonstrated (supernatural). So these two are not equivalent, logic wise.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 26, 2020 21:48:04 GMT
I dunno what that has to with anything I said In Darwin's time microscopes had still not advanced beyond the approximately 150 times magnification that van Leeuwenhoek used to discover what he thought were "animalcules" about 200 years before. At that magnification a euglena, a single celled organism, appears to be a tiny (indeed microscopic) drop of green jelly. It seems translucent because none of its complex inner structures can be discerned at that magnification. It literally appears to be as simple as "molecule." The arguments you use made some sense, to some people anyway, at that time. They are no longer valid. A euglena is actually more complicated than the automobile that tornadoes cannot construct. IF I understand you, you contend that it is essentially something akin to a law that life couldn't have arisen without supernatural input. Is that true? If so, do you think there is any point in continuing research trying to figure out if something like life could be developed in test tubes/petri dishes in a lab? if so, what would be the point of it?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 10:21:12 GMT
In Darwin's time microscopes had still not advanced beyond the approximately 150 times magnification that van Leeuwenhoek used to discover what he thought were "animalcules" about 200 years before. At that magnification a euglena, a single celled organism, appears to be a tiny (indeed microscopic) drop of green jelly. It seems translucent because none of its complex inner structures can be discerned at that magnification. It literally appears to be as simple as "molecule." The arguments you use made some sense, to some people anyway, at that time. They are no longer valid. A euglena is actually more complicated than the automobile that tornadoes cannot construct. IF I understand you, you contend that it is essentially something akin to a law that life couldn't have arisen without supernatural input. Is that true? If so, do you think there is any point in continuing research trying to figure out if something like life could be developed in test tubes/petri dishes in a lab? if so, what would be the point of it? Trying the same things over and over expecting a different result is some people's definition of insanity. It does at least appear to be a waste of time and resources. If there are any new things to try that might make sense, but there aren't. I suspect you do not have a good picture of how ignorant of modern biology a person has to be to believe in "abiogenesis." I also think you do not realize how ignorant and simple the people who desperately want to believe in it are. I suppose "research" that examines new territory makes some sense, but we are running out of that. The only "new" things left are really just different combinations of old things, and we already understand each part of it. I suspect the most productive research in the future will involve microbes, but how to get them to make oil for fuel or something edible. It is already a known fact they don't self assemble from dead matter.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 27, 2020 21:04:59 GMT
IF I understand you, you contend that it is essentially something akin to a law that life couldn't have arisen without supernatural input. Is that true? If so, do you think there is any point in continuing research trying to figure out if something like life could be developed in test tubes/petri dishes in a lab? if so, what would be the point of it? Trying the same things over and over expecting a different result is some people's definition of insanity. It does at least appear to be a waste of time and resources. If there are any new things to try that might make sense, but there aren't. I suspect you do not have a good picture of how ignorant of modern biology a person has to be to believe in "abiogenesis." I also think you do not realize how ignorant and simple the people who desperately want to believe in it are. I suppose "research" that examines new territory makes some sense, but we are running out of that. The only "new" things left are really just different combinations of old things, and we already understand each part of it. I suspect the most productive research in the future will involve microbes, but how to get them to make oil for fuel or something edible. It is already a known fact they don't self assemble from dead matter. Even for you, the above is the stupidest most ridiculous post you have ever made, though it perfectly encapsulates your ignorance of everything to do with science, its methods goals and functioning. Congratulations for doing such a good job of discrediting everything else you have ever written on here with these mind bogglingly inaccurate, foolish and dumb words.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 27, 2020 21:11:24 GMT
Trying the same things over and over expecting a different result is some people's definition of insanity. It does at least appear to be a waste of time and resources. If there are any new things to try that might make sense, but there aren't. I suspect you do not have a good picture of how ignorant of modern biology a person has to be to believe in "abiogenesis." I also think you do not realize how ignorant and simple the people who desperately want to believe in it are. I suppose "research" that examines new territory makes some sense, but we are running out of that. The only "new" things left are really just different combinations of old things, and we already understand each part of it. I suspect the most productive research in the future will involve microbes, but how to get them to make oil for fuel or something edible. It is already a known fact they don't self assemble from dead matter. Even for you, the above is the stupidest most ridiculous post you have ever made, though it perfectly encapsulates your ignorance of everything to do with science, its methods goals and functioning. Congratulations for doing such a good job of discrediting everything else you have ever written on here with these mind bogglingly inaccurate, foolish and dumb words. Because goz?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 27, 2020 21:24:06 GMT
Even for you, the above is the stupidest most ridiculous post you have ever made, though it perfectly encapsulates your ignorance of everything to do with science, its methods goals and functioning. Congratulations for doing such a good job of discrediting everything else you have ever written on here with these mind bogglingly inaccurate, foolish and dumb words. Because goz? You are asking me why you exhibit such ignorance of most things including science and economics, engage in word salads made up of non-sequiturs to the argument at hand and delusional thinking about a fictitious supernatural force? I would question your intelligence, personality ( think Dunning Kruger) and education, lack of questing for further knowledge as it becomes available, entrenched conservatism, denial of reality and an inordinate and unfounded sense of your own importance..
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Sept 28, 2020 10:49:06 GMT
Some folks seem to believe that someday scientists will explain how masses of neurons and biological matter can produce 'consciousness'. It doesn't matter how finely you dissect the brain. You can map out every neuron and electrical impulse, consciousness as we experience it is unfathomable. Atheists are under the spell of 'species narcissism'. 'My big human brain can explain everything, if you give me enough time.' No, it can't. I don't know which atheists are you talking. For example, I'm a atheist and I don't claim that the human brain can explain everything. On the other hand my basic understanding of the human brain tells me that just because I can't explain everything, doesn't mean that a made up explanation (God) is the correct one.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Sept 28, 2020 11:05:06 GMT
Some folks seem to believe that someday scientists will explain how masses of neurons and biological matter can produce 'consciousness'. It doesn't matter how finely you dissect the brain. You can map out every neuron and electrical impulse, consciousness as we experience it is unfathomable. Atheists are under the spell of 'species narcissism'. 'My big human brain can explain everything, if you give me enough time.' No, it can't. I don't know which atheists are you talking. For example, I'm a atheist and I don't claim that the human brain can explain everything. On the other hand my basic understanding of the human brain tells me that just because I can't explain everything, doesn't mean that a made up explanation (God) is the correct one. What do you mean by 'God'? Which God are you rejecting?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Sept 28, 2020 11:27:44 GMT
I don't know which atheists are you talking. For example, I'm a atheist and I don't claim that the human brain can explain everything. On the other hand my basic understanding of the human brain tells me that just because I can't explain everything, doesn't mean that a made up explanation (God) is the correct one. What do you mean by 'God'? Which God are you rejecting? I don't believe in any god. I'm just like a theist. I only go one god further.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Sept 28, 2020 11:57:30 GMT
I don't believe in any god. I'm just like a theist. I only go one god further. I'm a theist and I believe in all the Gods. IMO believing in one God but discounting all the others is illogical. Then again, it's possible that all Gods are aspects of the same thing.
|
|