popsjumper 2 #126 April 27, 2011 QuoteOne doesn't need god to not exist to simply present a better (i.e. less complicated) explanation for something, but you do need god to exist to use him/her as an explanation for anything. Interesting that you brought need into this. From both sides of the argument you get those who apparently need to force their POV on the other side. This is a psychological issue and indeed may be a pathological one. QuoteIf someone wants to, for example, redefine what god is and has done so that they can still state that god created the Earth in a week a few thousand years ago then I can't prove them wrong because they're just stating everything axiomatically as required by their argument. But I don't care that I can't prove the person wrong because... ....because I can respect their entitlement to whatever POV they have. I may disagree with it, but so what? We can discuss with an eye towards enlightenment or we can argue 'till we're blue in the face. I prefer to discuss with an eye towards self-enlightenment.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #127 April 27, 2011 ...out of the end zone.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #128 April 27, 2011 QuoteQuotelogical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it. I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,593 #129 April 27, 2011 QuotePretty much everything you post, I'd say. No, that doesn't follow at all. You could just admit you lost track of what it was you were talking about, but I guess it's more your style to try and cover up by getting another dig in. QuoteWell, up to a point anyway...If you admit to knowing nothing, then yes, "I don't know" would be the appropriate response in all cases. You have it right. Of course I have it right. That's not exactly news. You, on the other hand, are still falling down at this point. The only way that your position can be consistent is to admit that "you're that ignorant" about everything. Under your conditions absolutely everything (never mind god) becomes a matter of faith and belief. Does the world exist? Do I exist? Do you exist? Does the computer I'm typing on exist? According to you, these are all matters of faith and belief. Which kinda makes those words meaningless. QuoteI see a statement made and a bunch of whining because it doesn't fit you POV, I see you made a statement attempting to redefine the description of someone elses opinion and threw your toys out of the pram when they didn't agree. Why do you care how an atheist describes atheism? For someone who spends a lot of time moaning about people who tell other people they're wrong, you sure do spend a fuckload of time telling other people they're wrong!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,593 #130 April 27, 2011 Quote I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt Ah dammit, not AiG again! Those guys are boring, they're taking it much too seriously. What about the Way of the Master stuff you used to post, those guys were genuinely insane enough to be fun. Let's have some more of that, try starting with the one where the banana is proof of intelligent designDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #131 April 27, 2011 Good stuff: http://wayofthemaster.com/index.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #132 April 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotelogical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it. I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt That is a lot of very poor and misleading logic. Information is not an entity. It really is amazing the amount of flat out lies and misinformation being used to support a predetermined conclusion. The "Answers in Genesis" people are misleading you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #133 April 28, 2011 >Information has to come from somewhere... Sure, it can come from a lot of places. Lots of natural processes generate information. Just look at the period of a pulsar or Planck's Constant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #134 April 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteOne doesn't need god to not exist to simply present a better (i.e. less complicated) explanation for something, but you do need god to exist to use him/her as an explanation for anything. Interesting that you brought need into this. From both sides of the argument you get those who apparently need to force their POV on the other side. This is a psychological issue and indeed may be a pathological one. QuoteIf someone wants to, for example, redefine what god is and has done so that they can still state that god created the Earth in a week a few thousand years ago then I can't prove them wrong because they're just stating everything axiomatically as required by their argument. But I don't care that I can't prove the person wrong because... ....because I can respect their entitlement to whatever POV they have. I may disagree with it, but so what? We can discuss with an eye towards enlightenment or we can argue 'till we're blue in the face. I prefer to discuss with an eye towards self-enlightenment. Are you trolling or have you just not read most of my posts in the thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #135 April 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotelogical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence No a logical argument is simply that an argument. It is not a form of evidence. How valid your argument is depends on it's supporting evidence. In the case of the Christian God there is no supporting evidence. All you have is an argument for the existence of God. No evidence. Your argument has no evidence to support it. I was speaking of information. Information has to come from somewhere...just like matter. "In the beginning was information." - Dr. Werner Gitt BTW if you really were speaking of information then maybe you should specified "information" instead of "logical argument". Other wise it makes it look like you are changing your story when you realize you are wrong and not wanting to admit it. Just a suggestion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #136 April 28, 2011 QuoteBTW if you really were speaking of information then maybe you should specified "information" instead of "logical argument". Other wise it makes it look like you are changing your story when you realize you are wrong and not wanting to admit it. Is a logical argument not information? "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." - Dr. Werner Gitt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #137 April 28, 2011 Quote The only way that your position can be consistent is to admit that "you're that ignorant" about everything. Under your conditions absolutely everything (never mind god) becomes a matter of faith and belief. Does the world exist? Do I exist? Do you exist? Does the computer I'm typing on exist? According to you, these are all matters of faith and belief. You keep saying the same thing over and over but somehow you just don't understand what it is you're saying. Quote I see you made a statement attempting to redefine the description of someone elses opinion I gave you MY definition. YOU can define it any way you want. It seems you have a small problem with that. Why is that? Quote Why do you care how an atheist describes atheism? You've read somewhere that I care how an atheist describes his philosophy? Quote For someone who spends a lot of time moaning about people who tell other people they're wrong, you sure do spend a fuckload of time telling other people they're wrong! Kinda like what you are doing? You're POV doesn't agree with mine so therefore you're reading that I'm telling you that YOU are wrong? A sure sign of immature defensiveness. OK...it's getting old now. You're apparently still too close-minded for intelligent discussion.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #138 April 28, 2011 Quote But I don't care that I can't prove the person wrong... ...Are you trolling or have you just not read most of my posts in the thread? If one assumes the second is true then probably the first is true also.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #139 April 28, 2011 QuoteQuote But I don't care that I can't prove the person wrong... ...Are you trolling or have you just not read most of my posts in the thread? If one assumes the second is true then probably the first is true also. You still seem to think that my concern is about what people's beliefs are in and of themselves and I'm at a bit of a loss as to why. I'm not god's gift to insightful discourse such that all must hang on my every word, but when you skip over a page and a half of conversation in the thread and say, "I may disagree with it, but so what?" then I see no reason to repeat myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #140 April 28, 2011 Quote You're POV doesn't agree with mine so therefore you're reading that I'm telling you that YOU are wrong? actually, that's pretty normal for this forum - so that assumption is reasonable considering the people here - especially those that think they are so progressive and tolerant in their thoughts there's no such thing as acknowledging different viewpoints can both be valid there's no agreeing to disagree hell - I've seen people here absolutely agreeing on the substance of a concept, but fighting for page after page on the semantics of it. Billvon is a gladiator in this area for example. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #141 April 28, 2011 Quote "I may disagree with it, but so what?" I find that to be a very sincere and accepting response to many areas. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #142 April 28, 2011 QuoteIs a logical argument not information? NO, they are not same thing. QuoteA code system is always the result of a mental process This is not always true either. The pulsar that BillVon mentioned earlier does not send out pulses from the result of a mental process. Dr. Werner Gitt is full of shit and is misleading you. Why do you think the "Answers in Genesis" people is reliable information source?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #143 April 28, 2011 Quote"A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). Well, that's some pure bullshit right there. DNA is most definitely a coded information system and didn't require any intelligent origin or inventor. It's pretty much just the result of a long series of chemical reactions and survival of the fittest.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #144 April 28, 2011 Quote OK...it's getting old now. You're apparently still too close-minded for intelligent discussion. you're channeling John McCain a lot these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #145 April 28, 2011 QuoteDNA is most definitely a coded information system and didn't require any intelligent origin or inventor. It's pretty much just the result of a long series of chemical reactions and survival of the fittest. Although I agree with you factually, that argument is begging the question. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #146 April 28, 2011 Quote Quote DNA is most definitely a coded information system and didn't require any intelligent origin or inventor. It's pretty much just the result of a long series of chemical reactions and survival of the fittest. Although I agree with you factually, that argument is begging the question. Ya, like how are all those big brain weakling scientists gonna fend for themselves when life calls for them to fight for their survival. I bet they'll believe in God real quick!(Sorry, I'm just being playful)Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #147 April 28, 2011 QuoteDNA is most definitely a coded information system and didn't require any intelligent origin or inventor. It's pretty much just the result of a long series of chemical reactions and survival of the fittest. Probably the best example of what I am talking about. I agree with you in that DNA is definitely coded information. Information such as that cannot originate from matter itself. Natural Selection cannot account for its origination. It can only take into account a net loss of information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #148 April 28, 2011 How do you know that this is true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #149 April 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteDNA is most definitely a coded information system and didn't require any intelligent origin or inventor. It's pretty much just the result of a long series of chemical reactions and survival of the fittest. Probably the best example of what I am talking about. I agree with you in that DNA is definitely coded information. Information such as that cannot originate from matter itself. Natural Selection cannot account for its origination. It can only take into account a net loss of information. That's where you're 100% wrong. It happens on a daily basis.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
