Proof God Exists ››
Quote
crunkmoose @ May 14, 2012 1:17 PM
Originally posted by: jdubit
to crunk: also, when an archaeologist discovers an artifact from the ground, is it not direct evidence that the civilization existed? their creations are direct evidence that these intelligent people existed. intelligent enough to create the artifact in question at least.
It can be, yes... but human beings and the objects they create are not only mundane in the extreme, but they are also being discovered by other human beings using other objects they created... its nowhere near the same as an unknown being creating the universe or life. We KNOW that human beings exist... because we are human beings. We don't have to prove their existence. A god's existence, however, has to be proven in the first place to give such a being credit for creation of anything.
crunkmoose @ May 14, 2012 1:29 PM
Originally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
The creation is the DIRECT evidence. How many times do i have to say this?
You don't have to say it again. You just have to understand that it is not direct evidence. It is indirect evidence. at best. Go look up what actual proof is.. and go look up the numerous refutations of your watchmaker argument.
we'll have to agree to disagree.
And you will still be wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion.
jdubit @ May 14, 2012 3:49 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
to crunk: also, when an archaeologist discovers an artifact from the ground, is it not direct evidence that the civilization existed? their creations are direct evidence that these intelligent people existed. intelligent enough to create the artifact in question at least.
It can be, yes... but human beings and the objects they create are not only mundane in the extreme, but they are also being discovered by other human beings using other objects they created... its nowhere near the same as an unknown being creating the universe or life. We KNOW that human beings exist... because we are human beings. We don't have to prove their existence. A god's existence, however, has to be proven in the first place to give such a being credit for creation of anything.
the fact that we know human beings exist is irrelevant. also, part of the reason we know these ancient civilizations even existed is because of these artifacts that we find in the ground. so it still serves to prove my point.
jdubit @ May 14, 2012 3:49 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
The creation is the DIRECT evidence. How many times do i have to say this?
You don't have to say it again. You just have to understand that it is not direct evidence. It is indirect evidence. at best. Go look up what actual proof is.. and go look up the numerous refutations of your watchmaker argument.
we'll have to agree to disagree.
And you will still be wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion.
lol, ok
i am skimble @ May 15, 2012 1:19 AM
Originally posted by: jdubit
i believe everything about the natural order to be all intelligently designed. even the snowflake.
Well that's kind of cheap isn't it? I thought life was this thing that was so complexly ordered that it could not have arisen spontaneously, but if things that we know could arise spontaneously WITHOUT design (like a snowflake) are applicable as evidence of design then even if life arose spontaneously, in spite of all odds, your theory would consider it evidence of design.
You cannot say "the proof that everything was designed by God is everything, because God designed it".
jdubit @ May 15, 2012 1:56 AM
Originally posted by: i am skimbleOriginally posted by: jdubit
i believe everything about the natural order to be all intelligently designed. even the snowflake.
Well that's kind of cheap isn't it? I thought life was this thing that was so complexly ordered that it could not have arisen spontaneously, but if things that we know could arise spontaneously WITHOUT design (like a snowflake) are applicable as evidence of design then even if life arose spontaneously, in spite of all odds, your theory would consider it evidence of design.
You cannot say "the proof that everything was designed by God is everything, because God designed it".
What? I'm not saying that at all. Re-read my posts. I can't help it if creation is the best way to explain the complexities of life.
Also, if what makes the snowflake is intelligently designed (the natural laws), then who is to say that snowflakes were not all purposefully designed to be all different, by tweaking the natural laws just so? It just goes to show how intelligent the Creator is.
i am skimble @ May 15, 2012 9:55 AM
OH MAN, REEEAAALLY?! Forget it, you win. Put a feather in your cap. You out crazied us all.
crunkmoose @ May 15, 2012 1:13 PM
Just more of the same old arguing against the supposedly improbable by arguing for the physically impossible.
Tim E. Husk @ May 15, 2012 1:19 PM
Creation is the easiest way to explain the complexities of life because it doesn't have to be and/or can't be explained further, but it's only the best to you and others like you.I know you spend a lot of time thinking and reading about these things since they are important to you. Because of that I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but really, if you can't tell why those analogies are incorrect, there's no room for further discussion.
jdubit @ May 15, 2012 2:18 PM
Originally posted by: barbarossa
Creation is the easiest way to explain the complexities of life because it doesn't have to be and/or can't be explained further, but it's only the best to you and others like you.
I know you spend a lot of time thinking and reading about these things since they are important to you. Because of that I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but really, if you can't tell why those analogies are incorrect, there's no room for further discussion.
The analogies help to put the complexities of life in perspective, and they do a great job at it. For some reason, you all think I'm trying to say that a biological life form can turn into an F16. If you don't understand that I'm only comparing the complexities of each, then yes, this discussion is over.
jdubit @ May 15, 2012 2:19 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose
Just more of the same old arguing against the supposedly improbable by arguing for the physically impossible.
Tim E. Husk @ May 15, 2012 2:47 PM
Do you really think for one moment that anyone made the ludicrous jump in logic you assumed they did?Anyway, it's got fuck all to do with complexity and everything to do with purpose, evolutionary processes, and holding something already created with specific functions up as an example. The analogy fails because, while it can be improved, a feat of aviation engineering cannot function in anything less than a fully functional state (one could go on and on with other problems). If you respond with 'yeah, but what good is half a wing, or half an eye?', again, there is nowhere to go from here. Basic creationist obfuscation can't hold when even popular scientific texts have shown clearly how wrong those assumptions are for years.
Maybe you only read one side. In fact, that must be the case, since you don't seem to know why your examples aren't any good.
