i challenge you to watch this entire video and then respond

[frankenbeemer]

So, what, arguing=bashing now? Alrighty then.

It's not equal. There is a difference between calm, logical rebuttal and invectives like "idiotic". You seem to like the heat more than reason or evidence.

P&R is where I come to have heated discussions

[cale]

Guys, I don't have enough time(or care enough) to keep up with three people. I'll summarize my position once more, and you can either understand my viewpoint or not.

The fact is, we don't know. We can only guess. If you claim to know, you're lying to yourself. To say the burden of proof is on the other guy is cowardly. It's on all of us.

We all have the same evidence to interpret. This is the universe, the laws that govern it, its history...all 14 billion years worth, etc. I'm not discarding any science here or ignoring any facts. EVERYTHING that we know today or have ever known falls within my definition of "evidence." This evidence alone is neither in support or in opposition of a creator without subsequent interpretation.

From this evidence, one can draw different conclusions, much like someone can go to an art museum and come to differing conclusions about the meaning of a painting.

Do not confuse my argument with "We don't know, so god." When I look at our universe, I see a series of systems designed to work in concert with one another. Only after I formed this view did I think to myself: "Maybe this was all created." This is merely my interpretation. Disagree? Cool. I'm not going to tell you you are stupid or ignorant, because I recognize I don't know and neither do you. But don't tell me I am either. To call me illogical means that you simply don't understand my position.

I urge you all to analyze the question of whether there is a creator from a perspective that is outside the confines of normal old "religion." Look at it philosophically, and you may understand my view.

That's all I have to contribute I'm afraid. Google "agnostic theism" if you would like to understand more about my position.

Lastly, I steal this ven diagram from wikipedia, because I think it is interesting food for thought:

I deleted your diagram for simplicities sake.

How do you respond to what I presented to your earlier though if you wouldn't mind addressing it?

And who created you to create that fish pond, someone did? Is it more likely for a vastly more complex creation to exist before a much simpler one, ie. a creator before it's creation? I'd wager no. There was causation yes, but assuming it's an intelligent conciousness is pretty bold.

Do you accept that your creator is omnipotent and is self-created? Or do you concede that it too needs a creator resulting in an endless line of creators. If that were the case, what separates us from being creators as well?

[Cliche Guevara]

It's not equal. There is a difference between calm, logical rebuttal and invectives like "idiotic". You seem to like the heat more than reason or evidence.

"Heated," in this case, meaning spirited and enthusiastic. Shiftbmw is the first person here to make an honest attempt at arguing on the theistic side and I have not once belittled him. I have a hell of a lot more respect for him than I do for guys like you and mrsleeve that only come in here to whine about how mean us atheists are.

Guys, I don't have enough time(or care enough) to keep up with three people. I'll summarize my position once more, and you can either understand my viewpoint or not.

I completely understand your viewpoint, it's just illogical. You're referring to how you view the universe as "evidence" for some form of deity, but it just isn't. Your claims aren't evidence based, they're intuition based. Just because something appears one way does not make it so. They eye, for example, appears far to complex to arise naturally through evolutionary processes. But when the actual evidence is consulted we see that our intuition is wrong and that an eye very well could and did evolve naturally. That assessment uses the exact same form of logic that you do in concluding that there is a god. And I'm not making any references to ID with that analogy, the important bit is that in both cases a claim is made based off intuition while providing zero supportive evidence.

Again, the burden of proof always rests upon the person making the positive claim. That's how it works in science, that's how it works in our legal system. You are making the claim that there is a god while providing zero evidence. I, and a few others (I understand how overwhelming it is to argue with 3 different people at once, sorry :(), are merely stating that because there is no evidence for god that the most reasonable conclusion is that there most probably isn't one.

[frankenbeemer]

"Heated," in this case, meaning spirited and enthusiastic. Shiftbmw is the first person here to make an honest attempt at arguing on the theistic side and I have not once belittled him. I have a hell of a lot more respect for him than I do for guys like you and mrsleeve that only come in here to whine about how mean us atheists are.

I did not observe the dishonesty of all the other "theistic" posters, but I'm glad that you have the ability to respect something.

[Cliche Guevara]

I did not observe the dishonesty of all the other "theistic" posters, but I'm glad that you have the ability to respect something.

By "honest effort" I meant that he is actually trying to defend his beliefs. We had one guy try (and fail) to come up with an impressive prophecy from the bible, but other than that it's just been you and mrsleeve complaining about us being jerks. Pretty much the same thing in my "Is There a God" thread, too.

[Vedubin01]

Do you know what the scientific method is? Please first explain how we are going to build experiments to test a hypothesis. "we don't know" works great here, it'd be nice if the theists adopted that reasonable response too.

The origins of the universe at this point is purely speculation, the work of nerdling's with a touch of science fiction. Nothing exists which can be construed as evidence to give a solid idea of what came before the big bang, certainly nothing which can be tested ( a fundamental step in the scientific method).

The hadron collider was built to test a hypothesis on how life started... though great advances have been made by the collider it still does not resolve the answer.

the answer will never be found to how the universe was created (pre big bang) The only explanation is a higher power. This higher power is referred to as God. Maybe not Jesus god, but supreme being none the less.

[frankenbeemer]

By "honest effort" I meant that he is actually trying to defend his beliefs. We had one guy try (and fail) to come up with an impressive prophecy from the bible, but other than that it's just been you and mrsleeve complaining about us being jerks. Pretty much the same thing in my "Is There a God" thread, too.

Yeah, I get that. I liked the Venn diagram, and I could find no error in his logic. He said he "believes", as opposed to "knowing". I don't "believe", yet find his evidence more compelling than yours.

Regarding the lack of other honest participants: It's probably not all your fault, you've got cale helping you out.

[Cliche Guevara]

The hadron collider was built to test a hypothesis on how life started... though great advances have been made by the collider it still does not resolve the answer.

No, it absolutely wasn't build for that purpose. It was build to test theories in particle physics and find things like the Higgs Boson. How did you even get the idea that the LHC has anything to to with biology?

Yeah, I get that. I liked the Venn diagram, and I could find no error in his logic. He said he "believes", as opposed to "knowing". I don't "believe", yet find his evidence more compelling than yours.

He doesn't provide evidence. As I said earlier, his views are intuition based rather than evidence based.

Regarding the lack of other honest participants: It's probably not all your fault, you've got cale helping you out.

It's a difficult subject for theists because they find themselves arguing for something with zero evidence to support it. Back when I was a Christian I rarely engaged in this sort of conversation because the cognitive dissonance was overwhelming.

[Vedubin01]

No, it absolutely wasn't build for that purpose. It was build to test theories in particle physics and find things like the Higgs Boson. How did you even get the idea that the LHC has anything to to with biology?

Life meaning universe. See context of discussion.

[shiftbmw]

How do you respond to what I presented to your earlier though if you wouldn't mind addressing it?

I can respond since you asked me specifically. Could you present your thought once more though so I know which one you are talking about? The more concise you are with your thought, the more concise I can be with my response.

Do you accept that your creator is omnipotent and is self-created? Or do you concede that it too needs a creator resulting in an endless line of creators. If that were the case, what separates us from being creators as well?

I haven't made up my mind. I think at some point we must grapple with either the concept of infinity or absolute nothing. Either matter/energy or a creator has existed infinitely, or one of them arose spontaneously from absolutely nothing. Any of those options are pretty mind blowing.

[cale]

The hadron collider was built to test a hypothesis on how life started... though great advances have been made by the collider it still does not resolve the answer.

the answer will never be found to how the universe was created (pre big bang) The only explanation is a higher power. This higher power is referred to as God. Maybe not Jesus god, but supreme being none the less.

You have no clue what it is you're talking about if you think the lhc was designed to test theories on the origins of life.

We don't know so god? You're a perfect example of those who cower at the reality that they have to admit they do not know. That is most certainly not the only answer, it's just the only one your feeble mind is open to. Keeping yourself in a box thinking you have it figured out will not help you out much. Fortunately people who actually make advances in science are not so quick to give up and credit "god" with that they do not presently understand. Your simple thought process is about 1000 years late, I'd be ashamed to have made the post I'm quoting.

[randomsv650]

It seems every time I hear this discussion, the atheists/evolutionists always get really defensive and turn to attacks. I would too if I didn't have anything more to believe in other than a bunch of theories and scientific mumbo jumbo, all that seem to change on a regular basis ;)

The simple fact is this (and lots of others have said it): nobody can prove exactly how and why things were created. Christians think they are right in their minds and evolutionists think they are right in theirs. We could argue all day creation vs. evolution vs. whatever, and we'll all go "home" with the same opinion came in. Seems like we're all too prideful to have an intelligent conversation with each other and our differing opinions.

I'm a firm believer that there was a higher power who created all things (while there are many levels of microevolution that take/took place) at a given point of time (gasp!). I would even go so far as to say that, within the context of the Bible, the "big bang theory," actually makes sense.

A lot of Christians who study science (and compare everything in the sci world with scripture) have beliefs that the Big Bang was caused/put into motion by the higher power (God). It's an interesting concept when you think about it. After all, the fact that something can just "evolve" from nothing is pretty wacky, too, right? :up:

[cale]

It seems every time I hear this discussion, the atheists/evolutionists always get really defensive and turn to attacks. I would too if I didn't have anything more to believe in other than a bunch of theories and scientific mumbo jumbo, all that seem to change on a regular basis ;)

Anything more? Those theories and scientific mumbo jumbo is all anyone has to truly know anything about our universe. No matter how hard theists clutch at their holy books, it doesn't make them any more truthful nor do their beliefs in a higher power. It's ridiculously ignorant posts like this that warrant attacks and name calling, cause this shit is downright dumb.

The simple fact is this (and lots of others have said it): nobody can prove exactly how and why things were created. Christians think they are right in their minds and evolutionists think they are right in theirs. We could argue all day creation vs. evolution vs. whatever, and we'll all go "home" with the same opinion came in. Seems like we're all too prideful to have an intelligent conversation with each other and our differing opinions.

Evolution doesn't claim to know how life started, that would be abiogensis. It has nothing to do with pride, it has to do with being able to back up your claims and opinions with that which can sway the opposition. Facts have weight to them, faith does not when it comes to proving a point.

After all, the fact that something can just "evolve" from nothing is pretty wacky, too, right?

Holy argument from ignorance batman.

The simply fact that you think life evolved from "nothing" reassures me that you do not know anything about evolution, something I first thought when you tried to claim evolution has anything to do with the origins of life. Please go read up on evolution before you try to put it on the same playing field as creationism or even think you're informed enough to argue it.

Please don't simply respond with tears of being insulted, the tactfulness or lack thereof does not discredit my post so spare any attempts at playing the victim as you dance around responding to my points.

Any of those options are pretty mind blowing.

This

I think many people are simply too afraid to accept that infinity is a potential, it's beyond our level of comprehension to truly grasp the immensity of it, so......god. For me that's simply too easy of a solution which in itself opens up an entirely new can of worms. You cannot accept one thing as infinite (matter), so you postulate a new thing which is also infinite (god) and then do not hold it to the same restrictions for which you rejected the first thing (matter) to begin with. If that is logical to you...*snicker*. Ps you refers to theists in general, not shiftbmw.

[Kershaw]

It seems every time I hear this discussion, the atheists/evolutionists always get really defensive and turn to attacks. I would too if I didn't have anything more to believe in other than a bunch of theories and scientific mumbo jumbo, all that seem to change on a regular basis ;)

Wow. For fucks sake. This is why there are so many problems in the USA. Do not think for a second your religious beliefs hold a candle to FACTS.

Just because you are ignorant, uneducated, and do not understand basic scientific theories does not make it mumbo-jumbo.

You sir, are an idiot.

[cale]

What's best is it's usually people from his camp calling us closed-minded or arrogant. How about choosing to remain ignorant to the facts and then having the audacity to condemn those who've actually educated themselves to both sides?

Laughable