This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

God is a logical necessity

#31ScottSweatshirt(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 2:34:03 PM
fudrick posted...
ScottSweatshirt posted...
But why isnt there an edit button on this forum?


There is one, under message detail. You might not be able to access it yet, though.

Are you going to answer my question?


What question?
#32CuddleWithClawsPosted 1/29/2013 2:37:44 PM
None of what TC has said demonstrates that God is a logical necessity or that he knows how logic even works.

You can't just jump to the premise "Design requires a designer", because you are implying that a) everything is designed or b) there is a designer.

Please construct your logical proof for why either is necessary or is the case.
---
It's easy to claim that a thing is self-evident when you've already convinced yourself that it is.
#33fudrickPosted 1/29/2013 2:54:26 PM
ScottSweatshirt posted...
Im not really to familiar with pseudo science but what exactly is the consensus on abiogenesis? Last time I heard, they say it was some lighting storm that created life in its aftermath. Of course, I dont believe in such non sense. I just like to be familiar with it so I see where these these atheist are coming form that regurgitate these insane theories in hopes to try and substantiate the lies they believe.


I was talking about the "a person wouldnt be able to live with just a portion of an organ, let lone a single organ at a time" part. I'm not sure where abiogenesis comes in regarding that post.

ScottSweatshirt posted...
What question?


You haven't even read through your own topic, I see.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#34ScottSweatshirt(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 2:56:37 PM
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin

So fitting here.

I'll address one point- Yes, actually organs do have intermediate evolutionary stages where part of one is better than not having one. In The God Delusion *which has a lot of information about biology/evolution), Richard Dawkins gives 2 examples: eyes and wings. The most primitive eye, possessed by some worms, can detect light but not produce an image for itself. The next stage can produce an image, but a blurry, non-colored one. The next stage produces a non-colored one, and the next a colored one. It's not literally "half an eye", it's stages of complexity. Similar, wings have different uses at different stages. A simply wing merely slows down falls; a more advanced one can glide, and the most advanced can fly. And the way necessary organs/body parts develop is that first they are used as a non-necessary beneficial add-on that later becomes necessary. Lungs were first developed for aquatic organisms to catch food on land. See: lungfish. But for living things in the past, they spent more and more time on land until over stages of evolution they eventually couldn't live in water anymore.


Except that doesnt pertain to my question
I was asking if evolution made it possible for a creature to inherit the necessary organs to live in one evolutionary process. I ask because, as we all know, they are the primary devices that enable us to live whether it consciousness (the brain) or physical sustainability (the heart, lungs etc).
I also ask because such circumstances arent granted through the limitations of evolution in general. Evolution is a exponetially slow process which takes millions of years, according to the common consesnsus, soyou are then forced to come up with more bs theories like magical lighting storms that form life all at once .
#35OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 3:13:25 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#36fudrickPosted 1/29/2013 3:00:16 PM
ScottSweatshirt posted...
Evolution is a exponetially slow process which takes millions of years


No, it isn't. Exactly how much have you researched the theory, anyway?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#37OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 3:17:04 PM
From: ScottSweatshirt | Posted: 1/29/2013 3:05:00 PM | #001
There really shouldnt be any reason for one to demand proof of God when the answer is a self proclaimed truth that any reasonable and rational person shouldnt have problems accepting.

Its a simple argument really.

Design essentially requires a designer



I couldn't make it any further. If he really thinks everything (or rather anything) here has been designed, he has no understanding of cosmology or evolution. That's really all that needs to be said. If something is going to be formed, but without a plan, well... it's going to form something. And anything sentient that is formed from it will look at how well they fit in this thing that formed and assume that it must have been designed specifically for them. Neither the planet nor that particular species was designed. They were developed.

And really, it only makes sense that the sentient creatures on this planet fit so well with this planet. Not perfectly, but mostly well. If you mix flour, eggs, sugar, and whatever else goes into a cake, and then stick it in the oven at a certain degree for a certain amount of time, then of course, it's going to come out well-formed. That's because that's what happens when you combine those things in such a fashion. They produce something that makes sense from the ingredients. You won't stick those ingredients into the oven and produce a watermelon.

Did I design that cake? Well... no. Not really. I didn't command that mixing those ingredients in that fashion and sticking it in the oven for this much time at this much heat will produce this cake. I did not determine that. I (human beings) figured out that that's what happens. We did not design that.

Mix the elements like they were to get us where we were today, and you get what we have today. Whatever preceded the porcupine didn't develop quills from wings, it had long hard hair, and the ones that had the longest, most durable hair survived until they became the quills the porcupine now has. Life is so complex that, if you start it on another planet that can support life and then come back billions of years later, you're going to find a lot of species of animals, assuming things went well, and none of them will be the same as the kinds of animals that ever have been, are, or will be on this planet.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#38ThuggernautzPosted 1/29/2013 3:19:26 PM
One giant argument from ignorance, coupled with a faulty claim of irreducible complexity.

Simple counter to the latter:

Mandelbrot set. Infinite complexity from a very simple equation.
#39OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 3:21:47 PM
From: WelshGamer82 | Posted: 1/29/2013 3:09:36 PM | #002
Dude, you're going to get so ripped.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy


Love it! Only took me three sentences to understand his entire point. And it's one that is easy to debunk and has been done so many more times by men more well-versed in the sciences than myself.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#40OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 3:28:41 PM
From: ScottSweatshirt | Posted: 1/29/2013 3:39:37 PM | #010
ut I know what you are going to say. That was an accident


And you're already wrong. There was nothing accidental. Accident implies that there was an intent. You can't even grasp the concept of things forming without design, so you're essentially trying to dispel a concept you don't even understand.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.