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

God is a logical necessity

#41OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 2:31:20 PM
From: ElderMisanthropy | Posted: 1/29/2013 3:57:34 PM | #015
I'd like to poll this board to find out how many people have had their wisdom teeth taken out, or had appendicitis. The human body is indeed a remarkable specimen, but if this is the best a divine being can muster, it's certainly nothing to brag about.


As Degrasse-Tyson put it (paraphrasing and changing it slightly), what kind of designer would create a being that expelled waste from the same organ that was used for reproduction? It's like having sex in a sewer.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#42KNessJMPosted 1/29/2013 2:33:14 PM
I mentioned the bodily organs in my last post which are more akin to the internal mechanisms in a machine to ensure its proper operations

if a machine were intentionally designed in such a way that, occasionally, the internal mechanisms would cause the machine to catch fire and explode, would you consider the machine to be well-designed?

That is exactly the case with the human body. From appendicitis to genetic disorders, sometimes the human body just doesn't work right and causes the organism to fail and die.

According to you and people like you though, evrything happened by chance. I know you dont like it being referred to that way but thats basically what you believe in a nutshell. So riddle me this.

Here you demonstrate an ignorance of evolution and natural selection. This is not, in fact, what proponents of natural selection believe. You are setting up a straw man which is not representative of the current scientific understanding. You are arguing against a concept which you do not understand.

If it did happen by purely naturalistic circumstances then is it possible that the first living beings inherited these essential components all at once as macro evolution is not a contiguous process? That must have been the case right for a person wouldnt be able to live with just a portion of an organ, let lone a single organ at a time. Rationalize that for me please.

A simple being, which is what we're talking about, not a human being, could indeed function with a less than "fully developed" organ. Take the eye for example. If you reduce the function of the eye down, say to a simple cluster of cells that react to light, then the organism in question can function perfectly well, and is in fact better off having this feature as opposed to not having it. Each step on the evolutionary chart brings about better results than the previous step. That's how natural selection works.

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).

These are not primary devices required for life. There are a multitude of simple organisms that have neither a brain, nor a heart or lungs.

It seems my original prediction is likely to come true.
---
Quote of the Week: "There is an inner logic and we're taught to stay far from it. It's simple and elegant but it's cruel and antithetic."
#43OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 2:34:31 PM
From: fudrick | Posted: 1/29/2013 4:28:15 PM | #027
Are you going to answer my question?


I don't know what's more disappointing. The flippant responses he has given, or the fact that he hasn't flippantly responded to more than only a small handful of all the counter-arguments made against him.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#44ScottSweatshirt(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 2:35:46 PM
CuddleWithClaws posted...
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.



You know before I made the thread I was deciding whether I use the argument of design or cause and effect.

I have a feeling if I used the latter you would have posted the same statement just the slight revision with you instead asking for a logical proof for why every effect needs a cause.
The bottom line is people like you have trouble accepting things which undermines your bias.
#45ScottSweatshirt(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 2:35:51 PM
fudrick posted...
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?


Way to flip flop on the issue. I guess you can adopt whatever time scale fits in the argument right? Fortunately for you, it doesnt matter with the particular question. The question however still stands. If it is possible explain how by naturalistic processes
#46OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 2:40:16 PM
From: ScottSweatshirt | Posted: 1/29/2013 4:56:37 PM | #034
soyou are then forced to come up with more bs theories like magical lighting storms that form life all at once .


Uh... sounds like some bs theory that you claim we [?] came up with in order to discredit the position that god may not have been necessary in any stage of our existence. I've never heard of this lightning storm theory you've linked to abiogenesis, but if that is a theory, I can tell you that it either does not claim it formed all life at once, or that it's complete bs (again, likely made up by you to discredit your opponents).
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#47fudrickPosted 1/29/2013 2:44:40 PM
ScottSweatshirt posted...
Way to flip flop on the issue.


What do you mean by "flip flop on the issue"? When did I claim that evolution takes millions of years?

ScottSweatshirt posted...
I guess you can adopt whatever time scale fits in the argument right?


Huh?

ScottSweatshirt posted...
Fortunately for you, it doesnt matter with the particular question. The question however still stands. If it is possible explain how by naturalistic processes


You mean the following question, correct?

ScottSweatshirt posted...
I was asking if evolution made it possible for a creature to inherit the necessary organs to live in one evolutionary process.


I've got a couple follow up questions for you before I can really discuss this:

Which creature?
Which necessary organs?
What exactly do you mean by "one evolutionary process"?

And again, are you ever going to answer my first question in this thread?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#48ScottSweatshirt(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 2:57:57 PM
OzymandiasIV posted...
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



If something is going to be formed, but without a plan, well... it's going to form something.


This essentially what you were trying to say.

I initially addressed this type of shallow mindset in my first post. I understand. When you refuse to accept the truth of design then you departure from the realm of structure and logic. So what are you left with? The argument of chance and probability.

My example of the S.O.S signal on a deserted island served to reveal what a stupid position it is but one none the less.

You can accept the fact that it was created/designed by a sentiment being or you can humbly acknowledge that it was the result of the prevailing winds or crashing waves

The sensible person will always pick the former, while people like you choose otherwise. In other words.

The theist has a logical explantion.
While the atheist just has what remains when you strip that logic with what ever is left.
#49fudrickPosted 1/29/2013 3:04:26 PM
Well, at least you're willing to make it exceedingly obvious that you recognize that going down the road I started with my first question in this thread ultimately leads to the demise of your position <.<
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#50OzymandiasIVPosted 1/29/2013 3:08:55 PM(edited)
From: ScottSweatshirt | Posted: 1/29/2013 5:57:57 PM | #048
The argument of chance and probability.

My example of the S.O.S signal on a deserted island served to reveal what a stupid position it is but one none the less.


It's not an argument of chance and probability. That would imply that what we are now was at some point one goal among many goals, or one possibility among many possibilities. There never was a goal, and we were never a determined possibility. This is not about chance and probability.

---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.