Intellectual Laziness (3)

[TheCPE]

If you don't, you burn, simple as that. Anybody up for some barbecue?

Do believers such as yourself that resort to this cliche actually think this scares non-believers? You might be afraid of the boogie man in the sky and the idea you will burn in hell if you don't acquiesce but it has no effect on non-believers. Just figured I'd let you know.

 

[61mmstang94]

Want another cool story? What if Aliens were the ones that actually wrote and placed the Bible here on earth to play some sick joke on humans for thousands of years... We don't even know it, but we are actually someone/somethings sitcom........ Now is my thinking along the lines as yours now?

Just chillin' on a big blue ball out in the middle of nowhere....... :rockon:

No, his line of thinking is along the lines of provable things that make logical sense.

Ironically enough, the crazy scenario sounds more like a fairytale religious belief than anything scientific. If anything, you just mocked believers and you probably can't see that.

 

[blacksrt]

Do believers such as yourself that resort to this cliche actually think this scares non-believers? You might be afraid of the boogie man in the sky and the idea you will burn in hell if you don't acquiesce but it has no effect on non-believers. Just figured I'd let you know.

Acquiesce? Really? Come on now, this isn't Words With Friends..... I am not trying to scare anyone, but a little humor is good for the ol' soul every now and then... :rolling:

 

[TheCPE]

Acquiesce? Really? Come on now, this isn't Words With Friends..... I am not trying to scare anyone, but a little humor is good for the ol' soul every now and then... :rolling:

Ok was just curious if when that cliche was resorted to it was presumed to be scarey

 

[blacksrt]

No, his line of thinking is along the lines of provable things that make logical sense.

Ironically enough, the crazy scenario sounds more like a fairytale religious belief than anything scientific. If anything, you just mocked believers and you probably can't see that.

Are you saying we can't prove aliens exist................ Ooohhhh I am telling.

Do we agree that there are millions of galaxies, and within each one, there are millions of stars? If so, wouldn't you agree that the probability of extraterrestrial life existing is quite high?

Also...... Since we are so advanced with all of our "science", then why can't we prove or disprove extraterrestrial life exists?

 

[hittinboost]

We cannot prove or disprove astrology. The point you make, which is true, doesn't require a call to action.

When we look at life, take the human body for example, we see design but we do not see optimal design. The human eye, for instance, has an inherent blind spot that a child can demonstrate with a pencil and a piece of paper. Our prefrontal lobes are too small, and our adrenal glands are too large. Our lungs are so inefficient that we exhale most of the oxygen we inhale. Because we have to eat and breathe through the same orifice, 50,000 people in the U.S. alone die of choking every year. And our mouths are too small for our number of teeth. The list of design problems with the human body goes on and on.

We can even see design problems at the genetic level. Apparently 25% of the human genome material is composed of dead retroviruses. And, as of this June 13th, we discovered that the genome of bonobos and chimpanzees differs from that of humans by a mere 1.3%. This observation makes a complete mockery of the idea that humans were designed in God's image.

Life is clearly not intelligently designed as you claim, and nor did it just come about by random chance. It came about by Darwinian natural selection which is a process that is part random and part not. Richard Dawkins said it in as few words as possible: evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. Evolution is about adaptive differential reproduction, which we have mountains of evidence for in molecular genetics.

By the way, if you want to embrace intelligent design, then you have to believe that the designer has an inordinate fondness for beetles as we have about 350,000 distinct beetle species on record.



I am going to bet that you will execute this argument in the future, despite my informing you that evolution is not a chance process. I too have favored arguments that I routinely execute, but I prefer to discard them if I discover they are rooted in misconception or misinformation.



Let me put it this way. If one individual says God exists, and another says God does not exist, I hold both of them equally accountable for extraordinary evidence. The problem here is your understanding of atheism. As an atheist, I reject the creator hypothesis due to insufficient evidence. I don't reject the God hypothesis simply because I somehow know it to be false.

Tell me, logically, how you got yourself to the position that reality allows for a creative god.

.

Like I said before, one doesn't know whether a design is optimal or not if they don't know the intentions of the creator. Case in point, a panda's thumb appears to be sub-optimal in relation to an opposable thumb. Yet it allows the panda to strip bamboo down to it's edible interior. At first it appeared sub-optimal but in reality it was designed to do what the Panda needed.

I am not an evolutionary biologist or a quantum physicist so as interesting as both are I feel as though it would be a futile attempt for me to discuss them, however I suggest you watch the debate video between WLC and Krauss that DEAD EYE posted. Just about every topic of discussion in this thread is contained in that debate, between intelligent design, morality, and they also make mention of quantum fluctuations. WLC sums up perfectly why I believe in a creative God.

Also I find it very interesting that Darwinian natural selection is based on non-random selection of random replicators, something I will doing more reading about. Thanks.

 

[wurd2]

Why waste your time trying to convince these "intellectual lazy" people that there isn't a god? Feeling guilty maybe? Trying to convince yourself by convincing others? I promise you it isn't going to comfort you, feel your void, nor make you feel better by convincing others to burn with you!

Unfortunately the parties of god did not leave us nonbelievers out of their heavenly designs. They want to kill, torture, bully, convert, and threaten us into accepting belief per authority rather than reason and logic.

I recognize that your chains are comfortable, but I'll stick with reason and logic.

...you are nothing but mere pawns in this game of life.

We aren't exactly mere pawns in this game of life if in fact the universe was created with us in mind.

.

 

[DaleM]

The fact that "you" people are trying to disprove the existense of God by squeezing every last bit of intellectual knowlage from your "grey matter" database is quite comical.

Why waste your time trying to convince these "intellectual lazy" people that there isn't a god? Feeling guilty maybe? Trying to convince yourself by convincing others? I promise you it isn't going to comfort you, feel your void, nor make you feel better by convincing others to burn with you!

As far as I am concerned you guys are the proof that a "higher" power exists and that you are nothing but mere pawns in this game of life.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. I can prove the lack of presence of any gawd by the way we cannot conjure them up or have real discovery of them. I also cannot disprove that there are invisible little men holding all our atoms together.

Again the lack of evidence does not mean evidence of a gawd. But reasonable men who do not fall into the trap of religions can reasonably say, there is no proof nor evidence of any gawdz therefore I do not buy this cosmic BS and will continue to explore the origins of man and the universe.

Reasonable men are not stopping at plagiarized and ancient texts to explain the universe, many of which are now listed as myths, one day I am sure a new "religion" will make a myth of the current popular religions.

 

[TheCPE]

At first it appeared sub-optimal but in reality it was designed to do what the Panda needed.

Or did pandas learn to use their "tools" to their advantage, ie adapt to their environment. This isn't even evolution this is just simple adaption.

I suggest you watch the debate video between WLC and Krauss that DEAD EYE posted.

I watched it long ago and already have pointed out in this thread the futility and embarrassment that was Craigs entire "evidence". A great orator craig might be, but his poetic discourse lacks any substance.

A simple ontological argument is only as strong as it's weakest link which is of course the definitions and premises the logic is played upon. If the premises are meaningless your conclusion, logical or not, is meaningless.

And btw, deductions aren't evidence.

WLC sums up perfectly why I believe in a creative God.

So a simple ontological argument based upon a massive IF is sufficient "evidence" for you?

 

[wurd2]

Like I said before, one doesn't know whether a design is optimal or not if they don't know the intentions of the creator.

Should we rename the intelligent design movement to mysterious design then?

(haha, i win)

Case in point, a panda's thumb appears to be sub-optimal in relation to an opposable thumb. Yet it allows the panda to strip bamboo down to it's edible interior. At first it appeared sub-optimal but in reality it was designed to do what the Panda needed.

And by coincidence, the thumb claimed as designed just so happens to offer a reproductive advantage by which its underlying genes increased their frequency and persistence in the gene pool of the panda.

...I suggest you watch the debate video between WLC and Krauss that DEAD EYE posted.

No thank you. I'm confident that a majority of William Lane Craig's arguments are very old, though I am sure he re-executes them well enough to sound convincing to the audience. I probably wouldn't learn anything new from Krauss only because I have listened to him for hours and am familiar with a lot of the material he presents and the arguments he makes.

I would be far more interested in William Lane Craig versus Christopher Hitchens because none of Hitchens' debates are boring, even when the learning stops.

WLC sums up perfectly why I believe in a creative God.

Can you sum the reasoning up in a sentence or two?

Also I find it very interesting that Darwinian natural selection is based on non-random selection of random replicators, something I will doing more reading about.

It was news to me too. I'm glad this point didn't slip your attention. I think it is the most important point to note about evolution when trying to understand how it works.

.

 

[TheCPE]

I would be far more interested in William Lane Craig versus Christopher Hitchens because none of Hitchens' debates are boring, even when the learning stops.

You can find that on youtube, it was much more entertaining than craig vs krauss. Hitchens did ()always make things much more entertaining.

 

[DEAD EYE]

And the gawds were not discovered, they were invented. No one has ever discovered a single gawd, we only invent more to evolve through the times and tribes.

WOW! This thread has snowballed out of control! lol.

Dale, I never made the claim that man discovered God but it doesn't follow from that that man invented God. I think God revealed himself. But that is off track from the OP.

The irony of your analogy is research how many churches burned to the ground because they would not use Ben Francklin's lightning rod. Research why!

Red Herring.

 

[DEAD EYE]

So does Dead-Eye continue to hate science or does he turn a brown eye to science and evidence:
Scientists to unveil evidence that 'God particle' exists | Fox News

We will wait.

Dude! Where have I stated that I hate science! I think science is wonderful.:rockon:

 

[Carbd86GT]

Are you saying we can't prove aliens exist................ Ooohhhh I am telling.

Do we agree that there are millions of galaxies, and within each one, there are millions of stars? If so, wouldn't you agree that the probability of extraterrestrial life existing is quite high?

Also...... Since we are so advanced with all of our "science", then why can't we prove or disprove extraterrestrial life exists?

Because we are limited by the speed of light, and in the scope of the universe, light is extremely slow. We haven't confirmed anything 100% yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen in 10 minutes or 10,000 years.

 

[DEAD EYE]

I don’t know exactly how to respond to this other than I don’t think I agree that the universe is necessarily caused. Our brains intuitively look for a causal relationship but that doesn’t necessarily mean the universe was caused. As far as it being lazy to believe in an outside cause… I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that either. We are only beginning to try and understand origin and we have a long ways to go..

Fine, TheCPE, You don't necessarily think the universe is caused. That means you must think it's eternal. Its an exhaustive dilema! If that's what you believe that's cool but that belief goes against the evidence! I thought the atheist follows the evidence! The quantum vacume proposal has no observable evidence to support it.

And? Science and math explains electricity. Just like science and math explains beauty. To say something “invented beauty” is an empty statement. Beauty merely exists..

That's what I was trying to say all along when you implied that science defines what makes things beautiful. I think we are talking past each other here.

Natural philosophy is the father of science, from a time before there was much knowledge of our existence and measuring and experimentation weren’t possible. Philosophy is an ever receding field much like the god of the gaps. The more knowledge and deeper our understanding of our world the smaller the field of philosophy..

Nice philisophical statement!

This to me is an empty statement. I can say you can’t prove green is green or water is wet, and while it might sound deep it is just a very empty statement.
You have yet to provide an example of some knowledge you’ve gained that wasn’t through science..

It seems empty because it is what is known as circular reasoning! That is why science isn't the be all/ end all!

I've come to know that I love my wife without using science!

Obviously I don’t believe YOU defined “god”. The definition of god that MAN has created is just that, an unfalsifiable idea that isn’t subject to any standard of merit or scrutiny. That is a meaningless idea. It isn’t ad hoc at all, absolutely nothing changes if you replace god with any other idea when defined in that way. You can replace it with big bang if the turbo slug is too much. The point is the definition of “god” in such an abstract way produces a meaningless concept..

LOL. Your turbo slug sounds like it's made of material! How can something of nature create nature?

Well fortunately empirical procedures and evidence exists and we no longer need rely on vacuous deduction like 400 years ago. If a very basic ontological argument that any 1st year philosophy student can tear down about “gods” existence is the basis for a 1 hour debate you are truly an embarrassment to any real intellectual. You can use deduction to attempt to garner meaning and truth but your conclusions will only be as strong and meaningful as the premises.

Yet WLC continually defeats his opponents. The CPE, this thread has gotten waaay off topic. Hopefully we can one day have a more focused discussion on this but I think this thread has deteriorated much too far.:beer:

 

[TheCPE]

The quantum vacume proposal has no observable evidence to support it.

This isn't true. There are observable quantum fluctuations that support the theory. Is it a complete theory, probably not but it is much more plausible than assuming for no good reason that the universe requires a cause merely because that is a typical way we as humans perceive our world.

I've come to know that I love my wife without using science!

That isn't knowledge at all. That is an emotion.

Yet WLC continually defeats his opponents.

According to whom? His audiences that are assembled in religiously affiliated venues? I've watched about 3 of his debates and from my perspective he presents nothing of substance. He is a professional rhetorician with no scientific background or understanding.

I think this thread has deteriorated much too far.:beer:

Probably.:beer:

 

[96redvette]

Incorrect go bcak and read a histroy book...priests and religous figure didn't do that...that explains everything i need to know about your knowledge on the subject.

When did I say that priests and religious figures did? And how do you explain the similarities between Christ and Horus or mithra?

 

[ANIMOSITY]

If there was a dictionary term named after the title of this thread, your post would be listed as definition number 1. You personify intellectual laziness through trying to compare the creation of a cake to the creation of the universe.

So scientific evidence is out of the window with you, but the entire creation of everything we know is all explained in one book known as the bible? I guess science should give up because the bible had EVERYTHING figured out so long ago.

I still just find it insane that believers say "something can't come from nothing" then how would we get god to begin with if there was nothing? Then they use unfalsifiable and ridiculous arguments.

So then lets use MATH!
Show were, I mean anywhere, that zero plus zero is ANYTHING more then zero! Now I know that also goes to asking where God came from. But how
is your zero plus zero equals gases and such from nowhere Any better then MY"there was a God , and then BANG there was something" ?
Im not saying my belief is anymore plausible then yours, But Im also not on here calling anyone LAZY, As this whole thread started out.

 

[StangsN4x4S]

Our God - Chris Tomlin - Worship Video w/lyrics - YouTube

 

[DaleM]

WOW! This thread has snowballed out of control! lol.

I still control it.

Dale, I never made the claim that man discovered God but it doesn't follow from that that man invented God. I think God revealed himself. But that is off track from the OP.

Your claim is simple science does not invent, man discovers. I claim that man invents. How many gawds and myths of gawds exist? All of them are man's invention.

Red Herring.

How? I am just pointing out the irony, no red herring about it. It is a fact that it is ironic you used lightning as an example.

Your analogy was that electricity was discovered not invented. The man that discovered it made lightning rods. He was demonized for cavorting with the devil.

It took decades before churches realized that lightning was a natural event not of the gawds' displeasure with man. In that time many churches in europe and the US burned to the ground because they were in denial, or the gawds hated them. You decide.