Why I believe in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are.

---

:rolleyes:

This is the conspiracy-theorist's stock in trade, concentrating on a list of perceived anomalies in a coherent model instead of proposing one of his own. Do you think it's merely coincidental that we're never allowed to consider the "gaps" in creationism, or gauge its statistical unlikelihood?

This is never a matter of someone actually wanting to learn. It's just the scattershot denials of someone with a bad science education and an axe to grind. If you address every point the denier makes, he'll welcome every one of your patient, rational responses by sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I can't hear you la la la!

Anyone want to make a bet?

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

---

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

---

No this was a prediction made by evolutionary theory far before we ever had the ability to understand the process at a genetic and molecular level. It strengthens the evolutionary theory that the more we learn about biological processes the more supported the theory is.

I don't see how you can't see that conclusion as plain evident. If the two species at the extremes of the "ring", which is more like a horseshoe, are not able to breed with each other, but still have gene flow between each other because of interbreeding along the ring. Then these two populations of salamander on the extremes are at the cusp of being separate species, if you cut off the gene flow between them, they would have nothing to relate them except ancestry.

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

---

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them. Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter? If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them.

- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter?

Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

---

- Laws of science - well described. We are just schoolboys. Also predictions will base in trust of laws and solid patterns, which will appear all around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

---

Very well. You keep your humility and we will keep our anti-biotics, modern medicine, etc.

Quote:

---

- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

---

That's your assumption. You may have it.

Quote:

---

Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

---

I don't see how this has any relation to the point I was making. Besides, that Einstein quote was in reference to his disagreement with quantum theory. Turns out he was wrong.

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

---

Oh Daniel, I wasn't just appealing to any authority to defend my argument. Between this thread and others I' laid out what the correct Intelligent Design argument is. I appealed to Einstein and Newton only because the dope I was arguing with had an implicint appeal to his authority: "From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical" and "that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times." That's his indirect way to appeal to authority. I was refuting (after I had already laid out my argument) with other authority. The point being that there is no consensus.

Quote:

---

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

---

I don't know what you're referring to. I believe in evolution and I said so many times.

Quote:

---

Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I saw it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the existence of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is perceivable through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the cause of the revelation a priori. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire is there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause.

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.

---

Oh Daniel, you didn't understand. I wasn't using the tripping as an analogy to proving God. I was using it to show the fallacy of the dope's claim that I was fallacious to "affirming the consequence." Affirming the consequence is used all the time. It is not fallacious. In fact I would say all scientific discoveries are in essence affirming the consequence. The scientific method is affirming the consequence. In fact that is how Darwin supports the theory of evolution, by observing the consequence and building an argument on how the consequence occured.

I'm am out of here.

My dearest friend Virgil,

I'm not sure what problem you have with your Internet connection, but you must not have seen the part of my post where I explicitly explained the logical and methodological flaws in the Argument from Design. To reiterate, you can't use your conclusion to validate your major premise. It's not at all an appeal to authority.

But, no matter. You have seen fit to move on to your other favorite logical constructs such as the Appeal to Arrogance and the Argument from Unprovoked Personal Abuse. I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.

---

In the interests of your emotional health, I wish you would avoid taking part in discussions wherein you seem unable to control your temper.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

---

Charles Darwin discovered that on the Galapagos Islands, different islands had different birds; some islands featured birds with smaller beaks, some with larger, some with sharper talons, some with different mating calls. The species different in correlation with different topography. Over the 5-ish years spent observing the finches, Darwin realized that the finches changed over time--natural selection. As a previous poster said, the distance between islands ultimately led to different species.

If you choose to view this as myth or some "non-scientific study" feel free to do so. I won't blame you for adhering to ignorant dogma. I'll just consider you delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

---

You're right; science doesn't learn. But the scientists that perpetuate and augment scientific theories do. Hardly any study found in science is catered to the topic of evolution just as any hardly any other finding on lung cancer is catered to cigarette smoke (for there are other causes). But if you want to consider science as some blasphemous, irrelevant field of study while your "beliefs" are superior, by all means, do so. Just understand that I'm allergic to illogicality and ignorance.

:puke:

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

---

Great comments!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

---

Besides the fact that you're misquoting Einstein, who was speaking of his disbelief in the probabilistic nature of quantum physics, and the fact that Einstein was wrong on this one.

Order appears spontaneously all the time. Snowflakes form spontaneously and are highly ordered structures, as are claybeds, rock strata, whirlpools, etc.

The analogy of man made objects is a false analogy. As to moons and stars being more accurate than wristwatches... Well that's just silly. Time first of all is relative based on the velocity you are traveling at. If you're traveling at the speed of light time for you would progress slower than it would be for us here on Earth. Although, you wouldn't notice because it is relative, time would progress relatively slower for you, but for you on the spaceship traveling at light speed it would feel normal.

Also, days, minutes, and seconds are man made concepts for measuring time, and I don't see how you think stars and moons measure time... I could arbitrarily decide that a minute is 75 seconds and then that would make every hour 48 minutes, my system of time measurement would be just as consistent as yours, I would just have to make a second mean a different measurement of time. If I were on Mars the moons would pass several times in an "Earth day", but a Mars year would be several Earth years.

The problem with science is that it moves at an incredibly fast and increasing rate, almost everyday discoveries are made that correct previous assumptions. What people learn in their physics or chemistry class in high school is almost always outdated. Only if you are a scientist yourself in a particular field is it possible to be on the cutting edge. As such people tend to stick with what they know of science and disregard it subsequently as not fitting their own view of the universe, nature or whatever you want to call it.

Comprehending science is not easy, and sometimes it is easier to simply belief in 'something', many people say they belief in science, but what they really are saying is that science is their new religion. This is more or less equal to believing in God, which was the explanation given to natural phenomena in times when science wasn't advanced enough to explain them. The idea of God stuck and evolved only slightly from a natural phenomena to for example an entity that created and or controls nature/ and now people are taught that God exist, much the same way nowadays people belief that what science says is always true. The skeptic and other critical thinkers understand that nothing is certain, but that we can assume certain aspects of science, such as evolution to be accurate based on empirical evidence, even though it can always benefit from further evidence.

I do not want to deny anyone the right to belief what they want, but I do wish to encourage critical thinking, and as such I will always question their belief, as I do my own convictions, I have yet to hear a reasonable, critical explanation for the belief in a God such as the Judeo-Christian God of the bible and Torah. I recognize that people can find strength in their beliefs. What I regret is that they do not realize that the strength is already there in their own personality/existence without the need of a God or other superior being to guide them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JommiL

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

---

By the way, that's exactly what suggests that the process by which Nature got that way is quite different than the process by which man creates, i.e. intelligent design.

Regards,

Istvan