Religion IS crazy!

[SirRumpole]

I also don't think humans existence is "accidental" we are the product of natural selection, which is not a random process, individual genetic mutations may be random, but which mutations survive is not random.

Why should this logical rule of "natural selection" exist in the first place ?

The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!

Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!

Cynic we know what you are doing when you load a question....

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

 

[Value Collector]

Now would you like to provide a valid logical response to the concerns I raised?

As I said I don't agree with the premise for your concerns, Firstly I don't think natural selection is accidental.

and secondly, even if you can describe our origin as accidental, that doesn't mean you throw everything out the window and good and evil don't exist, and we should all suicide.

Perhaps you should explain why a species of animal that has been bred by natural selection to have strong urges to reproduce and survive would be happy to stop reproducing and kill themselves. Your logic just doesn't make sense.

 

[Value Collector]

Why should this logical rule of "natural selection" exist in the first place ?

The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.

Simply because once you have a population of self replicating organisms, the slight variations in the individuals in the population will cause the individuals to survive at different rates. The ones who variations cause them to be better suited to their environment will survive and breed the others will die out.

it would actually be more remarkable if there was no natural selection, because this would mean no variation, and every individual survived at the exact rate, that would never happen.

 

[artist]

The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, the same explanation is the only one which can be offered for the existence of god(s).

Kant wrote that, in the end, the cosmological argument reduces to the ontological argument.

 

[SirRumpole]

Simply because once you have a population of self replicating organisms, the slight variations in the individuals in the population will cause the individuals to survive at different rates. The ones who variations cause them to be better suited to their environment will survive and breed the others will die out.

it would actually be more remarkable if there was no natural selection, because this would mean no variation, and every individual survived at the exact rate, that would never happen.

I found this a fascinating read, not just for the science, but for the exposure of how arrogant mainstream science treats its perceived "heretics" and threatens them, just like religion does.

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm

 

[Value Collector]

mainstream science treats its perceived "heretics" and threatens them, just like religion does.

No they don't, there are thousands of examples where scientists have completely re written the mainstream scientific understanding through new discoveries, I think you would struggle to find a religion that has given up their foundational belief.

Science can be ruthless in throwing out unfounded claims however, and no doubt peoples feelings get hurt, but so what, If you can prove what your saying is true, they can not stop you proving it, the truth doesn't go away, if Galileo hadn't have discovered Jupiter's moons eventually some one else would have.

You could wipe out all the scientific understanding from human history, and slowly it would all creep back, we would re write science and it would be the same facts discovered, If you wiped out religion, religion might regrow, but it would be a whole bunch of different stories, We would get the theory of gravity again, but we wouldn't get the jesus myth again.

 

[SirRumpole]

No they don't, there are thousands of examples where scientists have completely re written the mainstream scientific understanding through new discoveries, I think you would struggle to find a religion that has given up their foundational belief.

People have rewritten scientific laws but when scientists suggest the possibility of intelligent design then you can plainly hear the cries of "witch, witch", even though science cannot explain fundamental ideas of how life arose or how the universe began. If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, but still there is denigration of people for even suggesting the possibility of intelligent design.

 

[artist]

If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, . . .

I doubt you really meant this. Possibly could be expressed better?

 

[SirRumpole]

I doubt you really meant this. Possibly could be expressed better?

Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.

 

[Value Collector]

I am not pushing religion on people, the only reason I mentioned religion being a messenger was because it was brought up about being taught in schools, private schools.
..

And no doubt you want religion in schools to be your religion.

The only way you can stop people learning is banning it, and that's where my post went....

No one is banning religion, as I said I defend your right to have a religion, to have churchs, and sunday schools, you just can't force it on others or try to influence legislation based on it.

Its a pity that VC doesn't extend his gratitude on what built this country, with our Christian Values, how quickly we forget. The rich depth of religion speaks volumes, from music to art to architecture, the list goes on, how much it has contributed in society.

I Have lots of gratitude, Australia is a great country, It's secular based systems is one of the things that make it great. People don't need religion to be good.

What are these "Christian Values" you speak of? I have asked several times and no one seems to answer,

 

[Value Collector]

People have rewritten scientific laws but when scientists suggest the possibility of intelligent design then you can plainly hear the cries of "witch, witch", even though science cannot explain fundamental ideas of how life arose or how the universe began. If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, but still there is denigration of people for even suggesting the possibility of intelligent design.

If some one wants the idea of intelligent design to be accepted by main stream science, They have to be able to prove it. We can not simply accept an idea because we don't know something.

I have been through this with you before, If you don't know something you say "We don't Know" no "We don't know therefore god"

The Intelligent Design movement is full of young earth creationists, who are simply trying to shoe horn their religion into science texts books. The reason they are laughed at is because the things they continually sprout have be refuted a million times.

Their claims are not based on science at all.

Here is a big thing to think about, In the past, thousands of unexplained phenomena were given supernatural explanations, So far, all of the phenomena that have since been explained all have natural causes, so it would seem we should refrain from making up supernatural causes just because things are presently unexplained.

 

[Value Collector]

Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.

Your comparing natural laws with human law code, there is no real comparison.

Obviously human law code is made by humans, But there is no evidence to suggest that the natural laws of the universe required a designer.

And science isn't excluding your hypothesis, its just up to you to prove before it can be included. If we included any crazy hypothesis just because it couldn't be disproven, we would have all sorts of crazy ideas in text books.

 

[SirRumpole]

Obviously human law code is made by humans, But there is no evidence to suggest that the natural laws of the universe required a designer.

You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.

As for young earth creationists, their claims obviously can't be taken seriously but they don't invalidate the entire concept of creationism.

 

[Value Collector]

You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.

Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.

 

[Value Collector]

You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.

Your invoking the god of the gaps here.

God of the gaps explained.

 

[SirRumpole]

Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.

All science has come up with is a lot of hand waving "maybe we'll know one day". Fine, I can live with that. Until we do know, people are entitled to believe what they want. Your belief in the absence of a god is just a belief, not backed up by evidence. My belief in a god is belief not backed up by evidence. What's the difference ?

 

[Value Collector]

Until we do know, people are entitled to believe what they want. ?

Offcourse they are entitled to believe what they want, I have never said they are not. However if they start making positive claims, they should be expected to be asked for evidence, Especially if they are trying to put their unfounded claims into the same category as those backed by scientific evidence, or if they are making other claims about society and morals etc.

Your belief in the absence of a god is just a belief, not backed up by evidence. My belief in a god is belief not backed up by evidence. What's the difference

I have never made a positive claim that "No god exists", I am just unconvinced any do.

However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.

Saying "I don't know", is more intellectually honest, than saying "I don't know, therefore god", that's the basic difference in our points of view.

 

[Value Collector]

Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.

Only in the same way that its a possibility that a large primate lives in the rocky mountains in north America called big foot.

Does this mean we should add Big foot to biology text books, Offcourse not, we must wait for the existence of big foot to be proven before we add it to biology lessons. And the chance that a big foot exists is much more likely than a god, because we already have evidence of primates in other parts of the world, and we have fossilised evidence of other species of extinct hominid creatures, and we find new species of animals all the time.

But even though it is not impossible for bigfoot to exist it would be silly to believe it till its proven and stupid to add it to texts books along side proven mammals.

So when you say we should not discount the god hypothesis, you have to realise that the god claim is far less likely to be true than big foot, and its not even been proven its possible for a god to exist, Its not a 50 / 50 shot, It might be impossible for a god to exist.

 

[cynic]

Cynic we know what you are doing when you load a question....

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Thanks for your input Sir O.

Are you really that certain that you understand me?

Have you so soon forgotten the outcome of our last dialogue? (Or perhaps you didn't recognise it for what it was?)

Sometimes people are fortunate enough to have messages from divinity delivered as gentle whispers (or perhaps even a friendly shot across the bows). Those failing to hear that which is whispered risk having the message repeated at greater and greater volumes until it becomes an overpowering SHOUT!!!