A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Christian Graus wrote:
doesn't mean I don't believe in some forms of evolution, that is, the ones that are provable and visibly occur.
So called 'macroevolution' follows inevitably from 'microevolution', and it is readily demonstrable.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is, if someone comes along and presents a God that fits with what you think would be reasonable, that you'd have no choice but to accept it.
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not really. I am saying you need to be open to the possibility, sure.
I am open to the possibility.
Christian Graus wrote:
The non existence of a God who does things by your agenda, or mine, is not the same as there not being any God at all.
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist - I'm saying that belief without good evidence is irrational.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
belief without good evidence is irrational.
Belief: I believe that Salma Hayek would make tonight a spectacular one for me. Good evidence: I can't gather it since the judge signed the restraining order. Question: Does this mean that my belief in the wonder of Salma Hayek is irrational?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
The "pain and suffering" argument has never been a good one for there being no god. The question is whether it's reasonable or not to believe in god, since god is essentially unfalsifiable, and I maintain that it isn't. The choice is apparently whether or not to believe in an undetectable entity that chooses to conduct its affairs only in ways that don't require its existence.
As I mentioned before, the argument made me remember about this mail and so I posted it. By the way, I am also a firm believer of Science and don't believe anything illogical. But I do believe that there is some power governing the universe and I call that power "THE GOD".
..Go Green..
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Yes. The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm saying that belief without good evidence is irrational.
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
No and no. The Greatest Discovery Ever will be finding intelligent life right here on planet earth. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
No and no. The Greatest Discovery Ever will be finding intelligent life right here on planet earth in the programming forums.
FTFY
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
belief without good evidence is irrational.
Belief: I believe that Salma Hayek would make tonight a spectacular one for me. Good evidence: I can't gather it since the judge signed the restraining order. Question: Does this mean that my belief in the wonder of Salma Hayek is irrational?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
-
I agree - it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to. But, it's just human nature, I guess. Like I said, the guy who runs the magazine of the skeptics association ( and I'm not claiming that skeptics are an organised body ), is very fair and reasonable, I've been reading his books and enjoying them, even when I disagree. But a lot of people just seem to take the most basic position, and a basic understanding of Occam's Razor, and they wield it to support their own views, often irrationally.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to
What standards? :confused:
-
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
Take your pick. I really don't care whether or not your reply is humorous. We've strayed into religion into the Lounge, and that's something that should normally be avoided.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
Yes, and you can feel good that people vote you a 5 for saying it - rejection of God based on refusing to investigate is, after all, what most people do. But, don't tell me you're open to being proven wrong and I am not, that's just plainly not true. I read books on evolution, and have changed some of my views. When did you last read the Bible ? You're welcome to your beliefs, and I respect your right to hold them. Just don't make the mistake of trying to take the high moral ground on this.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Yes. The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
-
I upvoted you. Not because I agree, but because I respect your right to have a contrary opinion to me. That others downvoted rather than argue seem a little unfair, so have a bonus upvote! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
What exactly is this personal proof that you keep promising but have so far failed to deliver?
ROTFL - I've not failed at all. I've pointed out many times what the Bible says, and those who choose to mock me, have refused to remotely consider or investigate my claims. But, Pete is right, I've tried to answer on this thread without getting too close to the soapbox, and my answer is definitely soap box material. Ask me there ( soapbox 2.0, I guess ), and I'll happily answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Where did you get this from?
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to
What standards? :confused:
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Where did you get this from?
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
I'm saying that I need evidence that he exists before I'll believe that he exists. How is this in any way saying that god doesn't exist?
-
ROTFL - I've not failed at all. I've pointed out many times what the Bible says, and those who choose to mock me, have refused to remotely consider or investigate my claims. But, Pete is right, I've tried to answer on this thread without getting too close to the soapbox, and my answer is definitely soap box material. Ask me there ( soapbox 2.0, I guess ), and I'll happily answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Uh, so someone who questions another's beliefs has no integrity, honesty, openness or scientific reasoning? :confused: