A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
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:
-
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.
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
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.
The problem is, your post highlights a common criticism of secular arguments, i.e. implying that the evidence required for an all-powerful supernatural being is comparably similar to something as mundane as the evidence required for sexual attraction. There - I've taken the humourless approach. ;P
-
Christian Graus wrote:
therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
With infinite number of planets it's guaranteed that there is a planet with intelligent life which has another Christian Graus, but unlike Earth's CG, alien one is capable of using computers.
oooh, bitchy! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've pointed out many times what the Bible says
Not in this thread, or at least I don't see it, and I'll be posting in the soapbox I guess.
-
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Nazi's
We could talk about your Hitleresque misuse of the possessive case.
-
My original title was for a scientific not philosophial discussion, I bet we talk about Nazi's soon ! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Well, you don't believe in God, so you're obviously a Nazi. Does that do it ? ( Actually, Hitler thought he was doing God's work, but, that would kill the joke )
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?
Because you're not saying that, at all. you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
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:
I've pointed out many times what the Bible says
Not in this thread, or at least I don't see it, and I'll be posting in the soapbox I guess.
No, I would always go that far only in the soapbox.
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:
This is pointless, as always. My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views. Wrapping it up in claims of scientific integrity is dishonest, and unscientific.
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.
-
Because you're not saying that, at all. you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
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:
you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
When did I say that? You'll have to explicitly point it out to me.
-
This is pointless, as always. My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views. Wrapping it up in claims of scientific integrity is dishonest, and unscientific.
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:
This is pointless, as always.
I'm just trying to understand what you think 'sceptic' actually means.
Christian Graus wrote:
My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views.
What a cop-out. When have you ever seriously challenged my views with something tangible?
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
I think that the Universe is filled with living beings other than ourselves. They are (wisely) dodging us, and are smart enough to avoid discovery for at least several more lifetimes. No doubt their equivalent of teenagers find the urge to occasionally buzz the yokels here irresistible, which explains UFO sightings, but they eventually grow up and become responsible beings, just like ours do. Well, most of them.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
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..
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
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.
So why couldnt god have created life elsewhere in the solar system? After all, he created it at the south pole. It took man a few millenia to find out. Or is it that you think that gods only interest is man? In that case do you hold the view that all other life is there to serve man? If so then how do you tally that view with the statement in the gospels about those who show compassion for gods littlest creatures? You therefore have to accept that god does care about all likfe and that he equally might have created it in any number of places in the universe. Unless you take the view that the earth is gods domainm and that other planets are the domain of other gods. In which case god isnt infinite.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription