TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Then bigfoot spotters are evidence of bigfoot, tom cruise is evidence of inner thetans and alien abductees are evidence of alien abductions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Examining the evidence there is of God
Then bigfoot spotters are evidence of bigfoot, tom cruise is evidence of inner thetans and alien abductees are evidence of alien abductions.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Things don't happen without a reason .. and neither does anything evolve without a reason.
Not at all. I’m just saying that biological evolution was ‘programmed’ to develop in a certain manner much like computer software is programmed to run an operating system.
I don’t consider human life to be based upon randomness but upon order.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Biochemistry is like a giant chemical chain reaction.
No intelligence is involved.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sure. But that reason need not be one of intent and planning and purpose.
The reason living things evolve, is because living things reproduce with variation and are in competition with one another over limited resources.
That's all. Humans weren't "intended" to exist. Neither was any other species.
If I get handed a full house in a game of poker, there is a "reason" as well. And that reason is that the deck just happened to be shuffled that way and that the manner of dealing just made me end up with those cards.
It wasn't "planned" that I received a full house.
The deck might have been stacked, sure. But there's no reason to think so from the mere fact that I had a full-house. I might as well have had some other hand. Which might have even been better, in fact.
Again, the reason things evolve is no more or less then the selection pressures at any given time and the fact that things reproduce with variation and competition.
That's what steers it. There's no planning, intent or agency involved.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That makes no sense at all, in context of how evolution actually works.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In other words: you believe such because you believe such
It doesn’t have a Will of its own yet somehow it is able to create intelligent life.
I can’t accept life evolved by chance and randomness. To me that’s very superstitious.
Not at all. I’m watching tv now. It got there by itself? It’s common sense that the world, universe and human life didn’t just happen by itself. Sure it evolved but according to biological instructions.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
That makes no sense to me.
This universe cannot be one gigantic, cosmic accident.
Our conscience knows better than that. Things have more meaning than that.
..but that only explains how things evolve, and not why?
That's ridiculous.
We get "a speck" that expands in the big-bang, and it "just happens" to end up as it has.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
This is based on science. If we take a fertilized ovum, from any animal, to form a viable multicellular life form, that simple beginning has to systematically go through repeatable stages of building, that will be the same in all members of the same species. Many will even cross all species. Random would lead to mostly death and mutants. The latter is not observed as the majority of the data.
If you have taken any biology course, all the students can learn the same things because there is order. If it was random, no two people could learn the same thing.
Random is useful as a possible explanation for the changes needed for the theory of evolution. However, most of the random defects, require medical treatment in all stage of development. The healthy animal is based on order being followed.
The Atheist seem so used to repeating the party line, they have stop thinking. Even if we assume random for species changes, once this change is set in stone; new species, life defaults to repeatable ordering since this promotes the best health and viability outcomes. We go to the doctor when order is upset by any number of internal and external perturbations that start randomizing; bacteria, virus, cancer, bone break, etc.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ella S.
*temp banned*
The post you're responding to doesn't even use proper syllogistic format, but is an intentional example of a non sequitur, which is a formal fallacy.
Even if the second premise could be demonstrated to be true, the conclusion still doesn't follow. At best, it equates "thinger" with "God," when you would need an entirely separate argument for that.
However, the second premise is completely unsubstantiated. Does morality really need a moral law giver? Does the appearance of design really need a designer? Does beauty in nature really need a cosmic artist? Does causality itself need a cause?
This is the trick every proof of God uses. They sneak the necessity of God into the second premise, then conclude that God exists.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
1. argument from incredulity
2. evolution isn't a random process because it's driven by non-random selection pressures.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sure it is. It's what you believe religiously and you validate that belief through confirmation bias.
So you believe what you believe because you already believe it.
This is the equivalent of the fallacious argument of the watchmaker.
Pure PRATT.
TV's aren't natural objects.
It didn't happen "by itself".
It happened through evolution.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
Ah, the old "you have to be evil to think I'm wrong."
What a ridiculous self-aggrandizement! And you call atheists prideful? He who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?
The best evidence for God you can muster is an Ad Hominem. Astounding.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is a combination of two fallacies.
A teleological one and an argument from incredulity.
This is like the analogy of two frogs sitting by a random pond and one saying to the other "look at how perfect this pond is for us to live... surely it was made specifically for us to live here"
When you ask "why", you really mean "how".
"why did the window glass break"
"because it was hit by a falling rock".
why = how.
If you mean "why" in the sense of some kind of intent purpose, then you are really just asking a loaded question.
It's what the evidence of reality tells us.
We get "a speck" that expands in the big-bang, and it "just happens" to end up as it has.
Why would that be "ridiculous"?
It really does look as if you a fallacious teleological fallacy sits at the bottom of your thinking.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Chemical chain reactions aren't random. And I didn't claim they were either.
No. Most of the random variation in genetics, makes no difference at all to fitness.
Some are harmful to fitness and some are beneficial.
Selection pressures weed out the harmful and select for the beneficial while the neutral will piggy back on them.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
In fact, the majority of christians have no problems at all with evolution.
So not sure why you try to imply otherwise. Or why you capitalized "atheist" actually.
It seems to me that you didn't really understand what was being discussed.
You seem under the impression that I said that biological processes are always completely random.
This is ridiculously false.
I never said such. Biochemical reactions aren't random. In fact, they are pretty deterministic - which is the opposite of random.