Upload
Login or register
Highest Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
✖ Too many comments. Images disabled to prevent lag.
Latest users (4): iphraem, platinumaltaria, thumbfortrump, whoozy, anonymous(1).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#127826 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Honestly the most convincing argument for me that some-kind of creator exists I'll define creator as anything beyond our current material universe is the first-cause argument. I haven't seen anyone be able to remotely poke holes into it, except for retards that refuse to admit that God doesn't have a beginning of its existence. whoozy

The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence.

The theist’s position is that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence. Nothing comes from nothing.

-lulz
#128191 to #127826 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
The first cause argument is for people who don't grasp simple rules of physics.
You think of time as something linear, and that Newton's laws apply. As you say:
"If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence."

The thing is that time, alongside with matter and the laws of physics, did not exist before the big bang. There was nothing, absolutely nothing but a singularity. To speculate where it came from, why it was there, and how long it was there, is simply ridiculous. Why?
Because then you are applying rules to it that didn't exist until after the Big Bang.
The cause argument therefore falls completely apart.
#128663 to #128191 - anon
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
...no it doesn't. You wrote a bunch of obvious crap that everyone knew and assumed it was proof even though it has nothing to do with the philosophical question, matters of creation are not bound to time. Just because time and matter didn't exist doesn't mean a creator could not have existed, I have no idea where you were going with this.

Please try to explain better. Also I would embarrass you in a debate of physics as I used to be one of those "I'm gonna be a nobel prize winner in physics one day" type of people.
-lulz
#128759 to #128663 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
My point is that even if we assumed there was a creator it is stupid to try to define him, as we cannot help but apply the laws of physics to him.
Now, I am not saying there couldn't be a creator, as it's impossible for me to prove there wasn't. But scientifically, it is simply meaningless to wonder about. I might as well be a donkey who shat out the planets and stars after a spicy burrito. Why? Because it is just as likely a story as an unknown creator weaving together the fabrics of time and space.
Even from a philosophical standpoint it is a pointless project.

I also don't understand that every time I reply to your comments, I get something along the lines "im better at this" or "I like this more". I must say that I find it strange that you on one hand claim to be a physicist prodigy, and on the other hand would find an argument such as 'the first cause' so compelling
#128761 to #128759 - anon
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
"My point is that even if we assumed there was a creator it is stupid to try to define him, as we cannot help but apply the laws of physics to him.
Now, I am not saying there couldn't be a creator, as it's impossible for me to prove there wasn't. But scientifically, it is simply meaningless to wonder about. I might as well be a donkey who shat out the planets and stars after a spicy burrito. Why? Because it is just as likely a story as an unknown creator weaving together the fabrics of time and space.
Even from a philosophical standpoint it is a pointless project. "

Completely agree, you're talking to an agnostic theist.

"I must say that I find it strange that you on one hand claim to be a physicist prodigy, and on the other hand would find an argument such as 'the first cause' so compelling"

Le strawman, and then assumptions without argument.
#127985 to #127826 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
If you look at the original argument by Aristotle he established the premise that everything has a cause by explaining that if there was a time when x didn't exist there must have been a cause which took it from non existence to existence. So we know something has a cause because there was a time when it didn't exist.

Is there a time when the universe didn't exist? most scientists think time started at the big bang and to assume an entire state of time and space outside of the universe is an unsupported assumption.
#127859 to #127826 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
We've heard this like 6 million times. Jesus. It's a shit argument and you're not highly above average intelligence if you think this is a good argument
#127878 to #127859 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
log in caette
#127846 to #127826 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"Everything follows my made up rules except this thing I made up"
#127848 to #127846 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
biggest strawman of all time
#127849 to #127848 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Not really.
#127850 to #127849 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i know you understand the argument better than that so you're being dishonest
#127854 to #127850 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
His argument is that everything has a first cause except god. No real reason why that is.
#127868 to #127854 - anon
Reply +1
(01/29/2016) [-]
...that's the whole point of God. That is literally his defining characteristic. Congrats on your non-argument, how foolish do you have to be to apply material principles to a God...?
-lulz
#127869 to #127868 - theism
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
"My made up thing is logically inconsistent so it's ok for it to be logically inconsistent"
#127873 to #127869 - anon
Reply +1
(01/29/2016) [-]
How is it logically inconsistent? Do you imagine a creator as some bi-polar guy with a beard or as his literal defining characteristics in a deistic sense?

As to say that we know he created the universe - therefore he is beyond our material presence and beyond time and space. Nothing else is assumed. It is pretty logically consistent.
#127986 to #127873 - theism
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
"Everything follows my made up rule except the thing I made up. The thing I made up would be even more ridiculous if it had to follow my made up rule so obviously it doesn't and exists"
-Worst argument 2016. Fucking fight me lulz.
#128664 to #127986 - anon
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
I literally don't understand what you wrote and how it applies to me, might wanna explain it better.
#128666 to #128664 - theism
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
"I made up a set of rules the world has to follow because I said so. This other thing I made up doesn't have to follow my made up rules because then it makes even less sense."
#128762 to #128666 - anon
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
...I still don't really get it. Your strawman argument doesn't even make sense. Actually explain it please.
#128764 to #128762 - theism
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
"I made up a rule that says the world has to be created and it's true because I said so. I made up a thing that made the world that doesn't have to follow my made up rules because that would make my made up thing even dumber. When you point out how stupid all this sounds I get very upset, please be nice to me.
#128996 to #128764 - anon
Reply 0
(02/02/2016) [-]
"everything that has a beginning of existence has been created by something, except for the universe. just created out of nowhere from nothing at all"
#128998 to #128996 - theism
Reply 0
(02/02/2016) [-]
You still think the universe had to have been created.
#129003 to #128998 - anon
Reply 0
(02/02/2016) [-]
You still think the universe didn't have to be created.
#129004 to #129003 - theism
Reply 0
(02/02/2016) [-]
Prove it did.
#128995 to #128764 - anon
Reply 0
(02/02/2016) [-]
oh...so your argument is "i find the concept absurd". oh well thats a respectable opinion but a non-argument.
#127833 to #127826 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I fully realise that you claim God is infinite, however that doesn't solve the problem you're trying to answer. As I've told you a billion time it's the same as claiming the universe is an infinite cycle. If God is infinite there is no beginning. Just like the infinite cycle.

"Nothing comes from nothing (exept God appereantly)"
- Lulz 2016
#127857 to #127833 - caette
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
yeah. this argument presupposes that the universe actually did begin at one point.
#127834 to #127833 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
> it's the same as claiming the universe is an infinite cycle. If God is infinite there is no beginning. Just like the infinite cycle.

there are no actual infinities. there can't be an infinite number of objects or in this case, past events. Hilbert's hotel paradox demonstrates this
The paradox does not arise with respect to God because God is spaceless, timeless, and non physical
#127836 to #127835 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
how does that escape the paradox described by Hilbert's hotel?

also there's many scientific problems with these sorts of models
the Ekpyrotic cylic model is entire speculative, and it's based on a misrepresentation of string theory(which i dont subscribe to btw)
the classic oscillating model is refuted by Hawking's singularity theorems. modern science goes actually goes against your beliefs and supports mine on this subject...and every other subject
#127839 to #127836 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
The reason these sort of models are problematic is because they are hypotheses. They're mere speculation until proven (which wont happen for the next 2 billion years).

Your answer to this question isn't an answer. You and lulz are telling us that everything has a cause and that nothing can come from nothing. Then you insert a subject (God) that breaks this rule and claim you don't have to abide by your own rule "cuz God did it". You don't follow your own premise and while claiming that we need to. Everyone sees through this. It's an argument I'd expect from a juvenile.


"Modern science supports me on this and every other subject"
What a joke.
#127870 to #127839 - anon
Reply +1
(01/29/2016) [-]
www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html

You are trying to apply material principles to a God/creator, that is retarded. The whole point of fitting God into the equation is that he fills the beginner role. He IS the beginner, you cannot argue against this - it is his defining characteristic. He is above the characteristic known as time.
-lulz
#127970 to #127870 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
How many times are you going to repeat the same argument? Literally everyone understands your point. It's just that it's a really bad argument.

Try to pay attention next time.
#127978 to #127970 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
the argument is both valid and sound.
your problem with it is that you think the conclusion doesn't imply God. even if it failed to prove the cause must have every single property of God, what kind of atheist would you be if you accepted a non-physical, timeless, eternal agent as the cause of the universe? the argument proves the cause must have these properties
#127980 to #127978 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
The "argument" proves nothing. It's mere speculation and a rival to multiple other theories out there. Like the cyclical theory

*sigh* This is becoming mere repetition. When people give me definitions I have to follow while rejecting to follow their own definitions the debate becomes meaningless. It's essentially limiting the arguments of your oppoment while giving yourself absolute freedom. It's like we're discussing physics and your ultimate answer is: "Its magic I ain't gotta explain shit"

It's such a silly discussion. You're essentially saying that something physical has to be created by something non-physical and that this non-physical has always been (for some reason). It's an absurd assumption.

We do not have an answer for our beginning. We don't even know if there is a beginning or an end.
All we know is that we are.

You can either accept that or find your own answer to compensate for our lack of knowledge.
I for one am tired of repeating myself.
#127983 to #127980 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
you know that ALL definitions are arbitrary right? the meanings we assign to words are not based on some intrinsic property of the word. as long as my definitions our consistent, there's no problem here.

>You're essentially saying that something physical has to be created by something non-physical

you complain of having to repeat yourself, well i've had to continually repeat this- nothing physical existed prior to the universe, therefore its cause must have been physical.

>non-physical has always been (for some reason). It's an absurd assumption.

if one cause wasn't eternal, there'd have to be an infinite number of past causes
#127988 to #127983 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
An infinite number of causes pretty much is the cyclical argument. It also makes the non-physical redundant.

If you don't like that concept, Hawkings has a different one involving matter and anti-matter.

"you complain of having to repeat yourself, well i've had to continually repeat this- nothing physical existed prior to the universe, therefore its cause must have been physical."

I know you've repeated it. And I've repeatedly rejected it. You don't know what existed before the universe. You put a lot of weight on the "something can't come from nothing" argument which Hawkings reject by the way. As far as I'm aware something physical can't come from something non-physical either.
#127991 to #127988 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
>It also makes the non-physical redundant.

you cannot escape the fact that an infinite number of past events is impossible. you can't traverse an infinite

> You don't know what existed before the universe.

remember i'm using the philosophical definition? i can know certain properties of whatever existed before the universe using deductive reasoning.

>As far as I'm aware something physical can't come from something non-physical either.

but there's no logical contradiction with this concept
#127999 to #127991 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
"you cannot escape the fact that an infinite number of past events is impossible. you can't traverse an infinite"

It's about as impossible as your infinite God. This is what happens when you make infinite the answer to something finite.

"remember i'm using the philosophical definition? i can know certain properties of whatever existed before the universe using deductive reasoning."

Actually you technically can't. We know absolutely nothing outside the physical world. We can only make a guess based on what makes sense in the physical world.

"but there's no logical contradiction with this concept"

The logical contradiction is that non-physical is nothing. You're arguing that something "the physical" come from nothing "the non physical".
#128196 to #127999 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/30/2016) [-]
>It's about as impossible as your infinite God

no because God is not made of physical parts. there's nothing wrong with the concept of a non-physical being having infinite properties

>We know absolutely nothing outside the physical world.

anything outside the physical world is necessarily non-physical. why aren't you seeing this?

>The logical contradiction is that non-physical is nothing.

it exists in a different category of existence. it's not nothing if it has properties. if it has properties that allow it to cause physical things to begin existing, there's no contradiction here
#127841 to #127839 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
so don't pretend like they're plausible explanations

>Your answer to this question isn't an answer. You and lulz are telling us that everything has a cause and that nothing can come from nothing. Then you insert a subject (God) that breaks this rule and claim you don't have to abide by your own rule "cuz God did it".

the Kalam argument doesn't just assume that the cause of the universe(God) has the properties i've described. it's not special pleading as many people say. the argument demonstrates why the cause must have these properties. its conclusion necessitates these properties.
a physical cause can't be the origin of physical reality. space, mattera and time didn't exist before the universe, so it follows that the creator of these things must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial. are you getting this now?
#127840 to #127839 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127843 to #127840 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
They're about as plausible as yours. We can't answer this question so we speculate. Isn't that humanity's biggest questions? Why are we here? What's the meaning of life?

This is another hypothesis out of many. There are many voices of authority in this field. It makes an assumption based on premises and avoids following said premises by inserting a being that breaks the laws hes given to everything else (God). The same cheap cop-out argument you advocate for.

In addition to making an assumption he can't justify within the laws of nature the other problem with this particular hypothesis is that it fails to conclude that theres a single creator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

"It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."

These are your premises:

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2 The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3 The universe has a cause


1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

I underlined the part of the argument that's mere assumption (or speculation).



#127844 to #127843 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
>avoids following said premises by inserting a being that breaks the laws hes given to everything else (God). The same cheap cop-out argument you advocate for.

As i've said, the argument necessitates a cause with the properties i described.

>universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

these properties necessarily follow from the argument because i'm using the philosophical definition of "universe"- all of physical reality
the cause cannot have properties of space, time and matter because there was no space time and matter prior to the universe
the cause must be an agent capable of freewill because if the conditions necessary to form the universe always existed, changelessly, then the universe would be co-extensive with these conditions
#127845 to #127844 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"As i've said, the argument necessitates a cause with the properties i described."

I'm afraid not
Theres many different theories out there. We simply cannot answer this question with certainty any time soon. We're not even close.

"these properties necessarily follow from the argument because i'm using the philosophical definition of "universe"- all of physical reality
the cause cannot have properties of space, time and matter because there was no space time and matter prior to the universe
the cause must be an agent capable of free will because if the conditions necessary to form the universe always existed, changelessly, then the universe would be co-extensive with these conditions"

Firstly: The absence of space, time and matter as we know it does NOT = God. That's an Assumption.
Secondly: Cyclical theories present an alternate equally pausible theory
Thirdly: Your theory assumes theres 1 God while failing to demonstrate this.
#127847 to #127845 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
What other object or cause could have these properties(timelessness, spacelessness etc)? an abstract object couldn't have caused the universe

>Cyclical theories present an alternate equally pausible theory
there not supported by the latest science

>Your theory assumes theres 1 God while failing to demonstrate this.
Occam's razor
#127851 to #127847 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"What other object or cause could have these properties(timelessness, spacelessness etc)? an abstract object couldn't have caused the universe!"

Object? Who said it had to be an object. I can't give you a definitive answer. If I could I'd be famous by now. If you're asking for belief I believe in the cyclical theories as a plausible explanation out of many.

"There not supported by the latest science"
What latest science? Your theory is more dated than mine.

"Occam's razor"
Hitchens's razor

#127853 to #127851 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i won't be able to respond for a while- familial obligations
#127856 to #127853 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
See you soon!
#127852 to #127851 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
the properties of the cause necessitated by the argument fit the description of God. God is the best explanation because it fits the description most accurately.

>What latest science?
i explained how cyclic models do not fit current evidence

>Hitchens's razor
the evidence is that God is the only thing that fits the description of the cause
#127855 to #127852 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"The properties of the cause necessitated by the argument fit the description of God. God is the best explanation because it fits the description most accurately."

Actually God avoids the description all together. This description simply makes creation impossible while at the same time creating a being that ignores it's own premise. It's quite amusing actually.

"I explained how cyclic models do not fit current evidence"
No you didn't. You claimed it was a misrepresantation of string theory with no other source or argument to back it up. What? You thought I were going to just agree with that?

"the evidence is that God is the only thing that fits the description of the cause"
In that case I don't think you know what evidence means.

#127877 to #127855 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/29/2016) [-]
>This description simply makes creation impossible

is your claim that creation ex nihilo is impossible?

>while at the same time creating a being that ignores it's own premise

the premises apply to material things. there's no contradiction here

>You claimed it was a misrepresantation of string theory with no other source or argument to back it up

I feel like there's a shift in the burden of proof here. Show me support for the cyclic model you subscribe to

>In that case I don't think you know what evidence means.

do you think that scientific evidence is the only valid form of evidence?
#127837 to #127836 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
entirely*
#127831 to #127826 - caette
Reply +2
(01/28/2016) [-]
except god, right? that's the exception to the rule, otherwise your belief would fall apart, right?
#127830 to #127826 - caette
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127821 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
fiction plz
#127824 to #127821 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
#127827 to #127824 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
y u do dis
#127832 to #127827 - caette
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
its ok, the bible is fiction too.
#127838 to #127832 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
fuck you
#127842 to #127838 - caette
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
wtf?
#127828 to #127827 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Because it's a joke
#127829 to #127828 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
u bk stab shit
#127825 to #127824 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
cold az fuck
#127773 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
oh god what happened here. im afraid to read
#127778 to #127773 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
zlane is a creepy motherfucker.
#127790 to #127778 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
how could you say that? i've shown you nothing but respect and kindness
#127791 to #127790 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Because I don't want you to track me down and murder me.
#127793 to #127791 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
...what?
#127795 to #127793 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
lol
#127779 to #127778 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
and you are an abomination bastard
#127780 to #127779 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I can be whatever you want me to be.
#127781 to #127780 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i demand you go throw yourself from the golden gate bridge
#127783 to #127781 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
kinky
#127784 to #127783 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
oh yes kinky
#127786 to #127784 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
ya freak bitch
#127733 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
zlane pick your favorite argument for the existence of god.
#127808 to #127733 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
ex nihilo creation by an efficient cause seems more likely to me than what you're proposing.
#127809 to #127808 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Why?
#127810 to #127809 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
your claims contradict known scientific information
#127811 to #127810 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Which information?
#127812 to #127811 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i'm pretty sure that it's physically impossible for matter to exist in the state you described
#127813 to #127812 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Based on?
#127814 to #127813 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i'll do some research
#127776 to #127733 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127777 to #127776 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
The theory of relativity states that time moves more slowly for a fast moving observer, therefore a stationary observer would experience time at the quickest possible rate.
#127782 to #127777 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i haven't done the necessary research to talk about the theory of relativity

how could matter exist eternally and changelessly, and then suddenly form the universe? what was the cause? the cause must have been immaterial
#127785 to #127782 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
When it was stationary, in it's reference frame the time pre entropy appeared to be infinite.
#127788 to #127785 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
there's no conceivable natural explanation that could account for the origin of the universe even assuming that matter could be timeless. and that assumption is totally unjustified. we have no experience of timeless matter. we've only ever observed space time and matter together. i don't see any evidence that these things could exist separately in any configuration.
#127789 to #127788 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
So if you've never observed something you can't assume it to be possible?
#127792 to #127789 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
if it can't be observed its not scientific
#127794 to #127792 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
And this applies to ANYTHING?
#127796 to #127794 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
what are you trying to say
#127797 to #127796 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Does it apply to ex nihilo creation?
#127798 to #127797 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
no it only applies to scientific claims
#127799 to #127798 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Bit of a double standard there.
#127800 to #127799 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
but there's a big difference between scientific and metaphysical claims
#127801 to #127800 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Which is?
#127802 to #127801 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
look up the wikipedia article on metaphysics
#127803 to #127802 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Why can't you explain it?
#127804 to #127803 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
metaphysics explores the foundational aspects of objects, space and time. it describes these things on a logical basis rather than an observational basis
#127805 to #127804 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
If a metaphysical claim is weighted less than a scientific one is it not inherently weaker?
#127806 to #127805 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
depends on what the claim is
#127807 to #127806 - theism
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
In this case I'd say ex nihilo is a pretty weak claim.
#127734 to #127733 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i usually go with the kalam cosmological argument since it's very powerful and accessible

this could turn into a very long discussion
#127735 to #127734 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Lay out the premises as you understand them.
#127755 to #127735 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i'm defining "universe" in the philosophical sense- all of physical reality.
if there's a multiverse you have to explain its origin
#127756 to #127755 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Let me rephrase it then, why must the universe have originated ex nihilo?
#127758 to #127756 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
because there was no material before the universe. no material = no ex materia cause
#127757 to #127756 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127759 to #127757 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
By "before the universe" do you mean before the matter existed or before the onset of entropy?
#127760 to #127759 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
before matter existed
#127761 to #127760 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
How do you know there was such a thing?
#127762 to #127761 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
>physical reality cannot extend infinitely into the past because it's impossible for an infinite number of past events to have occured. there are no actual infinites.
also the universe would have suffered a heat death by now and evidence from the big bang theory shows the universe is not eternal
#127763 to #127762 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
So therefore entropy couldn't have set in, this says nothing about matter.
#127764 to #127763 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
so matter existed infinitely in the past and then, at some point, formed into the universe for no reason?

matter can't be eternal because matter can't exist outside of time. time cannot be eternal because an infinite number of pasts events cannot have occured
#127765 to #127764 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Entropy kicked in, don't know why but it did.

But those events necessitate a cause right? Without entropy there is no cause.
#127766 to #127765 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
justify matter existing timelessly. matter is made of moving particles, how can you have movement without time?
#127767 to #127766 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Matter at absolute zero does not move.
#127768 to #127767 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
space and time are inextricable without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.
#127769 to #127768 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Based on?
#127770 to #127769 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
the theory of relativity
#127771 to #127770 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
That's not what the theory of relativity says.
#127774 to #127771 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Einstein would cringe at the notion of matter existing outside of spacetime
#127775 to #127774 - theism
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Space, not time. You don't understand relativity.
#127736 to #127735 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
everything that begins to exist has a cause

the universe began to exist

the universe has a cause
#127738 to #127736 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
We don't know the first one to be true, or the second one. Valid, not necessarily sound.
#127737 to #127736 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Unsubstantiated premises.
#127739 to #127737 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
alright, it's been a while but i'll try to flesh the premises out

>everything that begins to exist has a cause
it is metaphysically impossible for something to begin existing without a cause. *nothing* has no properties and no potentialities. there's can't be a relationship between two things if there's no shared properties between those things. also, why don't things just pop into being all the time? what's stopping this if this premise isnt true?

>the universe began to exist
physical reality cannot extend infinitely into the past because it's impossible for an infinite number of past events to have occured. there are no actual infinites.
also the universe would have suffered a heat death by now and evidence from the big bang theory shows the universe is not eternal
#127740 to #127739 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Define "begin to exist".
#127741 to #127740 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
this is actually somewhat tricky

it means that the effect of the cause comes into being concurrently with the cause and there was no time prior to the cause that the event existed
#127742 to #127741 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Can you word that less confusingly?
#127743 to #127742 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i took some time to brush up
begins to exist just means "comes into being"
if something begins to exist that means there is no time prior to it's cause that it existed

i'm going to predict your argument and answer it
the first premise does not refer exclusively to changes in material states, so it is applicable to the second premise
#127744 to #127743 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Name one thing that has begun to exist.
#127745 to #127744 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
in the same sense that the universe began to exist? you're asking for an example of something coming into existence "ex nihilo" right?

i don't have to give an example of this, all i have to do is show that it's impossible for something to come from nothing to prove that the universe must have had a cause
#127746 to #127745 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Well no, you also need to show the universe came into being ex nihilo, which is something we've never seen before.
#127747 to #127746 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
we have no experience with ex nihilo causation, but still, we know for sure that something cannot come from nothing

if the universe is not past eternal and at some point it came into being, it must have come into being ex nihilo
#127748 to #127747 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
So you propose that even though something cannot come from nothing, the universe did?
#127749 to #127748 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
there's material causes and efficient causes. the universe had no material cause, but still had an efficient cause(God)
#127750 to #127749 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
So something could have created the universe from nothing? Why couldn't something else have done this?
#127751 to #127750 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
yes God was perfectly capable of creating the universe from nothing.

the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless to have been the origin of physical reality. if there were prior conditions for which the universe could arise, these conditions would have to be changeless. how can you account for the origin of the first temporal effect from a changeless cause? there must have been agency involved
#127752 to #127751 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Why would it need this properties?
#127753 to #127752 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
thats basic reasoning. a physical(natural) cause cannot be causally prior to the existence of the natural world. It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time

the cause must be an agent because if there was non-agent changeless cause, the effect would be infinite
#127754 to #127753 - theism
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
What if a smaller universe exploded into a larger universe?
#127692 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
hey lulz, do you know why davidavidson left?
#128665 to #127692 - anon
Reply 0
(02/01/2016) [-]
no
#127681 - caette
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
shekelnator, any reason why Quran 24:45 can't allow you to accept evolution?
#127772 to #127681 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
not only this and more. religiously and non religiously
#127816 to #127815 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
nice meme
#127817 to #127816 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
And that comes from you?

Haha
#127818 to #127817 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
pffft

what i say is fact. quit playing pokemon and playing digimon fantasy
#127819 to #127818 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"What I say is fact"

- Omar 2016
#127820 to #127819 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
plz go take pokemon fiction outta here

plz
#127822 to #127820 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Nice memes
#127823 to #127822 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
plz
#127680 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I don't see the point of just linking an article or study to address someone's point. We should all address each other point by point and use articles/studies as supportive evidence.
#127617 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
theism, there's a huge problem with the RNA world hypothesis that i will elaborate on:

even in the earliest RNA molecules, the nucleic acids would have to connect to each other in very specific, exact ways. they would have to twist and loop into complex 3d structures. the molecules would have to form in specific sequences to be self-binding. each specific sequence would have to be functional.

there's too many layers of improbability here
#127727 to #127617 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
An argument being valid doesn't make it sound and the question is about the soundness of many of those arguments.

I knew that's who you were.
#127729 to #127727 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
if the premises are true and the logic is valid then it's evidence

i've been very open about it
#127731 to #127729 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Yes, but the logic being sound doesn't mean the premises are true, many of the arguments for god have dubious premises.
#127699 to #127617 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Amino acids have been synthesized in a lab. If they could chemically occur it's entirely plausible they would eventually bond in a certain configuration.
#127701 to #127699 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
its a huuuuuuge leap to go from amino acids to a self replicating molecule
#127702 to #127701 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Which is why it would take quite a while.
#127704 to #127702 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
yes, the magic wand of time that your kind are so fond of invoking.
#127707 to #127704 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
It's not a magic wand... It's a perfectly understandable explanation. You just don't like it.
#127709 to #127707 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
we can't observe time having the effects you describe. this isnt science
#127711 to #127709 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
It's more mathematical extrapolation given a smaller scale version of the same thing.
#127715 to #127711 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
you don't know that the steps required for greater complexity would be linear or directional. so this is a fallacy of composition i think.
#127717 to #127715 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Amino acids bond at certain sites yes?
#127719 to #127717 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
would you admit that there's not very much evidence for your explanations?
#127721 to #127719 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
More than for yours.
#127724 to #127721 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
you're claiming to have a scientific explanation, and i don't see any real evidence
#127725 to #127724 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
There's not a perfect amount of evidence but there's quite a bit.
#127728 to #127725 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
it will never be anything more than a hypothesis and actually since it's so hard to verify, i'm not sure it can even be called a scientific hypothesis
#127730 to #127728 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I wouldn't say never, we could create fairly accurate simulations of the conditions.
#127732 to #127730 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
when those simulations are created, i'll give more credence to it
#127631 to #127617 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Like I said, millions of years and billions of reactants. It's actually quite probable.
#127634 to #127631 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
show that it's probable. because the chances appear to be almost infinitesimal
#127637 to #127634 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Can you give me a calculation of the odds?
#127641 to #127637 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
well, evolutionists have hypothesized that the simplest, stable self-replicating peptide would be 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming in sequential trials is about 1 in 10^390
#127642 to #127641 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
What math gets you that answer?
#127643 to #127642 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
thats all the different ways the bases could connect
#127648 to #127643 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
How many of those combinations would give a similar result?
#127651 to #127648 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
all i know is that the vast, vast, vast majority of combinations would be useless
#127682 to #127651 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Yes but I wonder if in reality the probability is much higher as several possible configurations would work. Additionally not all of them are equally likely.
#127683 to #127682 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
> Additionally not all of them are equally likely.

useless combinations would be more likely
#127684 to #127683 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Why?
#127686 to #127684 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
why would the reverse be more likely?
#127685 to #127684 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127687 to #127685 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Useless combinations are less chemically stable, systems tend towards stability.
#127691 to #127687 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
>systems tend towards stability.

what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
#127695 to #127691 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Energy coming into the system allows for more complex structures to form, those that are more stable stay that way.
#127698 to #127695 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
what about all the destructive environmental factors?
#127714 to #127698 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
And yours does?
#127716 to #127714 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Yes, we see all the hallmarks of design in living organisms
#127723 to #127716 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Logical deductions, not evidence. There's also arguments against the existence of god.
#127726 to #127723 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
how is an argument not evidence if it's sound and valid?

i'm aware of most of those type of arguments and i've spent some time in the past refuting them back when i was zlamous
#127720 to #127716 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
There's one fundamental assumption necessary for your argument and that's the existence of God.
#127722 to #127720 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
there are solid arguments for God's existence. i'll discuss them with you some other time
#127718 to #127716 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Your simply wrong.
#127708 to #127698 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Justify the contrary.
#127710 to #127708 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
so you have no evidence supporting an early environment that was conducive to life?
#127712 to #127710 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
#127713 to #127712 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i'm just saying your theory doesnt have much support
#127700 to #127698 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Like what?
#127703 to #127700 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
imagine how easy would it be for these molecules to be destroyed. i don't know much about the supposed environment that evolutionists propose these molecules formed in
#127705 to #127703 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I imagine they would be no more likely to be destroyed then than they would today.
#127706 to #127705 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
justify that
#127688 to #127687 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
but like i said any molecule under 32 amino acids in length would probably be completely unstable.
#127689 to #127688 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Which is why they would be less likely to occur.
#127690 to #127689 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
how would it get to that point though?
#127693 to #127690 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Which point.
#127694 to #127693 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
32 amino acids in length. any molecule would be too unstable to last before that point
#127696 to #127694 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
They repeatedly bond until one remains bonded.
#127697 to #127696 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
this is all too speculative for me.

you don't have a solid, evidence based explanation for the origin of life
#127633 to #127631 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"millions of years" is like a magic wand for evolutionists to wave over any problem for evolution or abiogenesis
#127635 to #127633 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
The math holds up quite well actually. In that time quite a few reactions would happen and dna is quite stable.
#127638 to #127635 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
>dna is quite stable

but would the earliest rna molecules be?
#127640 to #127638 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Less so than dna but yes.
#127645 to #127640 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
it wouldn't be stable unless it formed in a complex way. it couldnt have just spontaneously formed with incredible complexity
#127646 to #127645 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Each iteration was a more sustainable pattern than the last.
#127647 to #127646 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
there'd be like zero sustainability up until it reached 32 amino acids in length or so. you believe in magic
#127649 to #127647 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
So all that's necessary is he existence of amino acids and for 32 of them to bond?
#127650 to #127649 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
actually, all the components would have to connect and form in complex structural ways
#127652 to #127650 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Yes however the iteration immediately prior to rna would be amino acids correct?
#127655 to #127652 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
so now we have to talk about states of RNA prior to the forms proposed by the RNA world hypothesis? endless speculation, no facts
#127656 to #127655 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
What do you find difficult to understand about them?
#127658 to #127656 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
we don't really know anything about these supposed forms
#127566 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
World's 10 Most Mysterious Monuments interesting really. but i realised we question more than what we answer from these discoverys.

man always amazes me with his history. the weirdest being and the most fascinating living creature on earth is man. he is able to create a shrouded mysterious history and can bring doom to it.
#127565 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
here's a philosophical argument that supports the idea of a soul

it is possbile (logically conceivable) that my consciousness could exist without a physical body.
if my consciousness is just a physical object in my brain, then it is not possible that my physical body, in its exact current state, could exist without my consciousness also existing

if two things are identical, they necessarily share all the same properties. but my consciousness has a property(that it could exist independent of my body) that my physical body does not. therefore these two things are not the same.
#127675 to #127565 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I don't really care what Sam Harris thinks of conciousness.
#127676 to #127675 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
to be clear, i'd never look at him as an authority on the subject. just wanted to point out that even other atheists disagree with u
#127677 to #127676 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Atheists can be wrong.
#127678 to #127677 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
so many atheists view Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Hitchens as infallible. its sad
#127679 to #127678 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Nobody is infallible.
#127587 to #127565 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
In fact the claim your refuting isn't that consciousness is part of the body, it's that consciousness is the body. Being a component of something isn't the same as being something.
#127653 to #127587 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
>Aboutness isn't a real property

right now i'm thinking about this conversation. mental states can be about things. how can you deny this?
#127654 to #127653 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Define aboutness.
#127657 to #127654 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
think about something and try to find a way to describe the subjective experience of it. its hard to find the right language, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality
#127659 to #127657 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Information processing. It's pretty simple when you don' try to obfuscate it.
#127660 to #127659 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
that doesn't capture anything about the subjective experience
#127661 to #127660 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
It's not a subjective experience.
#127662 to #127661 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
there's an associated, subjective character of experiences of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc.
this whole layer of consciousness cannot be explained by naturalism
#127663 to #127662 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Can you back up the claim this is subjective?
#127664 to #127663 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
your experience of your thoughts, feelings etc is not something that can be described objectively.
#127665 to #127664 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
If you decide it's a metaphysical process yes. If you don't assume that it isn't.
#127666 to #127665 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
how could you describe it in objective terms
#127667 to #127666 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
The transformation and interpretation of information through the activation and deactivation of potassium channels and the interaction of neurotransmitters.
#127668 to #127667 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
i don't see any type of description like this as being able to capture the subjective character of experiences of consciousness

i don't know what else to say. study the dualist interpretation of the philosophy of mind to get a better picture of what i'm referring to
#127669 to #127668 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
There is no subjective character.
#127670 to #127669 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
what is like to feel an emotion? what is it like to experience a thought or a feeling? what is like to be in a certain state of mind? i'm talking about this sort of thing
#127671 to #127670 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Varying levels of cortizol, serotonin, oxytocin, dopamine and other neruotransmitters.
#127672 to #127671 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
ok lets apply that answer

what is like to feel an emotion? "Varying levels of neruotransmitters. "

doesn't seem adequate to me
#127673 to #127672 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
That's the quantitative explanation for different emotions. Physical characteristics include elevated or lowered heart rate, contraction or dilation of pupils, variation in temperature, etc.
#127674 to #127673 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
those are just correlated events. even an atheist like Sam Harris would disagree with your assessment of consciousness
#127596 to #127587 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
consciousness can't be made of physical components. it's incoherent.
you'd have to say that consciousness is an immaterial property that emerges from the brain, but thats incoherent too
#127616 to #127596 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Based on?
#127618 to #127616 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
can you explain how an experience of something could be made up of physical parts?
how could something physical produce something immaterial? there's no shared properties between the physical and non physical
#127619 to #127618 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
A combination of electrical signals and chemical reactions. The basics of neuroscience are quite well understood.
#127620 to #127619 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
you can't explain the experiential aspect of consciousness in any detail
#127622 to #127621 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
physical processes of the brain cannot explain the experiential, subjective nature of consciousness
#127623 to #127622 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
They can. Are we back on incredulity.
#127624 to #127623 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
you haven't demonstrated how they could.
#127625 to #127624 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Through the processes I outlined. Why are they insufficient?
#127626 to #127625 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
consciousness has properties that physical objects do not
#127627 to #127626 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Like what?
#127628 to #127627 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
well like my argument demonstrated, the possibility of existing separately from the body, but i know you don't accept that

physical objects cannot experience things. thoughts can be about things, physical objects cannot be about anything, that would be absurd
#127629 to #127628 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Thoughts are information which can be represented through physical objects.
#127630 to #127629 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
you haven't solved the problem of aboutness. it is inconceivable that a physical object or a collection of physical objects could have the property of aboutness
#127632 to #127630 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
"Aboutness" as you call it is simply a matter of representing information, like I already said.
#127636 to #127632 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
but you can't flesh this out. you can't divide a property like aboutness into separate parts and assign each part to a physical process. it's irreducible
#127639 to #127636 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Because Aboutness isn't a real property and your terminology is stupid.
#127644 to #127639 - zlane
0
(01/28/2016) [-]
right, your worldview forces you to deny the reality of subjective experience
#127580 to #127565 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Your assumption that your consciousness could exist independent of your physical body is unsubstantiated.
#127585 to #127580 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
show that it's logically impossible. if it can be shown to be impossible, then by definition it is in fact possible, and this possibility is a real property of my mind
#127586 to #127585 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Your consciousness is a result of innumerable physical factors in your body. The only way to perfectly replicate it would be to replicate your body.
#127591 to #127586 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
this is just an assertion though. how could you prove that it's impossible for my consciousness to exist in another body? no logical contradiction arises
#127592 to #127591 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Because by definition of consciousness it's impossible.
#127594 to #127592 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
you're assuming a materialist definition of consciousness and bypassing the argument altogether
#127597 to #127594 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
If you effect the physical body you affect the consciousness. If souls were real drugs wouldn't work.
#127599 to #127597 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
this is simply because the physical body is tethered to consciousness. consciousness exists through the lens of the body. this presents no challenge to my view
#127602 to #127599 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Then why does nothing emerge from consciousness independent of the physical world?
#127607 to #127602 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
do you mean emerge in consciousness?
#127608 to #127607 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Consciousness is affected by the physical body but the physical body is not affected by this intangible consciousness.
#127609 to #127608 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
oh, you don't believe in freewill. consciousness controls the human body from my perspective. my experience of my own consciousness leads to me to accept this, apart from outside evidence
#127611 to #127609 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Free will is a description of the physical processes involved. If consciousness is not a separate entity free will isn't an issue.
#127612 to #127611 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
free will has to be active not descriptive
#127613 to #127612 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Then by your definitions it doesn't exist.
#127614 to #127613 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
only if there's no soul
#127562 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127551 - caette
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
**caette used "*roll picture*"**
**caette rolled image**

Also, I'm about done with the Quran. I'm only half through but it's so boring I don't know if I can do it. And that's coming from someone who read the bible.
#127564 to #127551 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
**Zaxplab used "*roll picture*"**
**Zaxplab rolled image** dont tell Omar
#127559 to #127551 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
it's like the universe is trying to tell you something
#127561 to #127559 - caette
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
**caette used "*roll picture*"**
**caette rolled image**
Yeah. Or it's just a coincidence like everything else in this life
#127552 to #127551 - caette
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
that's what I feel like doing when I read the quran.
#127549 - caette
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
lmao zlane thinks I'll leave this board because of him. he's been here like a week and he thinks he can just kick me out. go kill yourself.
#127553 to #127549 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
how many people have you told to kill themselves?

Caette, seriously, get some help for yourself. See a doctor, a psychiatrist or a psychologist, maybe all 3. get a diagnosis. i'm not a professional but i'd guess you have histrionic personality disorder, or maybe borderline personaility disorder. there's medication that can help you. I wish you well, honestly.
#127554 to #127553 - caette
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
retard
#127610 to #127554 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
yo go on skype I want to ask you something
-lulz
#127615 to #127610 - caette
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
I don't even have you on skype
#127555 to #127554 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
I don't hate you. I want you to get better.
#127521 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
wow zlane. thats some big shitposts you have there
#127530 to #127521 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
most atheists couldn't even begin to respond to the information i've provided
#127531 to #127530 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
of course. welcome to the circlejerk
#127543 to #127531 - Zaxplab
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
Omar, shuddup.
#127545 to #127543 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
pffft
#127476 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
ok theism, you directed me to this link letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ as a refutation of John Sanford's works.I skimmed through it and found some serious errors. I don't think i can stomach perusing the whole thing

" In other words, within his(Kimura’s) theoretical framework, the mutational load can be readily compensated by the occasional beneficial mutation."

The effect of accumulative deleterious mutations is the heart of John Sanford's argument. this single sentence is supposed to be a refutation? pathetic.
once a deleterious mutation become fixed in a population, it can't be magically undone by some beneficial mutation.

deleterious mutations decrease the fitness of organisms by a significant margin. beneficial mutations almost never increase the fitness of organisms by a significant margin
couple this with the fact that deleterious mutations occur and become fixed in populations at a 100x greater rate than beneficial mutations.

the numbers don't add up. biological fitness always tends toward the negative

even if mutations could persistently increase the biological fitness of a population of an organism over time, you still haven't proved that organisms can become more complex over time. the genetic information required to create novel biological structures has never observed to come about via mutations

Now, I could have a field day picking apart every single sentence of that article, but i won't do that because no one here is interested and it would be a tremendous waste of effort and time
#127590 to #127476 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Personal incredulity aside, given millions of years and billions of reactance the odds look quite a bit better.
#127593 to #127590 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
too bad the Earth hasn't even been around for even a fraction of that time. but ignoring this, now you have the impossible task of explaining the transition of RNA to DNA
#127595 to #127593 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
It actually has. There are trees older than you think the earth are.

Another set of reactions.
#127598 to #127595 - zlane
Reply +2
(01/27/2016) [-]
for which there's no evidence or plausible scientific framework
#127601 to #127598 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
(Ignoring the obvious irony of a creationist asking for evidence)
#127603 to #127600 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
i'm sure there are many valid objections, and holes to be poked in that by creation scientists
#127604 to #127603 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Find one.
#127605 to #127604 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/28/2016) [-]
I will
#127606 to #127605 - theism
Reply 0
(01/28/2016) [-]
Reply to this when you do.
#127560 to #127476 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
I already addressed this. We've seen 0.00003% of the timeline.
#127563 to #127560 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
you have faith that new information would arise given some absurd amount of time. its faith
#127567 to #127563 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Well no. Novel traits have been observed to arise. There are bacteria that can digest synthetic materials that only recently began to exist.
#127568 to #127567 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i'd like to investigate this. give me a link
#127570 to #127569 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
"Proponents of Creationism, such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, have cited analyses posted by Don Batten that cited scientific research that showed the genes involved were on a plasmid, and stated that the phenomenon is evidence that plasmids in bacteria are a designed feature intended to allow bacteria to adapt easily to new food sources or cope with toxic chemicals. Batten stated
"It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism." "
#127571 to #127570 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
"Opponents of creationism have dismissed Batten's analysis. NMSR has stated that the gene duplication and frame-shift mutations that gave rise to nylonase were powerful sources of random mutation, whether or not the genes were part of a plasmid as suggested by Batten.[7] A posting atTalkOrigins Archive by Ian Musgrave states that bacteria carry many genes in plasmids, particularly those involved in xenobiotic handling or metabolic functions. He states that in Pseudomonas, most of the xenobiotic degradation genes are on plasmids. Therefore it is entirely likely that a xenobiotic handling enzyme will arise from mutations of xenobiotic handling genes. The fact that these genes are on plasmids does not invalidate the fact that they exist, and exist only in two strains of bacteria. Musgrave also criticized Batten for mis-stating the conclusions of some of the authors of the scientific literature on nylon eating bacteria."
#127572 to #127571 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
Just a thought- these plasmids seem to be irreducibly complex, which actually supports creation theory
#127573 to #127572 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
They're is a reasonable pathway for them to evolve. Irreducible complexity actually IS a fallacy of incredulity.
#127574 to #127573 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
demonstrate how it commits that fallacy
#127575 to #127574 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is apseudoscientific argument that certainbiological systems cannot be evolved by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system through natural selection."

The argument hinges on an individuals inability to conceive of these evolutionary pathways, not from any empirical or logical demonstration.
#127576 to #127575 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i find it disgraceful that wikipedia describes it as pseudo science. unbelievable bias

we'll have to get into specific examples of irreducible systems. there are many systems that prove the impossibility of evolution
#127577 to #127576 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
It's rejected by the scientific community and not based on any scientific method, it's by definition pseudo science.

Name one.
#127578 to #127577 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
explain how stop codons evolved
#127579 to #127578 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Bringing out the big guns ay?

As I'm not a biologist this isn't an exact timeline and may contain several errors, but a stop codons is functionally similar to any other reason in that it has a role in the production of proteins. Unlike a start codon it terminates addition of peptides. It's possible that in an organism several bits of rna, which would have been start codons, formed as stop codons. These structures were beneficial to the organism as it prevented the production of unnecessary proteins and so increased fitness.
#127581 to #127579 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
the nail in the coffin

you invoke the RNA world hypothesis as expected. the stop codon problem is actually one of the reasons scientists proposed this hypothesis in the first place.
the problem is that to justify the RNA hypothesis you have to explain how the first self-replicating RNA were somehow able to spontaneously generate in prebiotic soup.
#127582 to #127581 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
They didn't spontaneously generate. They formed as part of a chemical reaction.
#127583 to #127582 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
how and why did this occur?
#127584 to #127583 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Because the right two chemicals stuck to together.
#127589 to #127584 - zlane
+1
(01/27/2016) [-]
there isn’t just one way for two nucleotides to bind, and hundreds would've had to- assuming these supposed early RNA were extremely simple.. the probability is unimaginable
#127588 to #127584 - zlane
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127507 to #127476 - theism
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
But anyways, the human body contains 1.5 zetabytes of data (1.5 gb per cell, 6e9 base pairs), these mutations would have to be 60000 base pairs a piece to account for even 1% of the genome.
#127515 to #127507 - shekelnator
Reply +2
(01/27/2016) [-]
i disagree. i have more than 5 zetabyte and up to 500TB additional space
#127508 to #127507 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
zlane
#127509 to #127508 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
how can mutations account for complex life?
#127510 to #127509 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Complex life is more advantageous than simple life.
#127511 to #127510 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
if billions of generations worth of mutations in bacteria can only produce tiny changes, how can mutations create 1.5 zetabytes of data?
#127512 to #127511 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Over that time e coli would accumulate 79 billion mutations in 1 billion years (which is less than the amount of time bacteria have been around) at it's low mutation rate It's actually 1.5 gb in the human genome, 1.5 zb is the entire body accounting for each human cell. In order to hit 1.5 gb each mutation would need to account for 0.0759 base pairs if e coli started at zero (which it didn't). Which isn't that ridiculous.
#127513 to #127512 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
to be honest i don't follow your math.
at the rate that evolution has been observed in bacteria, it seems like it would take trillions or quadrillions of years for life to have become as complex as it is
#127518 to #127513 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
It's pretty simple really, the human genome has 6,000,000,000 base pairs in it. E coli goes through 3 generations in an hour, 72 in a day, 26,280 in a year, 26,280,000,000,000 in a billion years (bacteria actually diverged from archeans 3 billion years ago but it's easier this way). In those 26 trillion generations they would accumulate 79 billion mutations, to accumulate 6,000,000,000 base pairs each mutation would need to account for 0.0759 base pairs of DNA (One every 13 generations).

This assumes a linear rate of mutation when actually as the genome grew more complex the rate of mutation would increase. In fact I was actually quite generous to your version of events.
#127528 to #127518 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
the thing is, in the evolution of single celled organisms we observe in today, there's no increase in complexity. there's no examples of evolution creating more complex organisms over multiple generations
#127532 to #127528 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
We've been aware of bacteria for 346 years, assuming we tracked a population of e coli for that entire time it would go through 9,092,880 generations and 27,278.64 mutations. That's 2071 base pairs and 517.75 bytes of data at the rate I established earlier, additionally not every member of a population will accumulate information at the same rate, for some simplicity is beneficial. Again, all the numbers are quite generous in your favor.
#127533 to #127532 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
increase in complexity= new genetic information= information for new, novel structures

under this definition, no increase in complexity has been ever been observed to come about though natural selection+mutation
#127534 to #127533 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Did you read what I said, the only increase in complexity would be 517.75 bytes of data, which is very little compared to what I established earlier. And anyways, not all of that information would be retained, which I also already said.
#127535 to #127534 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i'm defining "new information" in a specific way that you're ignoring
#127536 to #127535 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
I'm not ignoring anything though, I'm responding to your argument, which is simply invalid given what I just laid out. If you have an issue with my methodology let's here it.
#127537 to #127536 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
your methodology may account for the sheer amount of information, but what about the specificity of the information?
#127538 to #127537 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Natural selection would isolate the desirable information.
#127539 to #127538 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i can't see mutations creating this type of information to be selected for though
#127550 to #127539 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Is it?
#127558 to #127550 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
mutations have never been observed to create "new" information as i've defined it.
#127556 to #127550 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
No.
#127557 to #127556 - theism
0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Why not? It's your failure to imagine the scenario that prevents you from accepting the scenario.
#127540 to #127539 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
So you're saying it's a fallacy of incredulity huh?
#127514 to #127513 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
and that would only happen if genetic entropy didn't exist
#127499 to #127476 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
So what about bacteria makes them not susceptible to it?
#127500 to #127499 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i said it would be susceptible given millions of generations.
#127501 to #127500 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Why would it take so many more?
#127502 to #127501 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
according to wikipedia
"In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cell generation."
#127503 to #127502 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
If for humans it's 100 mutations a generation it would take (rounded up) 34k generations of e coli to catch up. In 9 months (human reproductive cycle) a single e coli would go through 20k generations, so I guess you're right. However e coli has been around a lot longer than humans.
#127504 to #127503 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i don't believe that any life has been around for more than 6000 years
#127505 to #127504 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Based on?
#127506 to #127505 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
that's a separate conversation for another time
#127477 to #127476 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
You didn't read much at all of it obviously. Sanford's argument hinges on his flawed interpretation of Kimura's model. The graph he modified didn't include positive mutations, which Sanford interpreted to mean that an insignificant number of mutations were positive. Kimura didn't include positive mutations because his model was flawed and would overemphasize the affect of positive mutations, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

That's not what we're arguing about at all.
#127478 to #127477 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
said i skimmed it. i'm not going to read all of it.

You didn't really address my points.
beneficial mutations can't undo the damage of fixed, deleterious mutations in a population.
deleterious mutations decrease fitness more than beneficial mutations increase fitness
deleterious mutations occur and become fixed at a much greater rate than beneficial mutations
new genetic information, as i've defined cannot be created
#127479 to #127478 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Accept I did address your points, the basis of your argument, Sanford's research, is wrong. You don't have a factual basis for your reasoning.
#127481 to #127479 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
even if Sanford did misrepresent Kimura on that point, and beneficial mutations do in fact occur more often that he thought, my points still stand. there's no way that beneficial mutations occur often enough or that they are potent enough to undo the accumulative damages of deleterious mutations
#127482 to #127481 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Except that Sanford's argument hinged on that interpretation, that's an unqualified statement you're making, you need to back it up.
#127483 to #127482 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010
I don't think this hinges on that interpretation

deleterious mutations accumulate faster than natural selection can remove them and they cannot be "compensated" by beneficial mutations
#127484 to #127483 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
1. They use a modelling software, which inherently holds flaws as the creator doesn't perfectly understand the implications.
2. It assumes the deleterious effects of these mutations are cumulative.
3. It doesn't account for mechanisms an organism may have to suppress the occurrence of these mutations.

It's simply not an effective measure of the real behavior of these systems and isn't empirical data.
#127485 to #127484 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
1. what exactly is wrong with the population genetics model? it uses the most realistic parameters available.
2. the effects would accumulate until they were selected out by natural selection. they accumulate too fast for this to happen
3. to suppress the occurence or the effects? the occurrence of the mutatinos can only be selected out by natural selection
#127486 to #127485 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
1. I'm not aware with the model in question but being a model it has it's flaws, especially with something chaotic and complicated like genetics.
2. No, I mean it assumes the negative impacts would cumulatively affect the organism, that two mutations would reduce the fitness by the sum of both.
3. Not all genetic material in an organism is active, they have mechanisms that select for which genetics are active.
#127487 to #127486 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
if a similar model was made that supported your views, i think you'd accept it without all this skepticism.

> that two mutations would reduce the fitness by the sum of both.
you're right that the negative effects may not increase linearly like this, but certainly there would be a significant, commutative increase. consider the effects of thousands of generations worth of bad mutations

>mechanisms that select for which genetics are active.
i'll have to do some research on gene expression. i don't think this solves the problem
#127488 to #127487 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Interesting speculation. I certainly wouldn't be touting the results of that model as absolute proof.
Then why do bacterial colonies, which are genetically simple and reproduce extremely quickly, not collapse after a few days, weeks, months or years?
#127489 to #127488 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
complex lifeforms like humans get around 100 mutations per generation. bacteria do not
#127490 to #127489 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
How did you get that number? How many do bacteria get?
#127492 to #127490 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
Larry Moran estimates 56-160 mutations per individual per generation.
#127491 to #127490 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
the point is that simple life receive less mutations per generation and therefore suffer less genetic entropy
#127493 to #127491 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
That is true, however they also reproduce much quicker, if they receive even mutation per generation they would change far quicker than humans, which they do. So can you tell me the thought behind that figure?
#127494 to #127493 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
i'd imagine the nature of the effects on simple lifeforms is probably much different than the that of complex life
#127495 to #127494 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Mutations are mutations are mutations. Where did you get the figure from?
#127541 to #127495 - caette
Reply -1
(01/27/2016) [-]
why are you feeding the troll
#127548 to #127541 - zlane
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
can't you just stay on the autism board? i'll never visit that board again if you promise to never visit this one
#127542 to #127541 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
It's a legitimate discussion. Regardless of whether he holds these views someone else does and they may respond to the case I've laid out.
#127547 to #127542 - zlane
+1
(01/27/2016) [-]
I do hold these views. caette is a legitimate troll
#127496 to #127495 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
if the DNA is different, the mutations are going to be of a different nature
#127497 to #127496 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
So genetic entropy doesn't happen to bacteria?
#127498 to #127497 - zlane
0
(01/27/2016) [-]
if bacteria was subjected to radiation and the mutation rate was increased by a million, i'm sure there'd be genetic entropy
#127480 to #127479 - factual
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
it's a fact
#127449 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Satan is pretty cool.
#127522 to #127516 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
What would you say to your mother if she found that on your computer?
#127523 to #127522 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
mother? what mother?
#127519 to #127516 - theism
Reply +1
(01/27/2016) [-]
Nice self portrait.
#127524 to #127519 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
thats the waste of human DNA calling them atheists. tehehe
#127525 to #127524 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Don't lie, that's what you get off to.
#127526 to #127525 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
nigga plz
#127527 to #127526 - theism
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Aren't you like gay or something?
#127529 to #127527 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
plz
#127453 to #127449 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'm surprised you'd shitpost, and for it to be this unfunny.
#127455 to #127453 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'm surprised you think I care about you.
#127459 to #127455 - anon
Reply +1
(01/26/2016) [-]
I notice you post more when you get more attention, its kinda pathetic. You probably think saying this will offend someone on here or give someone a laugh, but its really pointless.
#127461 to #127459 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I'm laughing.
#127462 to #127461 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Yes you are laughing, in a room by yourself with no one to share it with. Good for you.
#127468 to #127462 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Whatever makes you feel less pathetic.
#127466 to #127462 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
maybe hes in ur mums room right now
#127470 to #127466 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
My mom is in a car at the moment.
#127472 to #127470 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
shes driving over to his house.
#127436 - zeruaargi
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I bet my god can beat your god
#127438 to #127436 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I bet I can beat off your god
#127517 to #127438 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
but what if his god was your god?!
#127434 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Atheists always ask theists for evidence, but is there any proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?
#127439 to #127434 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No
#127435 to #127434 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Absolutely not
Theres no proof that there is no god and theres no proof that there is one. It is beyond our capabilities to prove or disprove this question
#127444 to #127435 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
atheists are hypocrites to ask for evidence of theism then
#127469 to #127444 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Not really
We just believe in what we see as the most plausible
Just like I'm sure you do
If there was more evidence to support a God we would probably start believing as well

If there is no or very little evidence I won't assume a god exist.
#127460 to #127444 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
"A-bigfootists are hypocrites to ask for evidence of Bigfoot then"
#127379 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Is anyone here able to explain the Tiktaalik without proving evolution?
#127546 to #127379 - whoozy
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Buddha did it
#127520 to #127379 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
Allah did it
#127440 to #127379 - ragnarfag
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
God did it
#127443 to #127440 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
damn
#127398 to #127379 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
if Tiktaalik was a transitional form, show me which species it transformed into
#127406 to #127398 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Non sequitur.


The point I was arguing is that they could not have found the tiktaalik in the way that they did if evolution was not true.

tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html
Read that link for me and tell me where you find a discrepancy.
#127408 to #127406 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
"we start by looking at the very first tetrapods to show up in the fossil record. Then, we look for fish which had a similar pattern of bones in their fins as the tetrapods had in their limbs."

Well, what if this pattern was created by Noah's flood? the predictive power of the pattern says nothing about it's origin.
#127409 to #127408 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
How could it have been?
#127410 to #127409 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
im referring to the general pattern and placement of various organisms in the fossil record. fossils of organisms with greater mobility tend to be further up in the fossil record, suggesting the were trying to escape a flood.

If you're asking me to explain the placement of this specific set of fossils, with respect to Noah's flood, I can't really do that without some research.

But how do you know that evolution is a better explanation of this pattern?
#127411 to #127410 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Surely fish would be further from the shoreline. I would think they would have had to swim upward in order to make egg nests without the water pressure crushing their eggs.
#127412 to #127411 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the flood happened extremely rapidly
#127413 to #127412 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Still, would fish not have been able to swim upward before mammals and the like died?
#127414 to #127413 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
maybe they were disoriented by the tremendous force of flood
#127415 to #127414 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Why wouldn't the mammals be disoriented?
#127416 to #127415 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the fish were disoriented by shifting columns of water. the mammals saw the water coming but werent disoriented
#127417 to #127416 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
But we have fish that can swim upstream without getting disoriented. We have fish that survive flash floods as well.
#127418 to #127417 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
flash floods are no where near the power and intensity of Noah's flood. most fish were killed instantly
#127448 to #127418 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
No it isn't though.

Less plausible than the alternative by Occams razor.
#127454 to #127448 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations 100 to 1. evolution doesn't add up. these bad mutations couldnt keep accumulating for thousands of generations.

the alternative is impossible
#127458 to #127454 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Can you prove this?

No it isn't. The flood is impossible.
#127463 to #127458 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
look up Dr. John Sanford's writings. genomes degenerate over time from all the harmful mutations that occur generation to generation.
#127467 to #127463 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Can you name a specific document? If this were the case why has all life not died out?
#127471 to #127467 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/27/2016) [-]
he's done 2 study's on genetic entropy. i can't find them right now. life hasn't died out because life hasn't been around for millions or billions of years
#127475 to #127471 - theism
0
(01/27/2016) [-]
letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Scroll down to the section on Sanford, his conclusions are based on misinterpretation of a mathematical model, not empirical evidence.
#127420 to #127418 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It seems like a lot of assumptions are necessary to support your assumption.
#127423 to #127420 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
all these explanations are logically consistent with a worldwide flood
#127426 to #127423 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You'd need more to support that claim though. If for example Noahs ark is a true story, why are all marsupials found in Australia.
#127429 to #127426 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
were looking at the same evidence, the fossil record, and providing different explanations. Noah's flood has greater explanatory power than any of the theories you subscribe to

>why are all marsupials found in Australia.

the continents were connected at the time. marsupials were faster than other mammals and were able to establish themselves there before other mammals
#127431 to #127429 - theism
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
How does it have greater explanatory power? Especially when it's difficult to reconcile with other facts.

No, I mean why didn't marsupials go anywhere else?
#127442 to #127431 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
evolution is contradicted by genetic entropy. it cant be a better explanation.

i don't know why they died out, but it's still possible
#127433 to #127431 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
the uniformity of the layers is better explained by the flood. dense fossils at the bottom, light fossils at the top. you have to explain why in your theory this uniformity would exist.

the marsupials that went elsewhere couldn't survive. maybe some fossils will be found some day to prove this.
#127437 to #127433 - theism
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
That's the pattern they would follow through normal sublimation as well. Evolution better explains the increases complexity of creatures over time.

So what about Australia makes it uniquely able to support marsupials?
#127419 to #127418 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
and the ones that survived didn't move upstream?
#127421 to #127419 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
they didn't get very far.
#127422 to #127421 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
and the mammals did?
#127424 to #127422 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
apparently
#127425 to #127424 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Brilliant.
#127430 to #127425 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
then less dense animals would be closer to the top and more dense animals would be closer to the bottom, and thats what we see
#127432 to #127430 - Zaxplab
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Citation?
#127427 to #127425 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
depending on their mobility
#127428 to #127427 - Zaxplab
0
(01/26/2016) [-]
We have a hard time keeping everything alive in flash floods today. If Noah's flood was so much more powerful than those, even the most mobile of animals would have been swept back into the ocean, no?
#127380 to #127379 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Tiktaalik's fins do not attach to it's pelvis and therefore could not have supported it's weight. also, the bones in the fins do not appear to be digits.
#127381 to #127380 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Citation?
#127383 to #127381 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
no, YOU give me the evidence supporting Tiktaalik as a valid transitional form. give me the citation that shows that its could have supported its weight and allowed it to walk.

you're the one claiming it as evidence for your worldview. you have the burden of proof
#127385 to #127383 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
It might not have walked on land, it could have walked underwater. It might not have walked at all.

Nothing about that is able to wish away the fact that they were able to find such a primitive tetra pod based on fossil records.

Explain to me how they could have found the fossil if evolution isn't true.
#127388 to #127385 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
I look at the placement of that fossil in the context of Noah's flood. we have the same evidence and we're viewing through a different lens
#127382 to #127381 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Also, how does that refute the statement?


The fact that they were able to look at fossil records and find one of the earliest tetrapods known to man is the impressive part
#127384 to #127382 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
you're shifting the burden of proof.

yeah that fact is impressive if you presuppose evolution. without this presupposition, it means nothing
#127386 to #127384 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
You understand how they found it, right? They looked at the fossil record and noticed that each of the fossils were found at a certain layer, they saw a gap in the fossil record, they went to the layer that the tiktaalik would have been on, and found the tiktaalik.
#127389 to #127386 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
it's placement could also be consistent with a worldwide flood AKA Noah's flood
#127390 to #127389 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
How so?
#127393 to #127390 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
look at how similar fossils are formed today. very few fish fossils are being formed ,the ones that are are being fossilized by rapid burial by water
#127394 to #127393 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Citation?
#127396 to #127394 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
that's something you can google
#127397 to #127396 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
and it's something you can't?
#127392 to #127390 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
you're wasting your time. this dude is a troll.
#127395 to #127392 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Pretty sure I can report you for purposely attempting to derail conversations like this. I am going to talk to a mod about this.
#127399 to #127395 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
that is such a troll thing to say
#127400 to #127399 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
if it becomes harassment, it will be reported
#127403 to #127400 - caette
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
lmao
#127376 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
don't know how to respond? just accuse someone of not sincerely believing an argument, that will refute said argument. atheist logic 101

great tactic atheists. why don't we just universally adopt this strategy of argumentation? every argument ever can now be won by questioning the sincerity of the person making the argument. its foolproof!
#127377 to #127376 - zlane
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
caette turned out to be a real shitstain. hate to admit it, but he really got under my skin. can we all collectively ignore him? he's not here to contribute anything of value.
#127441 to #127377 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2016) [-]
Don't take him seriously, he is an aggressive shitposter.
-lulz