why that was nice

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

more animals than peoples commit infanticide.

how could this be evolve like that?

evolution fail.

You still make it seem as if every animal does it every time they breed. WRONG. Until this happens, then we can say that animals have evolved to kill their babies.

wait a second....

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

god created himself and then the universe, now i can see how he created the universe but himself that has been a giant stump in my brain for years now

Nope God is merely the eternal pre-existing force necessary for the universe to exist. In short what makes him "god" would be nothing other than the fact that he had no creator and exists on an eternal plane.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

CotJones is an evolutionary fial ITT

 

[jpexpc 10+ year member]

intresting but i ask this. with the ability to pretty much choose the *** of your baby these days how is this possible???

Every child, male or female is born with at least 1 X chromosome. A woman will always pass the X, a male can pass either an X (female birth - XX) or a Y (male birth - XY).

Use this for an example:

Humans begin to show signs of aging through wrinkles. Wrinkles are caused by cells being regenerated (copied) over and over again until they slowly but surely become obsolete. The same thing is slowly happening with the X chromosome. Science predicts within 20 years women will be able to have children without a male donor, but the result will always be a female child.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

1. No you cannot more clearly define god and meaning, and thats the problem with religion. If there is a such thing as god which i believe is undeniably true, you cannot define him (more appropriately, "It") That is Clear,
And the reason why every religion in the world fails. Stop picturing god as a mighty rule-giver on a throne. As much historic information as you can muster, evidential support is neg. Thus following the rules of any religion boils down to sacrificing villagers to the volcano. I do not for one second believe that any religion in the world has 100% of the truth, granted they all have benefits and good concepts but not truth. By definition if a creator of the universe existed it would be for the purpose of negating the impossibility of a universe otherwise, a reality that humans are a part of and can not escape to obtain a clear reference which to define a god or purpose.

If we are arguing that a god exists and that he provides meaning, then we absolutely must define what we mean by the word "god" and what we mean by the word "meaning". As you define god later in this post, he is the master physicist who created the universe with all its laws and is unseen and unknowable. I do agree completely, though, that the area in which you propose god exists is very unknowable. In fact, it is so unknowable that it is preposterous to assert that he exists.

In other words you have a problem of circular reasoning here that cannot be seen around or through because the path of logic is beyond human reasoning. That problem is:

There is a degree of impossibility to the idea of the universe existing out of nothing. So a Pre-existing eternal force would actually be the simplest explanation, the circular reasoning and rhetorical part of the concept is that a "god" fitting this description would by definition be impossible to understand from the human perspective. so Alas, you cannot know either way for sure. No atheist truly has a better support for his beliefs than a deist or vica versa. But my argument for life here is the chief reason i believe deistic.

The cosmological argument is both unsound and invalid. First, we of course have an infinite regress built into the god argument, and it is unclear why this one entity is able to overcome it other than by fiat. Further, it really does not make sense to ask what came before the universe; without time, there really is no "before" to speak of. Even if we establish the existence of something that gave rise to the universe, we are still not in a position to say anything reasonable about it. Calling it god or an entity or really anything is a non-sequitur. It is so far out of bounds that we cannot say, with any intellectual honesty, a thing about its properties, and in relation to us it resides in a state of non-existence.

Further, the deist is making an incredible leap of faith that an atheist refuses to make. Perhaps there was a creator god, but we simply do not have evidence for it. Yes, there is something we have a hard time understanding, but that does not mean the answer to it must, necessarily, be god; that is an argument from ignorance. If evidence or reasonable argumentation comes up that a god exists, an agnostic atheist such as myself would gladly change my opinion, whereas a deist is operating on the assumption that a god must have created the universe.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not much better than the original, either.

2.even though i do believe so, I'm not arguing that god gives your life meaning or purpose, You are taking it too far. I'm saying that in a universe devoid of "higher beings" or "un-natural" unobservable things, the concept of evolution makes no sense. An underlying force which is responsible for evolution attempts to keep life going which is completely nonsensical. The simplest most natural course would be that life (even if created by chance) would simply die out rather than continue and change. Saying otherwise is saying that evolution is following an illogical course and thus can defined as a conscious being! like a (omg) "GOD"!?!?! lol jk

That is an utter and complete bald assertion. What is your rational argument that supports the following premises:

1) Evolution makes no sense if it is not the product of a higher being.

2) Life producing life is non-sensical.

3) The "most natural" course would be that life simply die out.

These are all things that you're just saying are true, again by fiat. They are not really sound arguments, in my opinion.

Back to god giving life meaning yes. Look around you everything which serves a purpose in your house was created. This is in no way parallel to the existence of man, but my point is that a created being does not need to be aware of his purpose in order to serve it. The more useful thing to note is that complex items serve complex purposes.

Just because you want life to have a purpose doesn't mean it does. With that said, I think our purpose in life is to be the most productive members of society and aim to minimize suffering in our lives and others lives. That's not a directive from god; simply a recognition of what is often called "the human condition". It is the product of our very existence.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

If we are arguing that a god exists and that he provides meaning, then we absolutely must define what we mean by the word "god" and what we mean by the word "meaning". As you define god later in this post, he is the master physicist who created the universe with all its laws and is unseen and unknowable. I do agree completely, though, that the area in which you propose god exists is very unknowable. In fact, it is so unknowable that it is preposterous to assert that he exists.

The cosmological argument is both unsound and invalid. First, we of course have an infinite regress built into the god argument, and it is unclear why this one entity is able to overcome it other than by fiat. Further, it really does not make sense to ask what came before the universe; without time, there really is no "before" to speak of. Even if we establish the existence of something that gave rise to the universe, we are still not in a position to say anything reasonable about it. Calling it god or an entity or really anything is a non-sequitur. It is so far out of bounds that we cannot say, with any intellectual honesty, a thing about its properties, and in relation to us it resides in a state of non-existence.

Further, the deist is making an incredible leap of faith that an atheist refuses to make. Perhaps there was a creator god, but we simply do not have evidence for it. Yes, there is something we have a hard time understanding, but that does not mean the answer to it must, necessarily, be god; that is an argument from ignorance. If evidence or reasonable argumentation comes up that a god exists, an agnostic atheist such as myself would gladly change my opinion, whereas a deist is operating on the assumption that a god must have created the universe.

The Kalam cosmological argument is not much better than the original, either.

Here we have the same understanding of the impossibility of the problem, you'll excuse me if i relate my statements to heavily to the human perspective ("a time before time.") but people usually don't understand the arguments otherwise. basically I agree, that such knowledge is unobtainable under the current conditions of human perspective. My disagreement it purely in the speculative outcome of the problem. You follow atheistic thoughts, I'm more influenced by themes such as Pascal's wager and behe's mousetrap. Not to mention i believe my personal view of the universe leads me along the past of deism. We must in this situation agree to disagree.

That is an utter and complete bald assertion. What is your rational argument that supports the following premises:
1) Evolution makes no sense if it is not the product of a higher being.

2) Life producing life is non-sensical.

3) The "most natural" course would be that life simply die out.

These are all things that you're just saying are true, again by fiat. They are not really sound arguments, in my opinion.

Not really, just logical arguements from a subjective perspective. 1 by 1..

1. If evolution makes sense apart from a higher being, how? If there is no answer to negate my assumption I am justified in believing the statement true, however i should continue to question the validity of the argument.

2. again same reasoning... Give me a logical reason to believe otherwise. I am choosing not to believe evolution makes sense uninfluenced by the same reasoning you are choosing to believe god exists, yet my assumption is reinforced (if not proven) everywhere i look in the universe (known universe.)

3. Things weather, decay and die until they are in the simplest form. this is observable everywhere you look literally EVERYWHERE. life without regard to subjective consciousness, simply pro-longs the process, goes against the current, litterally fights the forces the universe is putting on it. For what purpose? It's perfectly logical to say that the desire to maintain life is seeded in consciousness, but how did life develop to that level? What drove the first living organism to eat?

Just because you want life to have a purpose doesn't mean it does. With that said, I think our purpose in life is to be the most productive members of society and aim to minimize suffering in our lives and others lives. That's not a directive from god; simply a recognition of what is often called "the human condition". It is the product of our very existence.

Sure maybe life has no purpose but it seems to, the universe is like a play-pen to the conscious mind. how ironic that the world as it exists can offer a conscious being no certainty whatsoever, "the only thing you cannot doubt, is that you may doubt everything." it's a torturous, conflicting existence that shouldn't happen. It would be more favorable for a being to never exist.

 

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

This topic is about evolution and infanticide, not evolution in general.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

This topic is about evolution and infanticide, not evolution in general.

Go practice natural selection and become extinct

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Go practice natural selection and become extinct

u mad.

 

[Blue Fury 10+ year member]

u mad.

Hahahaa AGREED!

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Hahahaa AGREED!

Stupidity angers me.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

This is not Miami

This is not Bangkok

This is not Milano

This is not New York

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Here we have the same understanding of the impossibility of the problem, you'll excuse me if i relate my statements to heavily to the human perspective ("a time before time.") but people usually don't understand the arguments otherwise. basically I agree, that such knowledge is unobtainable under the current conditions of human perspective. My disagreement it purely in the speculative outcome of the problem. You follow atheistic thoughts, I'm more influenced by themes such as Pascal's wager and behe's mousetrap. Not to mention i believe my personal view of the universe leads me along the past of deism. We must in this situation agree to disagree.

Pascal's wager is complete poppycock. Here we have an individual who is feigning belief in god for the sake of reward, but surely an omniscient being would be able to see through that?

Also, Pascal's Wager presents another false dichotomy: either god exists and requires belief, or god does not exist. There are, however, more than these two options. It can just as easily be argued that god exists and rewards skepticism; either argument can be demonstrated as equally true.

Then we have Michael Behe's mousetrap. It is simply a re-vamp of the telelogical argument, most famously put forth by Thomas Aquinas and then again by William Paley in his Watchmaker analogy. This is wrong on a number of levels. First, we again have an infinite regress built right in. Second, complexity does not necessarily infer design; evolution has shown that. Third, it ignores documented exaptation. Fourth, it is another argument from ignorance. Fifth, at best it would imply that the development of the world has been guided, and says nothing about the degree of the designer's perfection nor if he is infinite nor that he has made matter from nothing. Sixth, there is completely broken logic in the idea of comparing a designed item against nature, which you are also claiming to be designed. If both the designed item and the natural item were designed, then there exists no distinction to be made between the designed artifact and the natural artifact.

Have you read or seen Ken Miller's rebuttal of irreducible complexity?

Not really, just logical arguements from a subjective perspective. 1 by 1..

1. If evolution makes sense apart from a higher being, how? If there is no answer to negate my assumption I am justified in believing the statement true, however i should continue to question the validity of the argument.

How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion? It is basically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so we never say "Because you can't prove it to be wrong, it must be true". You must put forth a logical argument as to why evolution only makes sense if it is controlled by a higher being.

2. again same reasoning... Give me a logical reason to believe otherwise. I am choosing not to believe evolution makes sense uninfluenced by the same reasoning you are choosing to believe god exists, yet my assumption is reinforced (if not proven) everywhere i look in the universe (known universe.)

So your argument is that you think you see design. Please read above.

3. Things weather, decay and die until they are in the simplest form. this is observable everywhere you look literally EVERYWHERE. life without regard to subjective consciousness, simply pro-longs the process, goes against the current, litterally fights the forces the universe is putting on it. For what purpose? It's perfectly logical to say that the desire to maintain life is seeded in consciousness, but how did life develop to that level? What drove the first living organism to eat?

You are engaging in a lot of hyperbole and appeal to emotion. It seems you are arguing that consciousness is the only thing that gives anything in life a reason to live. If so, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

Perhaps nothing at all "drove" the first living organism to eat. Again, please understand that being unable to understand how life began (or any particular idea) does not equate to demonstrating that evolution (or life) is driven by a god.

Sure maybe life has no purpose but it seems to, the universe is like a play-pen to the conscious mind. how ironic that the world as it exists can offer a conscious being no certainty whatsoever, "the only thing you cannot doubt, is that you may doubt everything." it's a torturous, conflicting existence that shouldn't happen. It would be more favorable for a being to never exist.

On what basis did you arrive at the position that it is an existence that shouldn't happen? That is the nature of perception. Certainly we are infants in our understanding of the universe, and absolutely there are many things which can and should be doubted (yet here you are certain of god's existence). We can, however, acquire a degree of operative certainty. Again, you are completely engaging in hyperbole (we shouldn't a conscious being exist?).

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

this argument is a conundrum. it can't possibly be proven or disproven either way, especially when someone injects the word "faith" into the argument. that is the religious equivelant to playing the race card. it's meant to be an argument stopper, usually because one arguer can't credibly back up their position with fact. i happen to lean towards evolution, but i also haven't ruled out god. i have, however, ruled out the wizard like magic tricks written about jesus and god in the bible, by people who couldn't explain something as simple as lightning, or the shape of the earth. but that doesn't disprove god, it only illustrates our obsession with anything, or anyone, who appear to have answers/explanations for events and crisis. god in himself is a conundrum, or at least religions way of explaining him is. a peaceful being, of which millions have died fighting in wars that are in the name of god. an all knowing, all seeing god, who loves us so much, that he would burn us in a pit of hell for disobeying rules written on a tablet of stone, by a man who disappeared by himself on a mountain, and came back with rules for all people on earth. sounds fascist.