danielsangeo

"If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of." This is where I take issue. "Purpose" is something we, as intelligent beings, create for ourselves. "Purpose" in the universe would posit an intelligent being or force for the creation of the universe....something not in evidence. One can have purpose in a purposeless world. It's not illogical.

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Why must there be a "why"? Why must there be a "purpose" for the universe?

I am not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just providing my views here, but simply saying that "religion solves everything" is a completely backwards way of looking at things. I can come up with just about anything to explain the unknown. I can say that the universe was sneezed out of a large dragon and that the end of reality would come in the form of a giant handkerchief (apologies to Douglas Adams). I can say that the entire universe was created to bring about the Dorito chip ("nacho cheesier!"). What is that light in the night sky? Aliens! The problem with using religion, in my view, to explain the unknown is that it can be anything. Again, not trying to start an argument. That's just how I feel.

I have no problem with people beliefs but I do find it curious why they have them if there's no evidence. I have never been able to believe something unless there was evidence beforehand. And, to me, "too complex" is an argument from ignorance and "purpose" is something we create for ourselves. Many of our top minds are working on the origin of the universe but there just isn't enough data to formulate a theory behind it. There are hypotheses galore, of course, but nothing that rises to "theory" yet. I'm just uncomfortable ascribing the unknown to a deity...but if it works for you, I'm happy.

My thoughts? They are "so invested in denying it" because they believe the rhetoric that "doing something about it" would mean loss of jobs, revenue, and would (somehow) destroy the country, that it's "just fearmongering", or that it's somehow completely political (read: "left wing") so it doesn't exist.

That's a bad study. I have so many comments about it that I don't even know where to begin....such as, did they study whether they were already violent beforehand? Or how about whether simply being "desensitized" to fictional violence makes you desensitized to real violence. I can only speak for myself but I know others are like me, but I've seen more than my share of gory and violent movies and played more than my share of gory and violent video games. I've watched Dead Alive, which ranks up as the goriest, most violent horror movie of all time (the lawnmower scene?), and it didn't affect me much. Have I been desensitized to fictional violence? Probably. But then, later, I saw a real life video of a truck driver getting pulled out of his truck by three people, and the three people began to beat the shit out of him...and that disturbed me to no end. You see worse on prime time television shows, so why did that bother me much more than the lawnmower scene? Because this was real life, not some special effect.

I personally don't see why logic should necessarily "impede" ethics or vice versa.

Any evidence of that?

There is evidence of common ancestry. It's not "theoretical" as you claim but evidenced. Really, you need to get educated on the subject before you speak further. I can't teach you the basics over a webforum; unless, of course, we draw up a contract and you start paying me for this education service.

Okay, so, does anyone else want a crack at providing evidence that evolution is false or that creationism is true?

Wait, I have to provide evidence of a creator? Or do I have to provide evidence there is no creator? You say you're a "philosopher"...but, at the moment, we are not talking about philosophy; we're talking about clearly defined facts. It's not that we're "dissing" philosophy, it's just that we're not on that subject at the moment. Trying to "change the subject" (as it were) is not conducive to a mature discussion. It's not any kind of reasoning if you cannot support one of the axioms. One of those unsupported axioms is "Every rule must have a creator" (and, by extension, every "creation" must have a "creator"...except for the original creator, of course). You just insist that this is self-evident when it's clearly not. And your video of Dawkins is grossly distorted because it leaves out all that was before it. Dawkins doesn't debate creationists generally because he doesn't want to take the time to educate them on very basic things. The pause you saw was not that he was "stumped" because he has already WRITTEN BOOKS on the question. The pause you saw was the realization that he had been duped into being interviewed by a creationist...then he stopped the recording. Then it started up again when he realized that there was no easy way to get out of the interview so tried his best to educate the interviewer.... on something he's already written books on. The video is just a blatantly gross misrepresentation and I thought you'd know better than that.... This has already been well debunked and even a cursory Google search would've told you that. I'm disappointed.

What ego! I'm sorry, but just because we make rules doesn't mean that ALL RULES have to be "created". You have to provide evidence of this creator. "It just has to be!" is not an argument. It is, again, a logical fallacy.

"Global cooling" has never been advocated in scientific circles. "Global cooling" is something the media misrepresented. Just sayin'... Regardless of the political mess that is coming from this, global warming remains a demonstrable fact and we'll have to address this problem. And I feel we are. It's just going to take time and these crackpots out there that do not provide any evidence but make false claims about global warming ("It's the sun!") aren't helping matters...

Why? Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist. So, someone just came along and commanded that magnets will attract each other at opposite poles and repulse each other at the same poles? Or how about if there's a salty reservoir next to a freshwater reservoir with a permeable membrane, the water equaling out to equilibrium....someone created a rule for that? Not all rules are "created". It's not logical. You are professing, once again, an argument from ignorance. Right. Rife with logical fallacies. What is? I don't understand. Please explain to me why all rules must be created.

Why?

Actually, what creationsts claim to be "irreducible complexity"....isn't. Such as the eye. The eye is not irreducibly complex. In fact, nothing has been shown to be irreducibly complex. Complexity isn't random. It follows rules.

hmmmm.... Elaborate on this and I you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory. My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies. Go on then. On to the evolution hard facts and theories. For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection. Creationism relies on different logical fallacies for different types of arguments. Sometimes, they use "wishful thinking", while others uses arguments from ignorance, and still others just resort to ad hominem types of arguments. For example: "Irreducible complexity", for example, is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Essentially this is another "argument from ignorance". We do know that it was due to natural selection. See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

It's the same process that you did, though...just a bit more complex. We did? Where? Then evolution is not "just a theory". ..................for example...? Why would laws have to be "made by someone"? The "universe" has evidence, "the life force/spirit/god" does not. That's not quite how morphology works. It will have to withstand scientific rigor. A discovery of a "Precambrian rabbit" would be intensely scrutinized because it would cast serious questions into the current understanding of evolution. Would you be able to assemble something that could withstand such intense scrutiny? That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy. Some philosophers are illogical if they're using logical fallacies to support their position.

What you've done is a morphological deduction based on a variety of physical factors, which is partially how we can understand evolution when we see it in the fossil record. "Just a theory" is something you're going to have to elaborate on. Gravity is "just a theory". Thermodynamics is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory". That word "theory", I do not think it means what you think it means. Wait, what? Where did rover say that? Also, evolution isn't "philosophical". It's hard science. it's not logical at all. If the Earth/universe was "created", then what "created" the creator? Except that evolution can be falsified. As rover said. Find a Precambrian rabbit. There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for any type of deity...so, how do you know that it's not just invented like Luke Skywalker was? Unless you wish to provide some evidence. Again, I'm getting the run around. Why can't anyone just provide the evidence instead of giving excuses?

How is it a "logical theory"? What is this a picture of?

"Creationalism" is not logical. Also, simply having something be "logical" does not a theory make. Harry Potter is internally logical. That does NOT mean that there's a "theory of magic" or something. Yes, they can be falsified by simply providing evidence that they are false. Creationism cannot be falsified since there is no evidence that we can test.

1. My presumptions? 2. That you can't even provide the list? 3. No. 4. Why don't you answer the question? 5. Why would the eye be "irreducibly complex"? 6. The "Cambrian explosion" was 70-80 million years long...and there is evidence that there were flora and fauna prior to this "explosion" which would account for what we see. I realize that to 'evolutionists', evolution is fact, because it's demonstrably true. I realize that to 'creationalists', creation is fact, but it's NOT demonstrably true. That's the difference. This world is not "completely random". It follows certain laws. Abiogenesis is a completely different argument. If you want to discuss that, we can. Evolution is fact. There's no getting around it. Vague "nuh-uhs" is not helpful.

someone's going to provide counter "evidence" to this "evidence". That's how it works. Also, that's not evidence at all, but if you want to continue this, I have revived the Evolution vs Creation thread with these questions.

I am reviving this thread because the atheism thread went into Evolution vs Creationism. I am going to respond to this from that thread: 1. Every fossil is a transitional form. 2. [citation needed], also, relevance? 3. You're forgetting a key factor. Do you know what it is? 4. What about them? 5. Not true. 6. Also not true. This is your evidence against so-called "macro-evolution"? And where is the evidence for creationism? Note: Questioning evolution (which is encouraged) is not a substitute for providing evidence for creationism.