137
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 397:
Line 397: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 01:17, September 2, 2008
, 01:17, September 2, 2008no edit summary
::: "''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''": Gaping chasms, actually.
::: "''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''": Gaping chasms, actually.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
You say "''I'm arguing for things that you don't believe, but ... I'm not argument from a presumption that you don't believe.''" but then you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept. If you won't even consider my arguments because you won't consider their naturalistic "presumptions" then why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: "''Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?''" By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe? If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's "naturalism," then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective. But then why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God? And you're saying ''you'' start without presumptions? Please.
You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that "''God created man with a conscience.''" First of all, I don't agree with this premise, but I will overlook this to make my argument. Now, if God imbued all humans with consciences, it would perfectly explain why all religions have virtually the same set of moral codes. But you ''also'' make the ethnocentric claim that people from other religions, ''"influence[d] by Satan, invented false gods as alternatives to the true God [i.e., the Christian God]."'' So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate? If the morals were in fact from God and the rest of the religion from Satan, it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology. Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion ''must'' be from Satan.
Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.
Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument. However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.' And what exactly would be the "false god" equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?
These points aside, even if is true that there is a true God on which all other gods are based upon, you are admitting that people create false gods. On what basis, then, do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one? Certainly all religions have sacred texts claiming that their particular philosophy is the singular truth. If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false, how then would you? With this logic there may be a God but His name may not be Jesus.
''"The very existence of fakes gods suggests a real God."'' There are very many different Santa Clauses throughout the world; Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Father Frost, etc., etc. But the very existence of so many Santas does ''not'' imply that there must be a ''real'' one too! I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas, but if you did you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation.
Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do. One person
''[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.'' Because you say so? And you are also trying to tell me that this being who apparently exists outside of time is a "''simple''" being? Besides, I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.
''Gaping chasms, actually.'' Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such "gaping chasms?" How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?
Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: ''"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages ('''an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years'''), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.''" Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: ''The man and his theories''. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club.
As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features
However, none of my ''"made-up stor[ies] designed to prop up the naturalistic view"'' will convince you of anything. It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies. We're not going to get anywhere.
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
== ??? ==
== ??? ==