Intelligent design

[Majin]

People who believe in God but also believe in evolution are just pathetic bench sitters.

The reason why evolution is valid, is because there is evidence for it, and no evidence against it.

Those who sit on the bench and continue believing in God don't quite grasp the illogic of their position, for how can you advocate 'believing in things with evidence' theory then advocate 'believing in things without evidence' ie God.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

People who believe in God but also believe in evolution are just pathetic bench sitters.

The reason why evolution is valid, is because there is evidence for it, and no evidence against it.

Those who sit on the bench and continue believing in God don't quite grasp the illogic of their position, for how can you advocate 'believing in things with evidence' theory then advocate 'believing in things without evidence' ie God.

You sir can STFU.

Dont even try to imply you dont believe in anything that doesnt have clear cut evidence, becuase everyone on this board would be right there waiting to call bullshit.

You're just being hypocritical again, am i right when saying you dont believe the existance of "A" god, is entirely illogical, just the one that contradicts logic through omnipotence?..would i correct in saying that? I have seen you so many times saying you dont neccisarily believe its impossible for a higher being to exist, simply one that contradicts logic.

Humans all throughout history have always been generally scientific, aswell as religious or spiritual. Its not as if the two states of mind can't logically coexist, where the believer couldnt be labeled as intelligent and logical. Show me the illogic in believing a higher being exists. Matter of fact, show me the logic in believing that the universe has always existed. How can somthing always exist? we can logically explain or infer the existance of everything in this universe,(of which we are aware of) the existance of the universe being the exception.

No i'm not saying we have the answers to all questions, i probably worded that wrong.....what im saying is the questions may be confusing and the answers elusive at the time, but if they dont create paradoxes, the answers are theoretically out there...easier to find than questions that dont seem to be answerable, or conflict with logic.


Explain to me logically how somthing can come into existance, without coming to existance. If somthing never came into existance, then how can you explain its existance?

See where im going with this, if the theory of omniexistance is valid for the universe..how is the existance of a god, less valid?
Ive used this arguement before, hopefully you wont evade it this time.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

You sir can STFU.

Dont even try to imply you dont believe in anything that doesnt have clear cut evidence, becuase everyone on this board would be right there waiting to call bullshit.

I might, and if i do, those beliefs are wrong, i am not aware of any, you can try and find out some.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

You're just being hypocritical again, am i right when saying you dont believe the existance of "A" god, is entirely illogical, just the one that contradicts logic through omnipotence?..would i correct in saying that? I have seen you so many times saying you dont neccisarily believe its impossible for a higher being to exist, simply one that contradicts logic.

Correct, an illogical God cannot exist, a logical God might exist.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Humans all throughout history have always been generally scientific, aswell as religious or spiritual. Its not as if the two states of mind can't logically coexist, where the believer could still be labeled as intelligent and logical. Show me the illogic in believing a higher being exists. Matter of fact, show me the logic in believing that the universe has always existed. How can somthing always exist? we can logically explain or infer the existance of everything in this universe,(of which we are aware of) the existance of the universe being the exception.

Humans have never always been scientific, science requires a particular process, and humanity has not always had it.

As to how the universe came into being, we don't know.
Very easy conclusion.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Explain to me logically how somthing can come into existance, without coming to existance. If somthing never came into existance, then how can you explain its existance?

See where im going with this, if the theory of omniexistance is valid for the universe..how is the existance of a god, less valid?

What are you arguing about? that the universe has always existed is unproven, and lacks evidence, i don't support that as a valid belief.

The belief in God is not a valid belief either, until someone can actually show evidence for it.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

I might, and if i do, those beliefs are wrong, i am not aware of any, you can try and find out some.

Not my point, i dont really believe in an omnipotent god...ive tried to but failed to be content with what i could never understand.

But i do believe in a being that is powerful enough to set a chain of events into motion that creates everything we know today.

Originally Posted by Majin

Correct, an illogical God cannot exist, a logical God might exist.

Ive come to realize that its pointless to believe in an omnipotent god, even if i wanted to...im sick of not being able to understand it.

Originally Posted by Majin

Humans have never always been scientific, science requires a particular process, and humanity has not always had it.

This would be true, if i was talking about the methedology of todays sciences.
But im not, science is constantly changing......its only natural that are methods of going about doing change aswell, infact our changing is subsequently the reason science changes.

But humans the second they learned to reason, have always been to a certian degree scientific. Its foolish to use todays standards as means of comparsion, becuase science then, and science now are two different things. Humans have not always gone about science in the same way, but thats whats science is all about.....discovered new things, making revisions to old processes, discovery....discovery, discovery.

Humans have been able to operate logicaly, while also appealing to the unknown and the unexplainable.
Many respected scientists believe in an "Omniexistant" universe, and use science as a reason as to why its more valid than a god existing. If scientists believe it, lord it has to be more valid than beliefs of the common people...........not.

Originally Posted by Majin

As to how the universe came into being, we don't know.
Very easy conclusion.

Realistically, we dont know much of anything.
We are constantly renigging, revising scientific laws.....and even then we only think we understand whats going on, if history has shown us anything....whenver we think that, is when we contradict ourselves after a new discovery.

You are evading my question, explain to me logically how somthing that never came into existance, can exist.
If that belief is as valid as, an omnipotent god.....then why o why do many atheists believe in it, profess logic is the only way......and yet fail to realize that omniexistance is just as illogical as omnipotence and omniscience.

Originally Posted by Majin

What are you arguing about? that the universe has always existed is unproven, and lacks evidence, i don't support that as a valid belief.

This is just a copout, to avoid defending a position you dont take any stance.
Thankfully science doesnt go by your methods, otherwhise progress would be noexistant.

Originally Posted by Majin

The belief in God is not a valid belief either, until someone can actually show evidence for it.

Show me how its invalid

If you dont believe that the universe always existed, how is believing in a god that created it invalid?

Somthing had to create the universe...somthing that transcends our logic becuase th universe itself and its many aspects, are beyond logic.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

But humans the second they learned to reason, have always been to a certian degree scientific. Its foolish to use todays standards as means of comparsion, becuase science then, and science now are two different things. Humans have not always gone about science in the same way, but thats whats science is all about.....discovered new things, making revisions to old processes, discovery....discovery, discovery.

Science and reason are different, science is based on reason, but reason is not based on science.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Humans have been able to operate logicaly, while also appealing to the unknown and the unexplainable.
Many respected scientists believe in an "Omniexistant" universe, and use science as a reason as to why its more valid than a god existing. If scientists believe it, lord it has to be more valid than beliefs of the common people...........not.

Why do i care about scientists beliefs? only if there is evidence for it should i begin to examine it closely.

Yours is an appeal to authority.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

You are evading my question, explain to me logically how somthing that never came into existance, can exist.
If that belief is as valid as, an omnipotent god.....then why o why do many atheists believe in it, profess logic is the only way......and yet fail to realize that omniexistance is just as illogical as omnipotence and omniscience.

We don't know, eternity is definitely a possibility, because there is no prec****t to saying matter IS created or MUST be created.

In fact humans have never observed an actual act of creation in the sense your talking about, ever, only changing the structure of already existing matter.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

This is just a copout, to avoid defending a position you dont take any stance.
Thankfully science doesnt go by your methods, otherwhise progress would be noexistant.

Actually science goes by my methods, when science cannot explain something, it is considered unexplained.

You really think science offers answers for things it has no idea about?

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Show me how its invalid

I don't need, to, i don't know, can you figure out the very common-sense reason that when we don't know, we don't know, i have no idea why your demanding an answer to which no one has an answer too.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

If you dont believe that the universe always existed, how is believing in a god that created it invalid?

Somthing had to create the universe...somthing that transcends our logic becuase th universe itself and its many aspects, are beyond logic.

I don't believe it is true, it merely might be true.

This is my stance on God, agnosticism-atheism.

Btw be careful about talking in stupid rhetoric again, perhaps nothing created the universe, and i don't think this would transcend logic either.

[Puul]

Somthing had to create the universe...somthing that transcends our logic becuase th universe itself and its many aspects, are beyond logic.

'

Exactly, and that's why I avoid science. I'm pretty good at it too, but I refuse to delve into it because of the frustration it brings me. There is just so much to understand but there is no possible way for a human mind to understand it.

I will use ants for example, you can't explain anything scientific or mathematics to an ant. Well you could, but it wouldn't understand you. It is literally unable to understand anything type of higher learning that we've come to learn. Now put the focus on humans. To the universe, we are just as insignificant as ants are. Imagine the plethora of things that we can't possibly understand because we lack capacity. I don't know about you ,but this bothers me to no end, so I just refuse to think about it.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

Science and reason are different, science is based on reason, but reason is not based on science.

........Didnt i make that clear in the post you quoted?
The age of reason, awoke the age of science.

Originally Posted by Majin

Why do i care about scientists beliefs? only if there is evidence for it should i begin to examine it closely.

Yours is an appeal to authority.

No thats not my intention at all.

Im using omniexistance as a example of how science accepts somthing as plausible, even though its as logical as the god they are debunking.

Originally Posted by Majin

We don't know, eternity is definitely a possibility, because there is no prec****t to saying matter IS created or MUST be created.

We dont know, so we speculate.

God is one of those speculations.

Originally Posted by Majin

In fact humans have never observed an actual act of creation in the sense your talking about, ever, only changing the structure of already existing matter.

Actually by definition, it is creation.

Creation relies on the fundemental principle that you must have the materials in order to create somthing. But thats the paradox, we know what we need components for creation....and that if matter eploding or doing whatever created the universe.....was that matter everexistant? And if so, thats a logical paradox that goes beyond the explanation of logic.

Originally Posted by Majin

Actually science goes by my methods, when science cannot explain something, it is considered unexplained.

You really think science offers answers for things it has no idea about?

No im not saying that at all.

Your method is to not speculate over it, if it cant be explained.

Originally Posted by Majin

As to how the universe came into being, we don't know.
Very easy conclusion.

You are basically saying"Conclusion is, there is no conclusion so moving on" science will always speculate, you seem to be content with the unexplainable if it cant be explained now.

Originally Posted by Majin

I don't need, to, i don't know, can you figure out the very common-sense reason that when we don't know, we don't know, i have no idea why your demanding an answer to which no one has an answer too.

This is contradictory, you clearly say that the belief in god is invalid.
Yet you then say"I dont know" if you dont know, then how can you come to the conclusion that the belief is invalid, if you dont know either way?

Originally Posted by Majin

The belief in God is not a valid belief either, until someone can actually show evidence for it.

Here, you clearly speak as if you know....becuase you are saying its invalid.
Now you are saying you dont know, and dont have an answer.
Yet saying its invalid is an answer, and you clearly speak as if you know.

Originally Posted by Majin

I don't believe it is true, it merely might be true.

This is my stance on God, agnosticism-atheism.

Btw be careful about talking in stupid rhetoric again, perhaps nothing created the universe, and i don't think this would transcend logic either.

So are you saying that somthing that cannot be logically explained, is not beyond logical explanation?


.....................................

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

........Didnt i make that clear in the post you quoted?
The age of reason, awoke the age of science.

Actually you said humanity had science all the time.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

No thats not my intention at all.

Im using omniexistance as a example of how science accepts somthing as plausible, even though its as logical as the god they are debunking.

Which God? if God in general with no characteristics, Science has never debunked it.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

We dont know, so we speculate.

God is one of those speculations.

Your point? the belief in God is irrational, speculation does not equate to stating something is true, or believing it is true.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Actually by definition, it is creation.

Creation relies on the fundemental principle that you must have the materials in order to create somthing. But thats the paradox, we know what we need components for creation....and that if matter eploding or doing whatever created the universe.....was that matter everexistant? And if so, thats a logical paradox that goes beyond the explanation of logic.

As i said, not in the context of creating matter, everything we create operates with existing matter, we have no idea about actually creating matter.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

No im not saying that at all.

Your method is to not speculate over it, if it cant be explained.

No it isn't, my method is simply not believing it is true, after all didn't i say quite explicitly eternal matter was possible? that is speculation.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

You are basically saying"Conclusion is, there is no conclusion so moving on" science will always speculate, you seem to be content with the unexplainable if it cant be explained now.

No it isn't, my method is simply not believing it is true, after all didn't i say quite explicitly eternal matter was possible? that is speculation.

Originally Posted by Cane

This is contradictory, you clearly say that the belief in god is invalid.
Yet you then say"I dont know" if you dont know, then how can you come to the conclusion that the belief is invalid, if you dont know either way?

The belief in God is not valid because it is not rational, it is a belief not based on reason.

Whether or not God actually exists is unknown.

Originally Posted by Cane_the9lives

So are you saying that somthing that cannot be logically explained, is not beyond logical explanation?
.....................................

the creation, if there is, of the universe merely might be logically explained, it also might not, a lack of information does not make anything illogical, it just makes it an unknown.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

Actually you said humanity had science all the time.

No i said(in not the same words) since the dawn of reason.

You yourself stated that science is based off reason.

Originally Posted by Majin

Which God? if God in general with no characteristics, Science has never debunked it.

Pretty much fooled me.

Originally Posted by Majin

Your point? the belief in God is irrational, speculation does not equate to stating something is true, or believing it is true.

First you said its an invalid belief, now you say its an irrational belief.
A belief can be irrational, and still potentially be true.
But belief in a higher being is not irrational.

Originally Posted by Majin

No it isn't, my method is simply not believing it is true, after all didn't i say quite explicitly eternal matter was possible? that is speculation.

You are very misleading sometimes.

Are you saying, dont believe it's valid, but also dont believe its invalid?

Originally Posted by Majin

The belief in God is not valid because it is not rational, it is a belief not based on reason.

Whether or not God actually exists is unknown.

Again you are very misleading, its not invalid.....becuase we dont know it to be valid..thus we cant say"It's invalid becuase we dont know its valid"

If you cant determine the validity of somthing, then its neither valid or invalid.
You are using, invalid as a default...this is flawed.
And you have yet to explain how a belief in a higher being is irrational?

Originally Posted by Majin

the creation, if there is, of the universe merely might be logically explained, it also might not, a lack of information does not make anything illogical, it just makes it an unknown.

Stop evading, explain to me how somthing that cannot be explained logically....is magically still not beyond logical explanation?

[Majin]

It's very simple Cane, let me give you an example.

There are 3 doors, theres a car behind one, some guy has no idea or info what is behind what.

If he say's the car is behind THAT door, no matter which door, it is a flawed belief, for he has no information or any reason to suggest it is behind THAT door.

Irrespective of whether the car is behind that door or not, his belief is flawed.

It's like aiming a gun blindly to shoot at a target, and if it miraculously hits, thats the correct method to shoot a gun accurately?

Originally Posted by Cane_the9lives

Stop evading, explain to me how somthing that cannot be explained logically....is magically still not beyond logical explanation?

I don't think you know what real logic is.

There is no illogic to a universe that is eternal, because you flat out cannot disprove it, at least as of yet.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

It's very simple Cane, let me give you an example.

There are 3 doors, theres a car behind one, some guy has no idea or info what is behind what.

If he say's the car is behind THAT door, no matter which door, it is a flawed belief, for he has no information or any reason to suggest it is behind THAT door.

But there are only three doors, he has to choose one of them......if he knows there is a car behind one of them(which he doesnt know), its not illogical to say he believes its behind one of the three doors. Your analogy is whats flawed, you set up the idea that there is a car behind one of those three doors....and all he can do is believe what thinks the right door is....believing anyone of those doors is not illogical becuase he has a chance to be right. If there wasnt a car there to begin with, then it would be illogical becuae none of the three doors lead to a car. But since your scenerio clearly states that there is a car behind one of them.....believing in whatever door he feels....is not illogical.

Originally Posted by Majin

It's like aiming a gun blindly to shoot at a target, and if it miraculously hits, thats the correct method to shoot a gun accurately?

Dont see your point.

Originally Posted by Majin

I don't think you know what real logic is.

There is no illogic to a universe that is eternal, because you flat out cannot disprove it, at least as of yet.

Then there is no illogic in demons, ghosts and aleins...becuase you cannot disprove it....as of yet.

Glad we see Eye to eye, i personally believe in ghosts, and aliens...and maybe even demons.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

But there are only three doors, he has to choose one of them......if he knows there is a car behind one of them(which he doesnt know), its not illogical to say he believes its behind one of the three doors. Your analogy is whats flawed, you set up the idea that there is a car behind one of those three doors....and all he can do is believe what thinks the right door is....believing anyone of those doors is not illogical becuase he has a chance to be right. If there wasnt a car there to begin with, then it would be illogical becuae none of the three doors lead to a car. But since your scenerio clearly states that there is a car behind one of them.....believing in whatever door he feels....is not illogical.

You still don't understand, it is irrational for him to say it is behind any particular door, he has no evidence.

In fact if we extend this further into a true analogy, and there might be no car behind any door at all, then his belief becomes even more absurd.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

You still don't understand, it is irrational for him to say it is behind any particular door, he has no evidence.

But the point is there is a car behind one of those doors, it is not irrational to guess and believe its behind one of them.

[Apoo]

Actually, there might be no car behind any door at all. Its definitely irrational to guess, there's absolutely no reason to guess.