Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[Eratosthenes]

Is that some sort of Godwin Law on philosophical argument?

Yeah, Pascal's wager really has nothing to do with what's true; it's the "appeal to consequences" fallacy.

[kareface]

Define perfection. I already told you my definition of it, what is yours? I reason that perfection has a limit based on its definition, which from what I've seen, you've said almost nothing about; except that my definition is wrong because I'm saying that in order to recognize perfection, there must be some limit, but you say that it is pointless to realize that there is a limit if any, for it makes no difference.

No, I'm saying you are assigning perfection to a entity you know nothing about. There is no reason to assume something that created the universe is perfect. If you look at his work alone, it seems more we were more of a mistaken if anything. This universe was not designed with life in mind at all. Hell, even this planet was unable to sustain multicellular life until recently. That was only because of the changes the bacterium and plants had made to the composition of the atmosphere. If you look at evolution it's an incredibility cruel way of advancing a species. There are constant mutations between generations, guaranteeing that a certain percentage of our offspring will be born with malformations or mental retardation. Then, for the few that survive the deadly pursuit of childbirth you have the majority of nature trying to destroy you. Do you know how many other human-like species went extinct at the same time our species was in it's infancy. We're lucky we managed to survive as long as we have. We've now reached a point in our existence where we have the knowledge to destroy all life as we know it and we've gotten to this point with prefrontal lobes that are too small and adrenaline glands that are too large.

I'm don't even care if he's not perfect, a drunk wife beater could of done a better job then god.

A newer cell may be closer to perfection than its predecessor, yet it has achieved no more perfections than the older cell.

Again, that doesn't make you right, just a moron. It's not the cell, but the genetic heritage that is to follow. There are woman that are being born with the capacity to see a small portion of the ultraviolet spectrum. There was a child (a girl none the less) that was born with a duplicate gene for muscle production and looks like a body builder at the age of 6. There is a whole village that was born with a gene that gives them an almost immunity to heart disease. That's ONLY taken into account genetic drift. If you look at species that have been acted upon by PE, then you'll see whole new organs, bone structures, wings, and countless other 'perfections' that didn't previously exist in the genetic code. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean that it's not true. But then again it looks like you've grown accustom to covering your ears and believing what you want in the end.

I'm not sure why you keep debating about how things change state in regard to a beginning or end. That's not what I'm talking about whatsoever.

I'm trying to explain to you that beginnings and ends are another construct of the human mind. Another way for us to help structure the randomness of the reality we live in. That's what I'm talking about. Nothing that we've ever seen has truly ended. However, our minds aren't designed to understand things on the scale that it would require to realize that. Had we been born on the atomic scale, we would not have a inherent concept of beginning and end. Only the understanding of changing states. It's only the scale in which we've evolved that defines how we structure the world around us. That doesn't mean that it's an accurate representation of the natural world.

By the way, never did I use the word 'fact'. Nor did I say I had any non-subjective evidence. So you're right, and I guess my opinion is completely backward and foolish.

That is the entire point. You posted this diatribe constantly asserting things that only god could possibly know. Used a gem like, "I do beleive god exists, because it does only seem logical to me". Leaving the statement with out any real basis. The entire point, with out facts or evidence you might as well be writing a fiction story about lightsabers. You wrote 9 paragraphs, and I would be willing to wager the reason no one besides myself gave any meaningful response was because most of the people that read it had the same reaction I did, rolling their eyes. If you want to join the debate, bring something more then a story. It would be like quoting passages of the bible to provide proof of god. It's just silly and pointless.

Why could god have not created evolution and the big bang? Or is your answer that they simply exist seperately from each other and one does not need the other to exist? Evolution, the big bang, etc, they can only exist without god if you state that god does not exist.

This is why you need to crack a book. You don't need to assume that god doesn't exist. Let's just take the stance that we don't know. Then look at evolution, does it require a god? Nope. So, assigning a supernatural entity to explain something that already has a perfectly working explanation would be breaking Occam's razor. You would be adding an extra step where it would not logically need one. To that extent, you assign god to anything you think is required for our existence, then is he also the force behind the countless things that are trying to destroy us? It's like you haven't thought out your own arguments.

You take enjoyment out of telling people who beleive in a higher being that they are wrong, but you cover your ears and shout that they have no proof you can see with your own eyes or understand with the limited human mind, and that there is no reason to argue or have an opinion on anything that you cannot prove. Then you waltz away with your nose so high up that people can see right into your nostrils.

Your welcome to have an opinion, but once you vocalize it on a public forum, your opinion will be open to criticism. You can't post it here then bitch and moan when no one agrees with you. Not to mention you likened gods existence with logic, while offering nothing objective. You essentially posted in the middle of a real debate, "god is better because I say so".

On top of that, I do believe there is a word for people who assert absolute truths about unknowable things, psychotic. You can't possibly know most of what you claim as the basis of your argument. I'll be clear, I believe whole heartedly that the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world operated on as few faiths as they can manage. The idea that believing in something with no evidence should be considered ignorant. If you have no reason to believe it, why bother!? Faith has been a bane to the development of science and the cause for unspeakable acts to be preformed. It's been said by greater men then I that with out faith, good men will still be good, and bad men will still be bad, but it's only with faith that good men will commit truly bad things. It takes a corruption of the reasoning faculties, to tell someone that a belief in something that has no justification is worthwhile, to get someone who would otherwise be a good person to do something awful.

But that's wrong. There is value in it, there is a reason: to better understand the beginning of everything, to better understand ourselves as not only humans but individuals. Only a fool would say that there is no value in trying to reason the existence of god.

God isn't an explanation, he is the very absence of one. You don't better understand anything by ascribing it to god, you only side step the real answers that still lie out there. If humans, the earth, even the universe are found to be made with out the need for a god, then why have a god? If everything can happen on it's own, why assign another step along the way. To make the argument even more ignorant, you have to assume everything requires a cause to justify a god, but you must break your own logic to explain god. He has either always existed, or didn't require a cause. Then why can't you just skip god and accept that nature is the same. There is no need for a god, he will always be the non-answer.

You're bashing God, did you ask yourself, "what if im wrong?" "what if there is a God?".

What if there are gnomes?
What if there are magical unicorns?
What if Santa is real?

I'm not bashing god, I'm bashing an unreasonable argument. If someone came to me insisting that leprechauns were real, do you think I would not offer the same debate? Even if god was real, the world would will be a better place with out fatih. If god exists, he is a cruel entity to allow so many atrocities acted out in his name. If he is all powerful he could end the debate once and for all. He could, but doesn't, meaning he is either cruel or does not posses the power to do so. Even if god existed, we'd be better off to assume otherwise, the world would be a better place for it.

If i believe in the half-assed story the athiests are giving me, im risking something very very serious.

Are you such a servile that with out the existence of god, you would go around committing crimes? I hate when people ascribe morality to god. Countries that have higher atheists populations have better educational systems and far less violence then countries that have more faithful. A recent study says that the more times a week you go to church the more likely you'll support torture. The most blood soaked times throughout history have all had one thing in common, faith. Even if it wasn't in a god, it was the faith of an idea that had noting to support it. At the end of the day it's not god that I take issue with, it's faith. You can only justify true immorality using faith. It's only through the same lack of reason that allows for a god that you can commit unspeakable acts.

"The chance of higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein."

Yes, I've heard the ultimate 747 gambit before. The problem with this is if you deal a deck of cards out, the odds of you getting the hand that you are holding are almost as bad as the odds of life. The position of any atom in a stone is astronomical. Yet you are holding a stone. If you look at the mathematical odds of chemistry in action, you would think that chemistry never existed. You can't look at the state of something at one point, and assume the odds of achieving that state from nothing are accurate. This argument has been used by the ID people for years, and was laughed out of court by a right-wing judge. That's not how probability works. You have to look at the probability of each intermediate state. What is the chance we've evolved from a slightly different life form that preceded us, almost 100%, and the chances that it came from something that preceded it, almost 100%. If you look at the chances after every generation there is so little change that it's almost unthinkable that it didn't happen.

Heres a quote from TO:

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

And a nice paper regarding it: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

However, Abiogenesis aside, evolution is a fact. The only reason it's called a theory is because facts only truly exist in mathematics. There are more historians that deny the holocaust then biologists that deny evolution. There isn't just a consensus, 99% of scientists in the fields that relate to evolution believe it to be true. That's not to say that the theory is complete, but there isn't anything that comes anywhere near are close. It explains almost everything perfectly. People who deny evolution are truly ignorant. This isn't something that is deniable. There is too much evidence in it's favor. I'll go into more detail about this in a future post for your benefit.

To debunk the videos you posted. I would like to note: this isn't the first time I've run across them.

To his first point: He uses chapters of the Qur'an to justify his belief. Does that mean that any book that mentioned something extremely vaguely that might be interpreted as something we didn't know at the time can be considered to be the word of god? If you look through any biblical text that are long enough you'll find vague references that might be taken out of context to mean something else. That aside, does that mean the countless factual inaccuracies in the Qur'an prove it to be false? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that some vague passage that can be interpreted in countless ways prove the book is the word of god, then ignore the aspects of the Qur'an that are outright false. It's either true or not true, it can't be both and still be considered the word of god.

By the way, when the Qur'an was written, it had long sense been surmised that the moon was reflecting light from the sun. Ironically this was surmised by Arabic scholars who's discoveries were destroyed by the later dogma that enveloped the region. His entire basis there is just false.

What about all the passages that are false? That talk about something we know now to be wrong. Does that prove that it's not the book of god? Then, to make matters worse, he likens it to scientifically established principles to justify his position, then in other videos outright attacks evolution which has far more evidence to support it then some of the theories he's comparing. You can't cherry pick what you want to believe from science and what you don't.

In the second video, where he talks about theory of evolution. I want to reiterate: A theory is the highest form of scientific proof. Facts only exist in mathematics. He is knowingly using the colloquial term to confuse his audience who won't know any better. A quote from TO:

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
   
   • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
   • Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
   • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
   • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
   
   Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

He claims that Darwin didn't see a different species, but he did. It's well documented. We have countless documented cases of speciation today. He claims there is no link link!? He really is a complete moron. Even if there was no link at all, there is still a mountain of evidence to support evolution.
BUT JUST TO PROVE HE'S FULL OF SHIT:
YouTube - Human Evolution: The fossil record
And a list for good measure:
Prominent Hominid Fossils

He goes on a rant about scientist that don't agree with Darwin's theory. But he's conflating what Darwin wrote with our current understanding of evolution. Darwin wrote his theory over 150 years ago. Between now and then, it has been developed greatly. You can't call evolution as we know it today Darwinism because it's so much further advanced then Darwin could of ever imagined. To address this list of scientist that he's talking about, check out this video:
YouTube - List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?

Even if everyone on that list was a biologist, it would still account for less then 1% of the community. But most of the people on the list aren't, they don't have any real knowledge of what would make evolution true. It's just a sham created to try and propagate the idea the evolution isn't agreed upon in the scientific community when there is NO DEBATE over it's truth. He continues on his rant talking about books written against Darwin's theory. Of course there is going to be decent when something that different from conventional thought was released. There is a reason why the scientific community sided with evolution tho, it's demonstrably true. Even if everyone in the world disagreed with an idea, like the earth being round, that wouldn't change the facts. Evolution is true.

His claim that there are no proofs of evolution just goes to prove he is talking out of his ass. He has no concern for the truth. Not only is there proof, but some of the proofs would ONLY suggest evolution as being true. There is no other rational explanation. I'm not going to continue to debunk the rest of this video, because that sentence made it clear that he has no interest in informing people. He is intentionally lying to make his case, and is the reason why I hate faith.

Answer the questions proposed in this video:
YouTube - Questions for people who don't accept evolution.

Explain the following:
YouTube - Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)

I can keep going, I have easily several hours worth of material in support of evolution I can post in youtubes alone. The problem is, no matter what video you post in support of creationism, I can debunk it because it's based on a false premise. You can't debunk the 2 videos I posted above, because it's based on observable facts. This goes once again to show how poisonous faith is. That you would throw away truth because it conflicts with some fact-less premise. You have no reason to believe what you do, but you are willing to feel it's a virtue to do so. It's truly disgusting.

It's one thing to believe in a god, but it's a whole different argument to use that belief to deny observable truths. Explain to me how on earth you can possibly deny evolution?

[Furoris]

You smart people are only as good as the science you use to "prove" something. Just because "you" can't prove God doesn't exsist doesn't mean that he doesn't.

A couple hundred years ago, you smart people thought the earth was flat and everything revolved around the earth.

I think you have it backwards it was the Vatican that was saying the earth revolved around the sun and they only apologized for it a year ago don't make me do the actual research of just how many prominent scientific figures determined that the earth was round and revolved around the sun before they stopped hiding it for fear of being declared a heretic.

blah sry to quote someone from the beginning of the topic but the idea that REAL scientists who studied the matter thought that the earth was flat/geocentric as the end all be all of a theory is preposterous.

[Devia]

Atheists are the new intolerant extremists.

[Mizango]

Atheists are the new intolerant extremists.

May God have mercy...

[kareface]

Atheists are the new intolerant extremists.

A statement based on ignorance. Atheism is merely a position on a single question. To assume all atheists are the same in any way besides that single position is just dumb. It would be like saying all Mexicans can't read. Just because some can't doesn't mean anything to the group as a whole. Because being able to read doesn't define a Mexican, just like anything other then a position on god doesn't define a atheist.

[Dimmauk]

Please tell me firas didn't use pascal's wager on this page.. That's like the ultimate "I don't deserve to be in this debate" arguement.

He only did that cause his god is TW.

[Effluo]

A statement based on ignorance. Atheism is merely a position on a single question. To assume all atheists are the same in any way besides that single position is just dumb. It would be like saying all Mexicans can't read. Just because some can't doesn't mean anything to the group as a whole. Because being able to read doesn't define a Mexican, just like anything other then a position on god doesn't define a atheist.

I do believe I felt a strong breeze...

[quannum]

Devia: 1
Atheists: 0

[Hitoshura]

There is definitely a true arbiter out there, all of this.. us. We didn't fucking come out of nowhere, that is complete bullshit. If Lost taught me anything it's that everyone answers to someone, and all of you ignorant morons will too. I believe this and face that fact that we probably won't ever know anything about this great entity, and will die and rot in the ground like everyone else.

[quannum]

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/...fe3cabe101.png

[Mayareira]

Religious people should discuss their own koran/bible etc. miracles in their own topics. If the hype about this "missing link" is correct, this event is just so awesome. Besides, evolution theory is MUCH more complicated than monkeys transforming into humans -_-

People have a brain for a reason, what's the point of limiting it? The entire point of Science is to give things a shot and prove/disprove them.

Scientist: I found something extraordinary!
Religious: That's not possible, look at bible everything is already written there^__^!

[Dimmauk]

There is definitely a true arbiter out there, all of this.. us. We didn't fucking come out of nowhere, that is complete bullshit. If Lost taught me anything it's that everyone answers to someone, and all of you ignorant morons will too. I believe this and face that fact that we probably won't ever know anything about this great entity, and will die and rot in the ground like everyone else.

J.J. Abrams is my new God.

[quannum]

the term "missing link" is outdated. we'll probably always be missing species in the fossil record. but the lines/branches in the evolutionary tree become finer grain as we continue to find new species to fit in place where evolution predicts they will be.

I don't want to downgrade this discovery, but the media hype around is just that.

[Tristam]

Links/names, etc. plz, as a part time logician I want to read them (I hope is not Giulio, Kant, et al.).

Nvm, your post clearly shows you don't even understand the argument.

Explain it then, don't hold me to a standard you don't hold to yourself.

edit: better yet, provide me with an example of a scholar who stands by Anselm's ontological argument today as a proof rather than an intriguing historical argument. Don't give me rather than a rebuttal of the many rebuttals. Seriously there are tons of variants, rebuttals, and rebuttals to rebuttals your original question wasn't a very good one.

But since you want modern names, here you go:

Raymond Smullyan (mathemetician/philosopher) considers the argument pretty weak, he compares it to a child crying “God must exist because he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really doesn't!”

Peter Millican opens a 2004 paper saying that most consider the argument to be "unquestioningly fallacious" but the scholarship involves proving where the logical fallacy lies.

[kareface]

You smart people are only as good as the science you use to "prove" something. Just because "you" can't prove God doesn't exsist doesn't mean that he doesn't.

Is this really your argument. Have you even considered what you are saying?

Why couldn't that be used to justify any fantasy? How can you differentiate between what is real and what is imaginary? You can use that same logic to prove anything no matter how crazy it sounds.

For example:

God doesn't exist, because the Magic Water Buffalo would of killed him if he did. PROVE ME WRONG!? YOU CAN'T!?!?! THAT MEANS IT MIGHT BE TRUE!?!?!? OMG I JUST PROVED GOD DOESN'T EXISTS!!!!111

Before you can bring that up, you have to asses if the original proposition is likely. Which will bring us back to the who created the creator, if something is eternal why can't we assume so is the quantum state of the universes origin, ect. ect. There are few who would disagree that it's possible something exists outside of our capasity to understand. However, what good is it to assume anything about an unknowable entity. It might as well not exsit, because it doesn't have any influence on us.

[Devia]

There are few who would disagree that it's possible something exists outside of our capasity to understand. However, what good is it to assume anything about an unknowable entity. It might as well not exsit, because it doesn't have any influence on us.

You make no sense. If we cannot comprehend something, how does it automatically follow that it can have no influence on us?

[kareface]

You make no sense. If we cannot comprehend something, how does it automatically follow that it can have no influence on us?

Any influence is had on us would be a manifestation in the natural world. You should only hope that this happens because they it would provide a testable hypothesis for the existence of entity X. An example, if god listen to prayers we can set up a test to see the results. Which has been done I might add. Any influence he has on anything in the natural world would then make him part of nature. A testable theory. However, if you are simply going to say that god is behind everything, with no definable way to differentiate it from the normal ongoings of nature, then why ascribe god at all? If nature explains the events with out the need for a god, then why have a god.

Just to be clear, it's either:

A: There is a god that influences nature in some way, making it possible to test for his existence.

B: He doesn't influence nature, or his influence is no different then what would normally occur in nature, which begs the question why then is there a need for a god?

If he is unknowable, he is useless. Anything that would make him useful would also make him knowable to some degree.

[Zilong]

You forgot C. Nu-uh

[Tristam]

A: There is a god that influences nature in some way, making it possible to test for his existence.

B: He doesn't influence nature, or his influence is no different then what would normally occur in nature, which begs the question why then is there a need for a god?

If he is unknowable, he is useless. Anything that would make him useful would also make him knowable to some degree.

This is pretty much what all these threads boil down two, a few theists claiming different versions of a deity that may or may not interact with the universe, and atheists saying ok, prove a physical manifestation or interaction or your god is meaningless (take that Anselm).

Neither of these things ever get answered satisfactorily.