Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occam's Razor

Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 11:28:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Occam's(also spelt Okham) Razor is a law that states the simplest solution is usually the correct one

So if you accept Occam's razor wouldn't it follow that you would believe god created the Universe if we compare that argument side by side with evolution it looks like this
Evolution:
Due to a random chance several particles just happened to arrange in the correct order they then became living. These single celled organisms than through just as random chance turned into multi-celled organisms these multi-celled organisms then somehow became tissue, which then became plants and animals these plants and animals then through a theory called natural selection, which is explained as certain organisms will have specific traits which will allow them to reproduce better than others of their species will continue to exist until they are no longer able to adapt, eventually one group of primates somehow developed a larger brain, this mutation was then exaggerated through several generations to become human beings.

Intelligent Design (aka God did it)
An omnipotent and omniscient being created everything we see around us

When these two are compared and contrasted it seems to me that if we agree with the principle of Occam's Razor then a divine creator and origin is the correct one
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 11:39:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I tend to agree. It just seems absurd to me that everything around us randomly came to be. DNA is one example I like to use. It's so complex, there must be something behind the creation of it.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 11:52:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 11:39:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I tend to agree. It just seems absurd to me that everything around us randomly came to be. DNA is one example I like to use. It's so complex, there must be something behind the creation of it.

Ok, I sounded really stupid there. -__- Seriously though, I doubt everything is random.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 11:54:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No. Occam's razor says that GIVEN THAT TWO EXPLANATIONS HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT, the one with fewer assumptions is a better hypothesis.

There is a wealth of evidence that the natural process of evolution is responsible for our life. The evidence directly leads to us accepting evolution, big bang cosmology, etc - essentially, naturalism. The question then becomes - is it more likely that [naturalism] or is it more likely that [naturalism + god], and Occam's Razor tells us that unless there is testable evidence which agrees with the latter and not the former, the former is a better hypothesis.

God is a VERY big assumption. And it's an unneeded assumption, so Occam says not to make it. Evolution, on the other hand, is not an assumption - it is a theory with a vast amount of evidence. Occam does NOT say to throw away claims that have evidence supporting them in favor of simpler claims that do not, and he would be retarded if he did.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:03:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 11:39:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I tend to agree. It just seems absurd to me that everything around us randomly came to be. DNA is one example I like to use. It's so complex, there must be something behind the creation of it.
There is. It's called evolution.

It's not thought that the first lifeforms had DNA. They probably just had very simple protein patterns that formed on a strictly chemical basis. This eventually evolved into the complex protein machinery you see in creatures and bacteria today.

"Something" doesn't always mean a god. Take a look at the earth. The way the water level is pretty much all at the exact same altitude above the center of the earth, the way there are layers of atmosphere and geological layers. It looks designed. It doesn't look like something that was thrown together randomly. And that's because it's not. Natural forces, such as gravity, have shaped the earth into a specific shape. Rather than some random mass, the earth is now an oblate spheroid. Rather than the water level varying all over the place, it's pretty consistent thanks to the water constantly being pulled toward the center of the earth. If it's "designed," it seems to be designed by the laws of nature, just like all the other celestial bodies.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:14:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life or the universe. Both of you are thinking of abiogenesis. Why do you people even bother arguing against things you haven't taken the time to learn about?

So here's the thing. Wikipedia quote: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."

First, giving evolution/creationism a quick moment, evolution has a MOUNTAIN of evidence behind it. It's been seen in action, tested, makes logical sense, and has been proven again and again. This is why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis--it's got enough testing behind it to consider it a fact. It takes a long time to be considered a theory and not a hypothesis.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a religious, pseudo-scientific, joke of a CONCLUSION. Meaning, you guys came to the conclusion first THEN tried to prove your conclusion correct. It's not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is what happens when you view all the data and attempt a likely explanation to be tested. Creationists came to a conclusion first, can't test their conclusion, and don't want to. Treating creationism like it's a hypothesis equal to evolution is a JOKE. One can't even be considered a hypothesis, one has passed that stage years ago.

Now. As far as Occam's Razor is concerned with the creation of the world. The trouble here, again, is there's no hypothesis from the creationist camp, only what they see as a foregone conclusion.

Pause a sec. Let's not even pretend you didn't go religion -> creationism, okay? You don't look around and say, hey, the world must have been created, and that somehow makes one religion more true over another. The universe and/or life being created doesn't even prove the existence of a god. It could be anything from aliens to virtual reality to some interdimensional kid playing with chemicals. And the fact that it isn't a foregone conclusion for many people, religious and not, says a lot.

So, on one hand, you have this religious explanation, NOT a hypothesis. Again, don't pretend it's anything else. Then on the other hand you have scientists giving all sorts of hypotheses that are not based on religious dogma. They looked at the evidence and came up with an explanation, which can be tested.

Again you have a big problem. One explanation is not a hypothesis, compared to countless hypotheses. You can't even get to the point of testing whether or not they are equal in EVERY OTHER ASPECT besides simplicity because, guess what, one's not even a hypothesis.

Creationism isn't even a contender. It's the wheezy dweeb you let play on the basketball team because his dad is a filthy rich mobster.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:15:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah hell, omelet beat me to it. :P
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:24:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 12:15:19 AM, Yvette wrote:
Ah hell, omelet beat me to it. :P
You brought up some stuff I didn't. I don't think I even mentioned abiogenesis.
=]
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 12:39:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://images.cheezburger.com...
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 1:37:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 11:28:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Occam's(also spelt Okham) Razor is a law that states the simplest solution is usually the correct one

So if you accept Occam's razor wouldn't it follow that you would believe god created the Universe if we compare that argument side by side with evolution it looks like this
Evolution:
Due to a random chance several particles just happened to arrange in the correct order they then became living. These single celled organisms than through just as random chance turned into multi-celled organisms these multi-celled organisms then somehow became tissue, which then became plants and animals these plants and animals then through a theory called natural selection, which is explained as certain organisms will have specific traits which will allow them to reproduce better than others of their species will continue to exist until they are no longer able to adapt, eventually one group of primates somehow developed a larger brain, this mutation was then exaggerated through several generations to become human beings.

Intelligent Design (aka God did it)
An omnipotent and omniscient being created everything we see around us

When these two are compared and contrasted it seems to me that if we agree with the principle of Occam's Razor then a divine creator and origin is the correct one

Occam's razor is always misused in this way.

Intelligent design/creationism creates many additional questions.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 2:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 11:39:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

DNA is one example I like to use. It's so complex, there must be something behind the creation of it.

By "something behind the creation," I'm going to assume you mean a designer of sorts. There is no logic behind the idea that 'complexity means creator.' Simply because the complexity of something is impressive to you does not mean its existence was created by a designer.

And before you bring out the Watchmaker argument, let me quote from the Iron Chariots:
The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilfull ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially paramount to the statement "I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!"
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I tend to agree. It just seems absurd to me that everything around us randomly came to be.

Since you brought up DNA, you're mainly talking about complex LIFE, right? It's been said before and apparently it needs to be said again: it's not random. Mutations are random, yes, but it is NOT by random chance that humans, trees, or bacteria exist.

"[E]volution is not a random process, but rather occurs through the natural selection of successful traits. ... [D]eterminstic, not random."
http://richarddawkins.net...
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:00:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 11:28:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Occam's(also spelt Okham) Razor is a law that states the simplest solution is usually the correct one

So if you accept Occam's razor wouldn't it follow that you would believe god created the Universe if we compare that argument side by side with evolution it looks like this
Evolution:
Due to a random chance several particles just happened to arrange in the correct order they then became living. These single celled organisms than through just as random chance turned into multi-celled organisms these multi-celled organisms then somehow became tissue, which then became plants and animals these plants and animals then through a theory called natural selection, which is explained as certain organisms will have specific traits which will allow them to reproduce better than others of their species will continue to exist until they are no longer able to adapt, eventually one group of primates somehow developed a larger brain, this mutation was then exaggerated through several generations to become human beings.

Intelligent Design (aka God did it)
An omnipotent and omniscient being created everything we see around us

When these two are compared and contrasted it seems to me that if we agree with the principle of Occam's Razor then a divine creator and origin is the correct one

Except you're deliberately making the big bang, evolution and natural selection sound complex next to a theist point of view.

If god created everything then we must consider the fact that nothing can be created from nothing, ignoring the obvious contradiction with the very idea of god, god must have done one of two things:

Either created something from nothing, something which we consider to impossible, making god's creation of the universe instantly far more complex than the big bang

Or god created something from something else, meaning that god's method is equally as complex as the big bang, but the very presence of god and the obvios question as to how makes it, again, infinitely more complex.

Therefore, Occams razor applies more to the scientific theory than to your bullsh!t holy books, because at lest the scientific theory is un-complex enough for us to know what the hell is going on.

Thank you and goodnight.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:41:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
a reasonable person would never expect these machines to all be winners. but the Darwinist is not a reasonable person. http://www.biblegateway.com...
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:42:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 1:37:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/21/2010 11:28:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Occam's(also spelt Okham) Razor is a law that states the simplest solution is usually the correct one

So if you accept Occam's razor wouldn't it follow that you would believe god created the Universe if we compare that argument side by side with evolution it looks like this
Evolution:
Due to a random chance several particles just happened to arrange in the correct order they then became living. These single celled organisms than through just as random chance turned into multi-celled organisms these multi-celled organisms then somehow became tissue, which then became plants and animals these plants and animals then through a theory called natural selection, which is explained as certain organisms will have specific traits which will allow them to reproduce better than others of their species will continue to exist until they are no longer able to adapt, eventually one group of primates somehow developed a larger brain, this mutation was then exaggerated through several generations to become human beings.

Intelligent Design (aka God did it)
An omnipotent and omniscient being created everything we see around us

When these two are compared and contrasted it seems to me that if we agree with the principle of Occam's Razor then a divine creator and origin is the correct one

Occam's razor is always misused in this way.

Intelligent design/creationism creates many additional questions.

this is spam Narcy; rebut his point if its honestly being misused. Sometimes your like this sites atheist version of DATCMOTO.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:48:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow a lot of debate on the subject
I have a question though you guys keep saying there is "A mountain of evidence for evolution" could I see these mountains of evidence
Also could someone explain to me how the first cell came to be
And could you guys try and keep it civil in your response
Note: I do believe in evolution to a limited degree within species however I reject the idea of interspecies evolution
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:48:03 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Wow a lot of debate on the subject
I have a question though you guys keep saying there is "A mountain of evidence for evolution" could I see these mountains of evidence
Also could someone explain to me how the first cell came to be
And could you guys try and keep it civil in your response
Note: I do believe in evolution to a limited degree within species however I reject the idea of interspecies evolution

you should invent a new word for that limited evolution, normally called micro-evolution. for its not controversial at all yet the neo-darwinist will always point to proof of micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution. So I make up new terms for both so they cant be confused as the evolution we creationist argue about. Ragnozork to replace Macro-evolution; and Quibblezipp to replace Micro-evolution.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:09:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:42:56 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 6/22/2010 1:37:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/21/2010 11:28:08 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Occam's(also spelt Okham) Razor is a law that states the simplest solution is usually the correct one

So if you accept Occam's razor wouldn't it follow that you would believe god created the Universe if we compare that argument side by side with evolution it looks like this
Evolution:
Due to a random chance several particles just happened to arrange in the correct order they then became living. These single celled organisms than through just as random chance turned into multi-celled organisms these multi-celled organisms then somehow became tissue, which then became plants and animals these plants and animals then through a theory called natural selection, which is explained as certain organisms will have specific traits which will allow them to reproduce better than others of their species will continue to exist until they are no longer able to adapt, eventually one group of primates somehow developed a larger brain, this mutation was then exaggerated through several generations to become human beings.

Intelligent Design (aka God did it)
An omnipotent and omniscient being created everything we see around us

When these two are compared and contrasted it seems to me that if we agree with the principle of Occam's Razor then a divine creator and origin is the correct one

Occam's razor is always misused in this way.

Intelligent design/creationism creates many additional questions.

this is spam Narcy; rebut his point if its honestly being misused. Sometimes your like this sites atheist version of DATCMOTO.

When you start contributing to this site then maybe I will start to value your opinion, until then know your place.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:12:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 10:09:26 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Occam's razor is always misused in this way.

Intelligent design/creationism creates many additional questions.

this is spam Narcy; rebut his point if its honestly being misused. Sometimes your like this sites atheist version of DATCMOTO.

When you start contributing to this site then maybe I will start to value your opinion, until then know your place.

Know your place you worthless troll!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:21:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 10:12:14 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 6/22/2010 10:09:26 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Occam's razor is always misused in this way.

Intelligent design/creationism creates many additional questions.

this is spam Narcy; rebut his point if its honestly being misused. Sometimes your like this sites atheist version of DATCMOTO.

When you start contributing to this site then maybe I will start to value your opinion, until then know your place.

Know your place you worthless troll!

Exactly cupcake.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 1:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:48:03 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Wow a lot of debate on the subject
I have a question though you guys keep saying there is "A mountain of evidence for evolution" could I see these mountains of evidence
Also could someone explain to me how the first cell came to be
And could you guys try and keep it civil in your response
Note: I do believe in evolution to a limited degree within species however I reject the idea of interspecies evolution

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is an excellent read, even if you already accept the fact of Evolution. Why Evolution is True is another good one.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:41:20 AM, Marauder wrote:


a reasonable person would never expect these machines to all be winners. but the Darwinist is not a reasonable person.

Another invalid comparison.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 5:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ugh, it annoys me to no end when people borrow ideas they have only a superficial understanding of - at least shallow enough to abuse it.

Besides the other valid posts about OR being substantiated only when all else is equal (namely amount of evidence/explanatory power/etc.), a key issue you're forgetting is the distinction between semantical parsimony and ontological parsimony. The former refers to explanations which are semantically less complicated, but this has no real bearing on the validity of a theory. What we are, and should be, concerned with is ontological parsimony - namely the amount of entities postulated that are NOT accounted for.

When you posit the existence of God, an utterly foreign scientific phenomena, along with the quirky bends of causality, etc., you have a lot to account for.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 6:02:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No one answered Strike's question, so here:

Strike, first of all, it's called the theory of evolution for a reason. As I mentioned earlier, scientific theories require a large amount of evidence in their favor and have been well-tested by independent members of the scientific community. The theory of gravity is an example. So simply by the fact that it is in the "theory" stage according to the scientific community (forget creationists assuming theory = guess) tells you that there HAS to be a mountain of evidence. It's the only way you reach theory stage. Think gravity.

As for that mountain of evidence, I suggest you take the responsibility to educate yourself instead of assuming what you want. However, here are some helpful links, if you'll take the time to read them:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists didn't simply guess about evolution.

tl;dr Evolution makes logical sense, has been observed, and is confirmed by the extensive fossil record. Everyone but creationists is aware of it.

Next, "how the first cell came to be". As was already explained (it's difficult to be civil when you aren't reading the responses, the answers have already been given) evolution has nothing to do with how life began. Evolution is the system of how existing species separate and change. Again, abiogenesis is how scientists think life began. Let me repeat. Abiogenesis is how life began, evolution is how it shaped itself. It would be perfectly possible for some creator to cause life and let it evolve, that is how most rational theists think.

To answer your question, however: abiogenesis is not as strongly supported or universally accepted as evolution. It's far more difficult to find evidence for it. However, we know it is possible with the materials that would have been present at the time: http://www.wired.com...

Anything else?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 6:52:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:42:56 AM, Marauder wrote:

This is spam, Narcy; refute his point if it's honestly being misused. Sometimes you're like this site's atheist version of DATCMOTO.

And you're an illiterate dimwit.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:46:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First off I would like to thank all of you, you are quite entertaining however

@Yvette

Thank you very much for the links I will start reading over them and post my thoughts on them but quick little points of clarification

On your first paragraph, just because something is a theory doesn't mean it is accepted it just means someone thought of the idea i.e. We have had 3 major grand unification theories in just the past few years, Super String Theory Super Symmetry theory and the M-Theory and I think it is now called the Universal Law of Gravitation now not the theory of gravity

On your second paragraph thank you for the links

On the third paragraph what I meant by where did the first organism come from I knew that it was called Abiogenesis however I was wondering what exactly Abiogenesis was thank you for the link though

P.S.
I think my prediction was right
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:48:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 8:46:57 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:

On your first paragraph, just because something is a theory doesn't mean it is accepted it just means someone thought of the idea i.e. We have had 3 major grand unification theories in just the past few years, Super String Theory Super Symmetry theory and the M-Theory and I think it is now called the Universal Law of Gravitation now not the theory of gravity

These are more correctly termed as hypothesis not Theories. A scientific theory is distinct from 'idea'.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:50:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Suggesting there is a God is more complex than suggesting there isn't. Theists attempt to explain the complexity of the universe with a God but the truth is the God would have to be even more complex than this thing it created. They make the problem worse.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:54:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 8:50:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Suggesting there is a God is more complex than suggesting there isn't. Theists attempt to explain the complexity of the universe with a God but the truth is the God would have to be even more complex than this thing it created. They make the problem worse.

Further more, believing in God commits the unnecessary step fallacy. We don't know what the origin of the universe is so they attempt to explain it away by saying a God created it all. But then if you ask them where God came from they will either say he existed forever or that the question is unanswerable. But it would, in-fact, be more logically fit to save a step and say that the origin of the universe is unanswerable or that it existed forever.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:00:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 8:54:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/22/2010 8:50:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Suggesting there is a God is more complex than suggesting there isn't. Theists attempt to explain the complexity of the universe with a God but the truth is the God would have to be even more complex than this thing it created. They make the problem worse.


Tell me how an immaterial being can be complex and then we'll get somewhere.

Further more, believing in God commits the unnecessary step fallacy.

That isn't a fallacy.

We don't know what the origin of the universe is so they attempt to explain it away by saying a God created it all. But then if you ask them where God came from they will either say he existed forever or that the question is unanswerable.

Not all arguments from the universe to God are arguments from ignorance.

But it would, in-fact, be more logically fit to save a step and say that the origin of the universe is unanswerable or that it existed forever.

Besides the massive amount of evidence/arguments that the universe hasn't existed forever?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:03:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:00:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/22/2010 8:54:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/22/2010 8:50:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Suggesting there is a God is more complex than suggesting there isn't. Theists attempt to explain the complexity of the universe with a God but the truth is the God would have to be even more complex than this thing it created. They make the problem worse.


Tell me how an immaterial being can be complex and then we'll get somewhere.

Tell me how an immaterial being can be existent and then we'll get somewhere. :)
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord