This post is strange for me. I will actually argue for the existence of God. However, due to the nature of the argument, I must also point out it's problems. I came to this idea not 10 minutes ago, whilst in the shower. I'll return to the post tomorrow, and leave a comment explaining my ideas after some thought.
God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.
I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.
...
OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.
This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,
crites evindentia logica.
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Vulturing Catholic Education
I have been browsing the web, looking for data for a new post I'll be loading when it is finished, and I happened upon this article:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0012.html
After reading it, I was filled with an odd feeling. It was similar to uncontrollable rage, deepest pity, and absolute mirth. These feelings kind of mixed into a grim resolve, as I decided to pick this thing to pieces, destroying it's apparent arguments, and humiliating the writer by showing his stupidity. That is what this post is about. I'll do it sentence by sentence, if when necessary, but by the end, you should be able to understand the problems presented.
Religious believers are accustomed to being accused as perpetrators of intolerance and violence, and there is enough truth to such charges to take them to heart.
This is relatively accurate. Believers ARE constantly accused of intolerance and violence, so there's no reason to doubt that some take it to heart. There is definitly enough examples.
At the same time, it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that. The "religious wars" of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics - with, for example, Catholic France supporting German Protestants in order to weaken the Catholic German emperor.
This is also true, in the same way that a book is only partly paper. Most of the things described as religious strife have strong ties to religion, and are therefore tagged as such. Using the word "partly" is a neat trick, designed to make the religious ties seem less important. These wars were based soundly in religion, with other reasons coming in a distant second. The war in question was between Protestants and Catholics in Bohemia, which elevated into a war between many European nations using germany as a battlefield.
Today it would be extremely simplistic to think that religion is all that fuels the strife in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.
Once again they point out that religion is not the only factor in current violence. The problem is that while there may be other reasons, the MAIN reason is religion. Cathloicism and Protestantism are different enough to cause violence, as are Islam and Judaism, despite their similarities.
However, religion does possess a peculiar potentiality for "extremism," because it has to do with extreme things. We might be able to compromise a boundary dispute, for example, but how can we compromise the will of God?
This brings up a well known problem of religion. Extremists always do stupid things to appease God. This argument of course fails to point out that if you add the element of god to a boudary dispute, no compromise can be made, no matter how extreme the people involved are.
Critics cluck their tongues and note the contradiction whereby religion, which is supposed to be based on love, has the potential to turn into strife and hatred.
Obvious and over-used, but still viable.
Critics do not note the close parallel to the family, where love can so easily turn into hate.
First of all, I'd hate to live in that guy's family. Second, while most religions cause intolerance and hate despite their message of love, very few families hate each other, or kill each other for simply being in another family. The "parallel" is rather crooked, and not particularly parallel.
But the dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.
This is true, religious fanatics are far too common to be considered as deriving from a fringe element of religion. Many believers say that religion deals with ultimate things, though this is really only partly true. Not all religions claim to deal with ultimate things, such as Bhuddism, which has the lowest violent fanaticism of all the religions I've studied... Although, I have no clue how a violent buddhist fanatic would act. (insert joke here)
In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the highest and most important truths. (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)
This is a contradictory sentence. People should be more willing to fight over religious dogma, but divine revelation tells us not to kill. Also, religious dogma only deals with the most important truths to the believer. For people such as myself, what God says couldn't be less important. And, because I don't believe in an afterlife, listening to what He says seems kind of trivial. Before I go further, I'd like to point out that common sense morals such as don't kill and don't steal DO apply to me, They just have nothing to do with God.
The terrorism which manifested itself on September 11 has of course started a whole new round of alarmed warnings about the dangers of religious fanaticism, with some secularists professing to see no significant difference between Osama bin Laden on the one hand and the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the pro-life movement on the other.
I have never heard of Rev. Jerry Falwell, which I suppose is a geographic problem. As far as I can tell from my brief reading on the man, he said and did very stupid things, but had redeeming qualities, such as defending civil rights for GLBT people. I can't say one way or the other whether there is an appropriate comparison to Osama bin Laden.
Thus, we are warned, the extirpation of all forms of religious intensity is what we must do to achieve social peace.
While this may work, it isn't true. Some religious intensity is in a good area, like helping others. Religion is not neccessary for this, but that doesn't change the point.
In this secularist world, merely saying that one disapproves of homosexuality, for example, is equated with bombing the World Trade Center.
No. Saying one disapproves of homosexuality is excercising ones right to free speech. Inciting violence, or attempting to cause hardship for homosexuals with your words can be equated with the bombing of the WTC, if only loosley.
We can all agree on the need to end the kind of religion which does issue in violence and hatred.
Yes. Which is to say ALL religion.
But as the secularists point out, all real religion has that potential, in the same way that deep love between a man and a woman has the potential of leading to murderous jealousy.
I think the tendency for religion to turn violent is a little higher then the deep love between two people leading to murder.
Thus many secularists in effect now call for an end to religion completely, something they have been predicting for a long time but which so far has not happened.
We've been calling for it? I think we've been saying that it should not have a role in government, or education. I'm an evangelical atheist secularist, and I still think it is well within your rights to have a church, and believe in an invisible flying zombie jew. Not all secularists wish for all religion to be destroyed. As for the prediction, the internet is quickly disproving all the pathetic attempts religion has at proving it's right. It's only a matter of time before the willfully ignorant are forced to take notice.
Why is there religion at all, of any kind?
Why indeed.
Ultimately the only satisfactory answer is that it enlightens people about the meaning of life, of how they should live their lives.
Or, before science progressed things scared people, like lightning, and they could only explain it with deities. These became more prominent, eventually forming groups, known as churches, where people learned about it, and taught it to others. Eventually, these organisations became so powerful they were able to control most of the population. Dark ages anyone? Slowly, but surely, they have been declining in power as science enlightens the areas they would wish to keep in the dark. (Space, orbits, evolution)
Religion is what gives meaning to human existence.
Human existence gives meaning to human existence. Meaning is subjective, we decide upon the meaning of our own existence.
Therefore, it follows, to abandon religion would mean abandoning all hope of meaning — to which the secularist nods and says, “Precisely!”
No. Abandoning religion would mean abandoning all hope of being told we have meaning, and forcing people to decide on their own. It would devastate willful ignorance, though not totally destroying it.
The secularist position, which has a long history, is that the religious search for meaning is an illusion but that, even when successful, it is a bad thing, because man should not be encouraged to think about ultimate realities.
What? Get your facts straight. The search for meaning IS meaningless, not because it's an illusion, but because we create our own meaning, subjectively. If it's successful for some, wonderful, there are a few who find the religious meaning of life similar to their own. The problem is when those who feel differently are guilted, bullied, or brainwashed into believing the religious meaning of life.
American Pragmatism is perhaps the clearest example of this tendency.
Do go on, good sir.
It argues that we can choose moral positions, and orient ourselves in life, not by asking what is true or false but simply on the basis of what seems to work.
EXACTLY! This is how morals are usually formed. It has work up to now, despite what a theist says.
We might claim, for example, that all men have worth and dignity but, if someone asks why this is so, we are not required to answer. It just is.
The claim that all men have worth and dignity is a relativly new concept, born out of compassion and the plight of others. It wasn't always accepted. The ancient Egyptions didn't believe it, and slavery was common. But it worked for them, just look at what they accomplished, the great pyramids. Nowadays, we've got this idea of equality, and what has that got us? To the moon and back. It allowed people of all sexes and races to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.
Although they seldom admit it, these secularists really are calling upon the human race to amputate itself spiritually, to suppress, quite consciously, the religious hungers which have been part of human existence since the beginning of time.
Those "hungers" are really the desire to explain the world, which in older times was the province of religion, but is being replaced by science. We don't want them supressed, just applied to a more effective model, the scientific model of explanation.
They call on us deliberately to wall ourselves up within the empirical limits of our world and resolutely to ignore everything which does not fit.
Except when empiricism is not quite enough and we must resort to experimentation and logical deduction.
Whatever else might be said about such a view of existence, it is immeasurably drabber and shallower than what men have thought was real for these thousands of years.
I'll agree with this. Science is much drabber and boring then the magic and demons of religion. It's even more shallow, limiting itself to reality, unlike the Powerful GOD outside the universe. What men thought was real for 3,000 years is horribly out of date, and needs to be refreshed. We are constantly working to relieve humanity of ignorance, though articles like this really set us back.
There we go. Sentence by sentence. I realised how long this was going to be, so I dodn't get into the origins of morals, or explanation of emiricism and the scientific method. I do apologise if I insulted any Buuhdists with my joke, there was no offence intended.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0012.html
After reading it, I was filled with an odd feeling. It was similar to uncontrollable rage, deepest pity, and absolute mirth. These feelings kind of mixed into a grim resolve, as I decided to pick this thing to pieces, destroying it's apparent arguments, and humiliating the writer by showing his stupidity. That is what this post is about. I'll do it sentence by sentence, if when necessary, but by the end, you should be able to understand the problems presented.
Religious believers are accustomed to being accused as perpetrators of intolerance and violence, and there is enough truth to such charges to take them to heart.
This is relatively accurate. Believers ARE constantly accused of intolerance and violence, so there's no reason to doubt that some take it to heart. There is definitly enough examples.
At the same time, it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that. The "religious wars" of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics - with, for example, Catholic France supporting German Protestants in order to weaken the Catholic German emperor.
This is also true, in the same way that a book is only partly paper. Most of the things described as religious strife have strong ties to religion, and are therefore tagged as such. Using the word "partly" is a neat trick, designed to make the religious ties seem less important. These wars were based soundly in religion, with other reasons coming in a distant second. The war in question was between Protestants and Catholics in Bohemia, which elevated into a war between many European nations using germany as a battlefield.
Today it would be extremely simplistic to think that religion is all that fuels the strife in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.
Once again they point out that religion is not the only factor in current violence. The problem is that while there may be other reasons, the MAIN reason is religion. Cathloicism and Protestantism are different enough to cause violence, as are Islam and Judaism, despite their similarities.
However, religion does possess a peculiar potentiality for "extremism," because it has to do with extreme things. We might be able to compromise a boundary dispute, for example, but how can we compromise the will of God?
This brings up a well known problem of religion. Extremists always do stupid things to appease God. This argument of course fails to point out that if you add the element of god to a boudary dispute, no compromise can be made, no matter how extreme the people involved are.
Critics cluck their tongues and note the contradiction whereby religion, which is supposed to be based on love, has the potential to turn into strife and hatred.
Obvious and over-used, but still viable.
Critics do not note the close parallel to the family, where love can so easily turn into hate.
First of all, I'd hate to live in that guy's family. Second, while most religions cause intolerance and hate despite their message of love, very few families hate each other, or kill each other for simply being in another family. The "parallel" is rather crooked, and not particularly parallel.
But the dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.
This is true, religious fanatics are far too common to be considered as deriving from a fringe element of religion. Many believers say that religion deals with ultimate things, though this is really only partly true. Not all religions claim to deal with ultimate things, such as Bhuddism, which has the lowest violent fanaticism of all the religions I've studied... Although, I have no clue how a violent buddhist fanatic would act. (insert joke here)
In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the highest and most important truths. (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)
This is a contradictory sentence. People should be more willing to fight over religious dogma, but divine revelation tells us not to kill. Also, religious dogma only deals with the most important truths to the believer. For people such as myself, what God says couldn't be less important. And, because I don't believe in an afterlife, listening to what He says seems kind of trivial. Before I go further, I'd like to point out that common sense morals such as don't kill and don't steal DO apply to me, They just have nothing to do with God.
The terrorism which manifested itself on September 11 has of course started a whole new round of alarmed warnings about the dangers of religious fanaticism, with some secularists professing to see no significant difference between Osama bin Laden on the one hand and the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the pro-life movement on the other.
I have never heard of Rev. Jerry Falwell, which I suppose is a geographic problem. As far as I can tell from my brief reading on the man, he said and did very stupid things, but had redeeming qualities, such as defending civil rights for GLBT people. I can't say one way or the other whether there is an appropriate comparison to Osama bin Laden.
Thus, we are warned, the extirpation of all forms of religious intensity is what we must do to achieve social peace.
While this may work, it isn't true. Some religious intensity is in a good area, like helping others. Religion is not neccessary for this, but that doesn't change the point.
In this secularist world, merely saying that one disapproves of homosexuality, for example, is equated with bombing the World Trade Center.
No. Saying one disapproves of homosexuality is excercising ones right to free speech. Inciting violence, or attempting to cause hardship for homosexuals with your words can be equated with the bombing of the WTC, if only loosley.
We can all agree on the need to end the kind of religion which does issue in violence and hatred.
Yes. Which is to say ALL religion.
But as the secularists point out, all real religion has that potential, in the same way that deep love between a man and a woman has the potential of leading to murderous jealousy.
I think the tendency for religion to turn violent is a little higher then the deep love between two people leading to murder.
Thus many secularists in effect now call for an end to religion completely, something they have been predicting for a long time but which so far has not happened.
We've been calling for it? I think we've been saying that it should not have a role in government, or education. I'm an evangelical atheist secularist, and I still think it is well within your rights to have a church, and believe in an invisible flying zombie jew. Not all secularists wish for all religion to be destroyed. As for the prediction, the internet is quickly disproving all the pathetic attempts religion has at proving it's right. It's only a matter of time before the willfully ignorant are forced to take notice.
Why is there religion at all, of any kind?
Why indeed.
Ultimately the only satisfactory answer is that it enlightens people about the meaning of life, of how they should live their lives.
Or, before science progressed things scared people, like lightning, and they could only explain it with deities. These became more prominent, eventually forming groups, known as churches, where people learned about it, and taught it to others. Eventually, these organisations became so powerful they were able to control most of the population. Dark ages anyone? Slowly, but surely, they have been declining in power as science enlightens the areas they would wish to keep in the dark. (Space, orbits, evolution)
Religion is what gives meaning to human existence.
Human existence gives meaning to human existence. Meaning is subjective, we decide upon the meaning of our own existence.
Therefore, it follows, to abandon religion would mean abandoning all hope of meaning — to which the secularist nods and says, “Precisely!”
No. Abandoning religion would mean abandoning all hope of being told we have meaning, and forcing people to decide on their own. It would devastate willful ignorance, though not totally destroying it.
The secularist position, which has a long history, is that the religious search for meaning is an illusion but that, even when successful, it is a bad thing, because man should not be encouraged to think about ultimate realities.
What? Get your facts straight. The search for meaning IS meaningless, not because it's an illusion, but because we create our own meaning, subjectively. If it's successful for some, wonderful, there are a few who find the religious meaning of life similar to their own. The problem is when those who feel differently are guilted, bullied, or brainwashed into believing the religious meaning of life.
American Pragmatism is perhaps the clearest example of this tendency.
Do go on, good sir.
It argues that we can choose moral positions, and orient ourselves in life, not by asking what is true or false but simply on the basis of what seems to work.
EXACTLY! This is how morals are usually formed. It has work up to now, despite what a theist says.
We might claim, for example, that all men have worth and dignity but, if someone asks why this is so, we are not required to answer. It just is.
The claim that all men have worth and dignity is a relativly new concept, born out of compassion and the plight of others. It wasn't always accepted. The ancient Egyptions didn't believe it, and slavery was common. But it worked for them, just look at what they accomplished, the great pyramids. Nowadays, we've got this idea of equality, and what has that got us? To the moon and back. It allowed people of all sexes and races to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.
Although they seldom admit it, these secularists really are calling upon the human race to amputate itself spiritually, to suppress, quite consciously, the religious hungers which have been part of human existence since the beginning of time.
Those "hungers" are really the desire to explain the world, which in older times was the province of religion, but is being replaced by science. We don't want them supressed, just applied to a more effective model, the scientific model of explanation.
They call on us deliberately to wall ourselves up within the empirical limits of our world and resolutely to ignore everything which does not fit.
Except when empiricism is not quite enough and we must resort to experimentation and logical deduction.
Whatever else might be said about such a view of existence, it is immeasurably drabber and shallower than what men have thought was real for these thousands of years.
I'll agree with this. Science is much drabber and boring then the magic and demons of religion. It's even more shallow, limiting itself to reality, unlike the Powerful GOD outside the universe. What men thought was real for 3,000 years is horribly out of date, and needs to be refreshed. We are constantly working to relieve humanity of ignorance, though articles like this really set us back.
There we go. Sentence by sentence. I realised how long this was going to be, so I dodn't get into the origins of morals, or explanation of emiricism and the scientific method. I do apologise if I insulted any Buuhdists with my joke, there was no offence intended.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Evolution, my thoughts
Been a while since the last post... Time to enter the debate!
Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.
Now, as for my argument:
I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.
1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.
2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.
3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents. The exception to this rule are creature is reproduce asexually, but even these mutate to create variation.
Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, if a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer well adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.
The term 'more dramatic' means that while individuals will still look very similar, the whole population will change in a certain evolutionary 'direction' very quickly. The individuals who are best at surviving in the environment will reproduce more, causing certain features to be more prominent, and/or others to be less prominent. In some cases, two populations of the same species, in the same environment, will begin to diverge. The populations have to be somehow separeted, or else the gene pool will be flooded by the other. The separation may be an earthquake caused fissure leaving half the population on each side, or perhaps a diverted river.
I haven't found evidence for it, but it seems to me that if behavioural conditions cause certain packs or herds to remain separate, despite no other barrier stopping interbreeding, speciation could occur. This would probably take much longer, considering the likelihood of outliers who cross to another herd or pack.
Eventually, the separate species have varied so much that interbreeding is no longer an option. This is when they are considered 2 different species. I even have an analogy for how a reptilian-like creature(RLC) could have evolved into a bird.
Based on observed facts, we can choose a group of RLC's who lived in trees. The survive on a diet of insects and plants. A RLC is born with slightly lighter bones. This gives him the advantage of being able to jump higher, and use less energy during the course of life. He survives longer, and reproduces more, because he can get more food, and is less susceptible to death due to fatigue. There are other factors, but they don't play a particularly significant role. His genes are passed onto the next generation, some with lighter bones, some with heavier, but all lighter then the average of the last generation. This trend continues, creating lighter and lighter bones, until a compromise is reached between survival through extra resources, and death through broken bones. The original mutation could have occured a number of ways. It could have been a random mutation caused by mutagens in the diet, or environment; it could have been a result of a particular combination of genes; etc..
To answer the obvious statement: "Bone-density doesn't make a bird", I say You're right! But the idea behind my logic can be applied to wings, feathers, beaks.... basically anything. The thing it can't work for, are things that don't originally give a benefit, even if the might eventually. It uses the argument "what's the use of half a x" as evidence for evolution. AND, whose to say that only one change can occur in a population at a time? While bone density is improving, perhaps vestigial wings are developing, or scales are growing into feathers.
And finally, evolution has no aim, no foresight. It has no hindsight either. Whatever works right now is what is selected. And, NO! I am not suggesting something is guiding natural selection, other then the energy, and fertility, of the individual beings, and the choices of the sexual chooser. (By this I mean when a certain sex selects a mate based on appearance, or dominence)
Now, hit me with your best shot! I want to hear counters to my explaination, flaws in my argument and other such things. I especially want to hear from Athiests, and Evolutionists (I know, not a real group, but used for understanding purposes). If you come at me with a stupid argument, be prepared for an equally stupid response. I'll do my best to answer all responses.
Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.
Now, as for my argument:
I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.
1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.
2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.
3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents. The exception to this rule are creature is reproduce asexually, but even these mutate to create variation.
Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, if a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer well adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.
The term 'more dramatic' means that while individuals will still look very similar, the whole population will change in a certain evolutionary 'direction' very quickly. The individuals who are best at surviving in the environment will reproduce more, causing certain features to be more prominent, and/or others to be less prominent. In some cases, two populations of the same species, in the same environment, will begin to diverge. The populations have to be somehow separeted, or else the gene pool will be flooded by the other. The separation may be an earthquake caused fissure leaving half the population on each side, or perhaps a diverted river.
I haven't found evidence for it, but it seems to me that if behavioural conditions cause certain packs or herds to remain separate, despite no other barrier stopping interbreeding, speciation could occur. This would probably take much longer, considering the likelihood of outliers who cross to another herd or pack.
Eventually, the separate species have varied so much that interbreeding is no longer an option. This is when they are considered 2 different species. I even have an analogy for how a reptilian-like creature(RLC) could have evolved into a bird.
Based on observed facts, we can choose a group of RLC's who lived in trees. The survive on a diet of insects and plants. A RLC is born with slightly lighter bones. This gives him the advantage of being able to jump higher, and use less energy during the course of life. He survives longer, and reproduces more, because he can get more food, and is less susceptible to death due to fatigue. There are other factors, but they don't play a particularly significant role. His genes are passed onto the next generation, some with lighter bones, some with heavier, but all lighter then the average of the last generation. This trend continues, creating lighter and lighter bones, until a compromise is reached between survival through extra resources, and death through broken bones. The original mutation could have occured a number of ways. It could have been a random mutation caused by mutagens in the diet, or environment; it could have been a result of a particular combination of genes; etc..
To answer the obvious statement: "Bone-density doesn't make a bird", I say You're right! But the idea behind my logic can be applied to wings, feathers, beaks.... basically anything. The thing it can't work for, are things that don't originally give a benefit, even if the might eventually. It uses the argument "what's the use of half a x" as evidence for evolution. AND, whose to say that only one change can occur in a population at a time? While bone density is improving, perhaps vestigial wings are developing, or scales are growing into feathers.
And finally, evolution has no aim, no foresight. It has no hindsight either. Whatever works right now is what is selected. And, NO! I am not suggesting something is guiding natural selection, other then the energy, and fertility, of the individual beings, and the choices of the sexual chooser. (By this I mean when a certain sex selects a mate based on appearance, or dominence)
Now, hit me with your best shot! I want to hear counters to my explaination, flaws in my argument and other such things. I especially want to hear from Athiests, and Evolutionists (I know, not a real group, but used for understanding purposes). If you come at me with a stupid argument, be prepared for an equally stupid response. I'll do my best to answer all responses.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Heaven is a place on earth
This post is an open call to all christians. Grab your bibles, learn to read, and find me some information. Because I have empirical evidence for the existence of Heaven.
The other day, I was reading a few parts of the bible, in order to better understand the christians I have been talking with, when I noticed something intriuging. Upon reading it, I instantly went outside, and there above me was Heaven. I was dumbstruck. Here's why:
I have read the bible, and as far as I can tell, "Heaven" is nothing more than the sky. Right smack on page 1 it points this out, though not as clearly as I would like. Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This can be interpreted as God created Earth, in a base form, as well as heaven, including the kingdom of heaven. This is however disspelled later in Genisis 1:20, "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly across the expanse of the heavens'."
God either exists in the sky, hidden from view somehow, or exists outside reality, yet in the same vicinity of the sky. The latter is more likely, considering we've not observed god in any way. This also means that God doesn't exist. Consider that all within reality is in existance. That would make them real, hence the term Reality. Now, God exists outside reality. It follows that everything outside of reality is also outside of existance. If something is outside existance, it doesn't exist. I can't concieve of a Half-existant being, unless it exists solely in the minds of people.
But I digress. I have read, and have come to the conclusion that when people die, they are judged and sentenced to hell, or to wait until judgement day, when God will create the holy city, New Jerusalem, where he will live amongst His people, wipe tears from there eyes, despite the fact that there is no grief, no sorrow, no sin. It will be devided into different tribes, so that different peoples may worship God in various ways. It doesn't say eternal life, but it does say that Hell is the second death. Although, I guess Second Death is only for perverts, murderers, liars, cowards, traitors, witches, idol worshipers, and the immoral. That sentence leads me to believe that murder, perverted actions, cowardliness, lying, witchcraft, trechory and worshiping idols are moral, because whilst they are thrown into hell, they're thrown in with the immoral.
It should have read "...and all other immoral souls", or something similar. I guess a backstabbing necrophiliac who lies about the spellshe casts is just as moral as you or me, but they go to hell, where as we go to.... a place of second life, where god didn't fuck up the world. I still have questions though.
1) If God can create this fantastic place (which will come down from heaven, but isn't heaven), why didn't he do it to start with?
2) If God is perfect, why would he need to "try again" as it were?
3) Why does God need a throne, if he is a sky man, who feels that the rich should burn in hell?
4) What makes you think that you'll pass God's many petty tests?
5) If I follow the important comandments, with the exception of worshiping God, would I go to the New Holy City?
While these questions may or may not be difficult to answer, the final question should be easy.
If God told you to kill a child, would you do it?
If you answered yes to this last question, let me suggest 2 courses of action. 1, kill yourself before you hurt others. 2, Check yourself into a mental hospital, before you start hearing voices.
Heaven exists, just go outside and look up. There it is. What christians call heaven is actually a place that will probably fuck up after a little while. God is either infallible and evil, or He is fallible but well intentioned. Or mabe, just maybe, He doesn't exist at all.
Christians reading this, could you please tell me if I'm mistaken about Heaven, and how so. Answer my questions, if you can, and justify them. This is a humble request, though, I don't expect any christian answers.
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
The other day, I was reading a few parts of the bible, in order to better understand the christians I have been talking with, when I noticed something intriuging. Upon reading it, I instantly went outside, and there above me was Heaven. I was dumbstruck. Here's why:
I have read the bible, and as far as I can tell, "Heaven" is nothing more than the sky. Right smack on page 1 it points this out, though not as clearly as I would like. Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This can be interpreted as God created Earth, in a base form, as well as heaven, including the kingdom of heaven. This is however disspelled later in Genisis 1:20, "And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly across the expanse of the heavens'."
God either exists in the sky, hidden from view somehow, or exists outside reality, yet in the same vicinity of the sky. The latter is more likely, considering we've not observed god in any way. This also means that God doesn't exist. Consider that all within reality is in existance. That would make them real, hence the term Reality. Now, God exists outside reality. It follows that everything outside of reality is also outside of existance. If something is outside existance, it doesn't exist. I can't concieve of a Half-existant being, unless it exists solely in the minds of people.
But I digress. I have read, and have come to the conclusion that when people die, they are judged and sentenced to hell, or to wait until judgement day, when God will create the holy city, New Jerusalem, where he will live amongst His people, wipe tears from there eyes, despite the fact that there is no grief, no sorrow, no sin. It will be devided into different tribes, so that different peoples may worship God in various ways. It doesn't say eternal life, but it does say that Hell is the second death. Although, I guess Second Death is only for perverts, murderers, liars, cowards, traitors, witches, idol worshipers, and the immoral. That sentence leads me to believe that murder, perverted actions, cowardliness, lying, witchcraft, trechory and worshiping idols are moral, because whilst they are thrown into hell, they're thrown in with the immoral.
It should have read "...and all other immoral souls", or something similar. I guess a backstabbing necrophiliac who lies about the spellshe casts is just as moral as you or me, but they go to hell, where as we go to.... a place of second life, where god didn't fuck up the world. I still have questions though.
1) If God can create this fantastic place (which will come down from heaven, but isn't heaven), why didn't he do it to start with?
2) If God is perfect, why would he need to "try again" as it were?
3) Why does God need a throne, if he is a sky man, who feels that the rich should burn in hell?
4) What makes you think that you'll pass God's many petty tests?
5) If I follow the important comandments, with the exception of worshiping God, would I go to the New Holy City?
While these questions may or may not be difficult to answer, the final question should be easy.
If God told you to kill a child, would you do it?
If you answered yes to this last question, let me suggest 2 courses of action. 1, kill yourself before you hurt others. 2, Check yourself into a mental hospital, before you start hearing voices.
Heaven exists, just go outside and look up. There it is. What christians call heaven is actually a place that will probably fuck up after a little while. God is either infallible and evil, or He is fallible but well intentioned. Or mabe, just maybe, He doesn't exist at all.
Christians reading this, could you please tell me if I'm mistaken about Heaven, and how so. Answer my questions, if you can, and justify them. This is a humble request, though, I don't expect any christian answers.
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Cosmology, and it's place in Theology
Hello again, my faithful few readers. I'm about to BLOW YOUR MIND! With information you've likely already seen, and understood.
First, I'll talk about something brought up by a Creationist, in one of my hour long discussions with them. The Cosmological Argument for God's existence. I shall point out that, while I'm no Physicist, I was able to figure a few things out just with logical thought. He, on the other hand, was a physics major, so I found it hard to believe he'd use this argument.
The argument is as follows: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument
1. Things exists
2. It is possible for things not to exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists must have been caused to exist
a) Nothing can bring itself into existence, because it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a) An infinite regression of cause ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
b) Since the Universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
There is little to nothing wrong with this... Excepting, of course, parts 2 through 6.
Things exist. Yes they do. If anyone says otherwise, they're an idiot, or they're insane.
But is it possible for things not to exist? Who says? Have we managed to observe things not existing? Or things changing from existence to non-existence? No? Then where is the validity of the statement.
Given that things can be non-existent, which we don't know, why can't they bring themselves into existence? They must exist to bring themselves into existence. Once again, HOW DO THEY KNOW? Bringing something into existence, be it matter, energy, or something completely different, hasn't occurred in an observable way, during our time. We can't say that something must exist to bring itself into existence, because we have nothing to base this off. Just saying it's logical doesn't make it so.
The main problem with this argument is the baseless assumptions. An infinite regression of causes would have no initial cause. But that isn't a problem. Imagine this: A man builds a time machine from some schematics he'd found. He goes back in time, and places the schematics back into the place he'll find them. Without him finding the schematics, he wouldn't build the time machine, and be able to give himself the schematics, so he can build a time machine to give himself the.... seems kind of silly huh? But, since he found the schematics, he will always build the machine, and always find the schematics. No paradox, just some uncaused schematics. The same analogy could be used with Shakespeare, except that one of his books is given to him in the past, so he can publish it to become famous, etc.
Therefore, there is no real need to add God as an uncaused cause.
One could also say that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. It may have always existed. It may be caused by an outside force that is not sentient, or even "alive". Why, it could also be that WE create the universe, when we travel back in time to witness the Big Bang. We don't know, but it IS explainable without an imaginary friend. And that is all this describes anyway. That SOMEONE created everything, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Wolverine.
Anyone who has been fooled by this sly deception of logic, please, feel free to contact me, so we can let the healing begin. Eventually, I will actually talk about theology. Look out for that, cause I'll be bringing more mouldy old ideas, and cooking them till their digestible. I'll also bring tasty new ideas... if I have any.
Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
First, I'll talk about something brought up by a Creationist, in one of my hour long discussions with them. The Cosmological Argument for God's existence. I shall point out that, while I'm no Physicist, I was able to figure a few things out just with logical thought. He, on the other hand, was a physics major, so I found it hard to believe he'd use this argument.
The argument is as follows: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument
1. Things exists
2. It is possible for things not to exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists must have been caused to exist
a) Nothing can bring itself into existence, because it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a) An infinite regression of cause ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
b) Since the Universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
There is little to nothing wrong with this... Excepting, of course, parts 2 through 6.
Things exist. Yes they do. If anyone says otherwise, they're an idiot, or they're insane.
But is it possible for things not to exist? Who says? Have we managed to observe things not existing? Or things changing from existence to non-existence? No? Then where is the validity of the statement.
Given that things can be non-existent, which we don't know, why can't they bring themselves into existence? They must exist to bring themselves into existence. Once again, HOW DO THEY KNOW? Bringing something into existence, be it matter, energy, or something completely different, hasn't occurred in an observable way, during our time. We can't say that something must exist to bring itself into existence, because we have nothing to base this off. Just saying it's logical doesn't make it so.
The main problem with this argument is the baseless assumptions. An infinite regression of causes would have no initial cause. But that isn't a problem. Imagine this: A man builds a time machine from some schematics he'd found. He goes back in time, and places the schematics back into the place he'll find them. Without him finding the schematics, he wouldn't build the time machine, and be able to give himself the schematics, so he can build a time machine to give himself the.... seems kind of silly huh? But, since he found the schematics, he will always build the machine, and always find the schematics. No paradox, just some uncaused schematics. The same analogy could be used with Shakespeare, except that one of his books is given to him in the past, so he can publish it to become famous, etc.
Therefore, there is no real need to add God as an uncaused cause.
One could also say that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. It may have always existed. It may be caused by an outside force that is not sentient, or even "alive". Why, it could also be that WE create the universe, when we travel back in time to witness the Big Bang. We don't know, but it IS explainable without an imaginary friend. And that is all this describes anyway. That SOMEONE created everything, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Wolverine.
Anyone who has been fooled by this sly deception of logic, please, feel free to contact me, so we can let the healing begin. Eventually, I will actually talk about theology. Look out for that, cause I'll be bringing more mouldy old ideas, and cooking them till their digestible. I'll also bring tasty new ideas... if I have any.
Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Einstien's coffin nail
I've recently seen this popping up alot. Basically, a troll/poe/creationist will post a link to a website, which has no facts on it, and claims that this is de-bunking Atheism. In fact, I had one of these on my Immaterial Materialism post. While the sites I went to were... I wont say intereting, as they were boring as hell... they were completly stupid. Without any facts to support thier claims, they point out to the reader that Atheism "destroys hope" and is "Immoral", and that "Because of Atheistic belief, all Atheists should kill themselves". It's possible that I'm reaading this wrong, but this seems like yelling at the rain. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you won't get wet. The sites were supposedly to do with Nostradamus, an apparent seer, though they said nothing of his predictions, nor did they link to sites with his predictions. They just said that the "confused Athiests and Sceptics" were now "Nostradamians". With no proof, I'm inclined to think of the websites creater as a retard.
Then, most stupidly of all, they post a link to a website (normally youtube) which talks about Einsteins theory of relativity, as though it somehow confirms that atheism is false. The one I got went to a video describing how Relativity allows for time travel. Big F*cking Deal. I really don't see what this has to do with whether or not God exists, or whether He created everything. It's a completly seperate subject, and should be treated as such. I don't claim to know physics. I know a little, but not much. But I do know that Einstein didn't believe in God, nor did his ideas cause him to believe. Even if he did, that doesn't mean that God exists. There is no proof for god, or creation, or any super-natural claim for that matter. In fact, there are challenges about in which you recieve a large prize for the simple act of proving a paranormal claim.
So, what is the point of these pointless websites, and silly reasoning? As far as I can tell, they realise that if more people see their stupid site, there's more chance of one of them converting. The only thing they forgot was that for it to work agaisnt the thinking population (Atheists in general), they need to at least sound like they're giving information. Bypassing the intellect wont work, because we realise our intelect is more likely to hold REAL answers then our emotions.
Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Then, most stupidly of all, they post a link to a website (normally youtube) which talks about Einsteins theory of relativity, as though it somehow confirms that atheism is false. The one I got went to a video describing how Relativity allows for time travel. Big F*cking Deal. I really don't see what this has to do with whether or not God exists, or whether He created everything. It's a completly seperate subject, and should be treated as such. I don't claim to know physics. I know a little, but not much. But I do know that Einstein didn't believe in God, nor did his ideas cause him to believe. Even if he did, that doesn't mean that God exists. There is no proof for god, or creation, or any super-natural claim for that matter. In fact, there are challenges about in which you recieve a large prize for the simple act of proving a paranormal claim.
So, what is the point of these pointless websites, and silly reasoning? As far as I can tell, they realise that if more people see their stupid site, there's more chance of one of them converting. The only thing they forgot was that for it to work agaisnt the thinking population (Atheists in general), they need to at least sound like they're giving information. Bypassing the intellect wont work, because we realise our intelect is more likely to hold REAL answers then our emotions.
Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)