"The mind is proof of god's existence."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(Wow, I really hate how the site has been screwing up font size in my posts lately...)

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 01:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ROFL! Not ad hom just saying, my friend.
Occam's razor says we have evolved via mechanistic processes over billions of years via punctuated equilibrium and catastrophe rather than being created?
There's no tenet of Atheism that falls under Occam's razor without being cut close enough to bleed to death by the same razor!


Wait, what? Are you blind, or purposely ignorant? Because I could have sworn that's not what Occam's Razor is, and I'm pretty sure I already gave you both a definition and a cited source. Let me check...


(01-02-2013 11:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I concur, but feel I must also bring up another point to reinforce your own, and that is Occam's Razor...

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


Well now, would you look at that? Not a damn thing in there regarding evolution! If I didn't know any better I'd say Occam's Razor was a logical concept and not a biological one. Now I could be wrong, so lets look into it further...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Overview

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.




So now I have to ask the simple questions: Do you bother to do ANY research before you open your mouth? Or do you just type your inane thoughts as they spew forth without reservation?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-02-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Occam's razor applies to a great number of Bible doctrines and it applies to wading through what is possible, probabale and plausible when we examine science, scientific theory or the Bible. God never goes against love, His law or against logic. But look at a few examples:

OR says pre-marital abstinence and marital fidelity is the least complicated way to guard the heart in relationships, prolong marriage and end all venereal disease

OR says biblical law punishes bad, promotes the common good, and that Christians are to behave respectably toward society and the government - and before I get 20 Bible examples thrown at me out of context, understand how Constantine realized "Hey, these people obey me and pay taxes! Let's make the whole empire Christian!"

OR does work for creation/evolution beginning with the supposition that there MIGHT be a supreme being. 1. There is no God. 2. There may be a God. Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design. Name a field of study you can do for an undergraduate degree and I'll show you natural laws, patterns and other evidences of design within. From math to logic to anatomy to philosophy, etc.

Etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design.

The apparent design is in your head. The natural world looks just like it should from natural causes, including evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-02-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design.

The apparent design is in your head. The natural world looks just like it should from natural causes, including evolution.
Indeed, your perception of the world does nothing to verify if it was created by some supernatural being or if it arose through natural processes because your entire being is the result of those processes. It was evolutionarily advantageous to think of things as having intention, which probably lead to believing things had purpose, which would have lead to belief in a higher power. When we use the scientific method in place of our own perception we understand that everything could have happened completely naturally, and that life did in fact evolve.

I say in fact because it is a fact, I'd like to see someone try and actually succeed in disproving evolution, I would willingly cut off my left nut.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 10:34 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  I say in fact because it is a fact, I'd like to see someone try and actually succeed in disproving evolution, I would willingly cut off my left nut.


Me, too! Thumbsup

If it happens, I would willingly cut off your left nut. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-02-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Occam's razor applies to a great number of Bible doctrines and it applies to wading through what is possible, probabale and plausible when we examine science, scientific theory or the Bible. God never goes against love, His law or against logic. But look at a few examples:

OR says pre-marital abstinence and marital fidelity is the least complicated way to guard the heart in relationships, prolong marriage and end all venereal disease

OR says biblical law punishes bad, promotes the common good, and that Christians are to behave respectably toward society and the government - and before I get 20 Bible examples thrown at me out of context, understand how Constantine realized "Hey, these people obey me and pay taxes! Let's make the whole empire Christian!"

OR does work for creation/evolution beginning with the supposition that there MIGHT be a supreme being. 1. There is no God. 2. There may be a God. Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design. Name a field of study you can do for an undergraduate degree and I'll show you natural laws, patterns and other evidences of design within. From math to logic to anatomy to philosophy, etc.

Etc.
If there really was a perfect, omnipotent, all-loving god, there would be no good and bad. There would be only good and there would be no need to give it a name. It simply would be what is. That god would be too loving to create or allow any bad. And the old free will explanation for bad is nothing more than an excuse to ignore reality. Heaven is a place (supposedly) devoid of bad. So, even within your Christian context, such an existence is not only possible, but a reality. A truly omnipotent, all-loving god would have started us all out in heaven from the beginning and "bad" wouldn't be a possibility for us to freely choose. The "bad", in any application of the word, is imperfection and is strong evidence if not proof that no such god exists. You say most everything shows design. I say everything shows imperfection - which is exactly what would be expected by natural development.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
04-02-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 11:19 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Occam's razor applies to a great number of Bible doctrines and it applies to wading through what is possible, probabale and plausible when we examine science, scientific theory or the Bible. God never goes against love, His law or against logic. But look at a few examples:

OR says pre-marital abstinence and marital fidelity is the least complicated way to guard the heart in relationships, prolong marriage and end all venereal disease

OR says biblical law punishes bad, promotes the common good, and that Christians are to behave respectably toward society and the government - and before I get 20 Bible examples thrown at me out of context, understand how Constantine realized "Hey, these people obey me and pay taxes! Let's make the whole empire Christian!"

OR does work for creation/evolution beginning with the supposition that there MIGHT be a supreme being. 1. There is no God. 2. There may be a God. Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design. Name a field of study you can do for an undergraduate degree and I'll show you natural laws, patterns and other evidences of design within. From math to logic to anatomy to philosophy, etc.

Etc.
If there really was a perfect, omnipotent, all-loving god, there would be no good and bad. There would be only good and there would be no need to give it a name. It simply would be what is. That god would be too loving to create or allow any bad. And the old free will explanation for bad is nothing more than an excuse to ignore reality. Heaven is a place (supposedly) devoid of bad. So, even within your Christian context, such an existence is not only possible, but a reality. A truly omnipotent, all-loving god would have started us all out in heaven from the beginning and "bad" wouldn't be a possibility for us to freely choose. The "bad", in any application of the word, is imperfection and is strong evidence if not proof that no such god exists. You say most everything shows design. I say everything shows imperfection - which is exactly what would be expected by natural development.
Not to mention if there is suppose to be no bad in heaven, then we seem to lose the free will we think we have down here.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(04-02-2013 09:23 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Occam's razor applies to a great number of Bible doctrines and it applies to wading through what is possible, probabale and plausible when we examine science, scientific theory or the Bible. God never goes against love, His law or against logic. But look at a few examples:

OR says pre-marital abstinence and marital fidelity is the least complicated way to guard the heart in relationships, prolong marriage and end all venereal disease

OR says biblical law punishes bad, promotes the common good, and that Christians are to behave respectably toward society and the government - and before I get 20 Bible examples thrown at me out of context, understand how Constantine realized "Hey, these people obey me and pay taxes! Let's make the whole empire Christian!"

OR does work for creation/evolution beginning with the supposition that there MIGHT be a supreme being. 1. There is no God. 2. There may be a God. Works super well for creation because not just some things show evidence of design, but most everything shows design. Name a field of study you can do for an undergraduate degree and I'll show you natural laws, patterns and other evidences of design within. From math to logic to anatomy to philosophy, etc.

Etc.


I think he missed out the fact that math, philosophy and logic are entirely human constructs which are totally reliant on the human brain being where it is, they'd be different otherwise. For example, math would not exist if we were in a universe with no discriminate objects. (where everything melded together as one amorphous mass) OR a blank zone of literally endless nothing. We would not be able to logically understand such a universe, it goes against everything our brains would know.

Philosophy is dependant on an individual, everybody has their own version, designing such a thing is ridiculous considering half the time it likely goes against gods. especially if you are a deity who created their star creatures without self awareness or intelligence.


As a side not, who in the hell would think anatomy is designed?

Well, if you consider the designer almost totally incompetent, than sure, you can have that one. But I doubt that is the case.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 07:39 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:As a side not, who in the hell would think anatomy is designed?
I apologize for responding to only one post, but there are many tangents you've gone down, including an utterly ridiculous god-in-the-box He would only make good things and we'd only eat chocolate ice cream (how would we know what is bad or how good ice cream is?) response.
Take a college course in anatomy. Many of us have. The professor, regardless of his stance on evolution, will say many times, "X is designed to work in this fashion." Almost most daily in my course I'd hear that. The irreducible complexity of a cell is on the order of the city of Chicago and that's what Dr. Behe (who I helped host as a guest in my city) was writing about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: