Do you believe in god?

[Collin Li]

Why do you keep calling it the theory of "revolution?"

[kingmar]

Because the current world revolves around evolution.

Beats me, he learned the wrong world. err, word.

[Mao]

ooops was trying to type fast, "r" is next to "e" =P

[sheepz]

Yeah his heart started again by itself. Like I said, everyone else assumed he was dead. I think he lived another 10 years or so after that incident.

Obsolete chaos, I thought we were talking about things coming into existence? Sure, nature select the fittest. I give you that. But surely it doesn't seem as if nature determine things like humans need red blood cells to transfer oxygen? (red blood cells do that, right? >.<)

[ninwa]

He wouldn't be the only person to whom that has happened. It doesn't prove the existence of God. Nor do his visions.

[Mao]

But surely it doesn't seem as if nature determine things like humans need red blood cells to transfer oxygen? (red blood cells do that, right? >.<)

it does, it's the mechanism that woks best

we could have another mechanism, where we have no skin and recieve oxygen directly through air, however we wouldnt have survived, hence this mechanism survived and worked "best" under circumstances given.

[sheepz]

This type of things don't happen often though. His visions are enough proof for me to believe in God, especially since I knew him personally and that he won't lie about it, but obviously not enough for you.

Wouldn't it have taken years to determine which mechanism works best for us and by the time humans would have probably be extinct though?

[ninwa]

This type of things don't happen often though. His visions are enough proof for me to believe in God, especially since I knew him personally and that he won't lie about it, but obviously not enough for you.

Wouldn't it have taken years to determine which mechanism works best for us and by the time humans would have probably be extinct though?

And this is why God cannot be explained by scientific evidence - because faith requires one to believe on the basis of something as shaky as "visions" and "miracles". There simply is no concrete evidence.

Yes, of course it takes a long time. That's why human evolution took millions of years.

[Collin Li]

Obviously you don't see lifeforms that don't have an oxygen transport mechanism, because they did not survive the fitness test of natural selection. Biochemical equilibria exist in nature not by a mediator that is God, but because equilibria naturally have an urge to exist over non-equilibria.

[costargh]

Oh Brendan I would prefer not to. No need to try and find a loophole in my argument because the point still stands that if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine.

In fact your post above is the flawed one on two counts:
1. I never made any claim to the affect that you allege. You attribute to me an argument I NEVER made.
2. Your argument asserts that your premise is true because it has not been proven false i.e. regarding the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true. Like i said, that reasoning (or lack thereof) has a hole big enough for me to drive a truck through - not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case.

1.
You made the claim that
"Well that's assuming that the university was "created"." Continuing on from there the argument that you have either intentionally or unintentionally produced is one of whether everything must have a starting point. You are refuting my claims, and with that action, the only viable alternative for you is that or neutrality or that of opposition. Considering that through inference your argument is leaning towards one that is likened to the idea that "not everything must have a starting point" I will obviously assume that if I have made a claim to you to produce one solitary example of something that has existed without being created and you divert the question, then your implied argument that not everything has to have a starting point is weakened.

2. You have set up a straw man.
I never claimed or asserted that my argument is true. I merely stated that "if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine".
Your assertion that that implies that I represent my argument is true is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of my argument. You have asserted that I am claiming that my argument is "true" for the your own convenience so that you can argue a claim that I have never made.
Therefore you can go right ahead and drive your truck through a hole that never existed mate.
The only assertions that you can make from "your argument is more logically flawed than mine" is that both arguments are flawed and that in my opinion your argument is more flawed than mine.
So you can go and drive your big ass truck through the big ass hole that doesn't exist considering you just made up the existence of that big ass hole.


BTW. Here is a definition of neutral. -not supporting or favoring either side
Considering that you have only questioned the "logical flaws" in arguments either supporting the idea of the existence of God, or of creation being made by God, there is without a doubt an understanding on my part that you are not neutral. I do not state that you have made that claim but it is my observation and it is questioning Coblin's thoughts of your intentions in this topic.

[Collin Li]

I said:

He is not making a claim for the non-existence of God, instead he is just defending neutrality from illogical claims.

I did not say he was neutral: I said that he is defending those who are neutral, from illogical claims. If you can find illogical claims that brendan has not attacked which seem to favour the non-existence of God, please highlight them.

[costargh]

Well people have made the claim that they do not believe in God but he has not questioned why they don't believe in God and what proof do they have that God doesn't exist yet if anyone has even considered saying that God exists Brendan has jumped on them and asked them for evidence.

And if people have said that they have no proof he has called their argument 'logically flawed' -paraphrased. Hence, his lack of questioning of arguments against the existence of God diminishes his neutrality (not self-proclaimed).

[Collin Li]

Your assertion that that implies that I represent my argument is true is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of my argument.

This (and that entire paragraph) makes no sense at all. You are saying that you made an argument which you did not necessarily believe was true, and that your actual argument was misrepresented. What? Please explain, because saying "my argument" twice in the same sentence but with different meaning confuses me.

Once again, I do not believe brendan is neutral, I only think he is defending neutrality. He does not go as far to make claims on a particular position, and it is not necessarily his responsibility to defend against both sides of an argument (although he does do this sometimes: see the thread "Karma System," pages 6-8). Whether you infer brendan advocates a particular side of the argument or not is your own interpretation. It is irrelevant because it is not a claim he has made.

You have also made this mistake of inferring his position in the case of advocating the requirement of a "starting point" or not.

[costargh]

He said that I said my argument is true.
I did not. Simple as that.
I said my argument was less flawed than his was.

Brendan can advocate his own stance on the issue when he reads this otherwise my observations will lead to me to infer his beliefs from his posts.

[Collin Li]

He said that I said my argument is true.
I did not. Simple as that.
I said my argument was less flawed than his was.

I still don't understand why you would make an argument that you don't believe is true.

I think I know what you mean though: there are two propositions, one is that all things must have a "starting point" the other is that things needn't require a "starting point."

I would say that you can find millions of examples of things with a starting point, but what started the starting point? You'll probably be able to find an answer to that too, but once you go back far enough, you must come to the conclusion that there was something that was always there.