Murkanen: Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

0Icky0: Except your god, of course.

See my argument on that point.

Murkanen: Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.

God, being of unlimited epistemological position, will know the outcomes of his actions. You, being of limited epistemological position, will not. We can rightly say God created where you didn't because his knowledge of what would be created by his action represent a willing of those things over the alternatives - an act of creation. The same cannot be said about your computer.

zeph`: My logic is perfect, your bias causes you to reject my premises. That you do not view my arguments as sound is not my problem.

Ahhh the troll is revealed. 9/10. A little too dogmatic.

the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.

Egalitarian: Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling

I think its a copy/paste. Its too fast to type that nonsense.

Hes definitely trolling, as every cartoon is the opposite of what he argues.

I think he was simply waiting for people to figure out and then...



Hot.

zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.

6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

shipofthesun: Ahhh the troll is revealed. 9/10. A little too dogmatic.

It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I haven't been posting enough in evolution threads lately, I guess. At one point I made some friends with my pro-evolution comments.

wippit: What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

The same god that creates man in his image and then kills them when they don't behave the way he wants?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

To be quite honest, I assuredly know more about logic than you do.

I thought they settled all this shiat with State v Scopes in 19-farking-26!

/dumb masses!

zeph`: bartink: Circular argument.

More like scientific evidence - it's based on observation after all.

bartink: Its really only evidence of a universe.

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.

Let's look at the logic.

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.

OK, I can give you this one.

2. No things are uncaused.

K.

3. That first cause is a god.

*record screech* Say what?
You still need evidence. You have none.

Also, there's this problem:

1. All existing things were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. If "god" exists, he/she/it must have been caused.

Oh hey. How about that.

Neither physics nor religion can demonstrate entirely how the universe was created.

But, physicists are at least trying to explain why the universe exists (and how it exists) instead of just pointing at the unknown and saying "God did it!"

zeph`: It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I haven't been posting enough in evolution threads lately, I guess. At one point I made some friends with my pro-evolution comments.


Kid, a 9/10 from me means you hooked your mother. Good one.

zeph`: the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.

That's way too complicated.

Time is a function of our universe. If God created the universe, God also created time, and therefore exists outside of time. Since God's existence is outside of time, from our point of view he has always existed, and always will.

Somacandra: WIki misunderstand

1. Wikipedia understands everything.
2. Therefore you are wrong.

That was too easy.

zeph`: 1. God directed evolution.

Have you ever thought that maybe evolution of the brain resulted in the belief that a God exists? Think about it and then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Now consider the following:

1.) Patients fortunate enough to awaken from a coma typically have no concept of time and experience almost continuous lucid dreaming.

2.)The brain uses electrical signals to convey the senses.

3.)The "God Helmet" uses unbiased electrical signals, stimulating a specific part of the brain in no particular manner. 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.

4.)Maybe Spinoza wins the argument and your perception of God was just an artifact of evolution that served a purpose at some point in time, earlier in the evolutionary path of homo sapiens.

Consider reading up on Naturalistic Pantheism. Just a thought.....

/Agnostic

wippit:
What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

That would be:

The Christian God

Link (new window)

Oh, for the sake of...

You guys know you're being played by CDP, right?

Step 1: paste some ID/Creationist argument written by someone else entirely followed by a funny cartoon making fun of creationists

Step 2: watch as Farkers fall over themselves to refute an argument you didn't even come up with

Step 3: Rinse and repeat indefinitely for entertainment value

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

His profile says he has an undergrad in it.

He's trolling.

I'm just hitting myself on the head for falling for it for a few posts. Its extremely logical with obvious fallacies. Its way too clever for a fundie.

bobbette: You still need evidence. You have none.

bobbette: Oh hey. How about that.

I already posted arguments against both of these objections.

bartink: Egalitarian: Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling

I think its a copy/paste. Its too fast to type that nonsense.

Hes definitely trolling, as every cartoon is the opposite of what he argues.

I think he was simply waiting for people to figure out and then...



Hot.

Meh, I figured it out, but I wanted to dig in and fling poo anyways.

CDP
The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.

So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...

But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?

Egalitarian: that's a lot of effort for trolling

Look, if you're gonna troll, you might as well go all the way. Why leave any room for half-asshattery?

love it

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Link (new window)

/clapton is god, lol

I find it odd that I consider moving to Texas more and more. Even weirder when France is in the mix of places I'd like to move.

SleepyMcGee: wippit: What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

The same god that creates man in his image and then kills them when they don't behave the way he wants?

See, now you're confusing creation with religion. The Bible was written by men. I can't help it if other men follow what was written...

zeph`: It wasn't obviously earlier? :/

I thought you were snarking with me if that makes you feel any better, but given the quality of participants I thought it'd be a good idea to show how that train of logic doesn't go anywhere.

/The "You Lose" thing helped to get me to bite though
//damn antagonist *shakes fist of impotent rage*

zeph`: bobbette: You still need evidence. You have none.

bobbette: Oh hey. How about that.

I already posted arguments against both of these objections.

The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right. Also, a tautology doesn't actually provide an explanation.

zeph`: Everything that isn't God, and God simultaneously causes his own existance and nonexistence at every single point in time.

If I had some weed, I'd fire it up right now. I'm pretty sure this thread would blow my mind, man.

idsfa: triton.imageshack.us

Sorry, images aren't forceful counter-arguments.

bartink: His profile says he has an undergrad in it.

And, if things go well, a MA after this upcoming year.

zeph`: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 6. zeph' knows nothing of science or logic.

To be quite honest, I assuredly know more about logic than you do.

Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.

eqtworld: wippit:
What kind of idiot god would create life and NOT give it the ability to adapt?

That would be:

The Christian God

Link (new window)

Not all Christians are Catholics. Some are even pro-gay marriage. That's like saying all Texans are...


... oh....

bobbette: The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right.

The mere fact that you posted a comment to the effect of denying the fact that my posts are correct solely on the basis of having been posted does not imply that my posts are incorrect.

the_cnidarian: If I had some weed, I'd fire it up right now. I'm pretty sure this thread would blow my mind, man.

Impressing people high out of their minds: it's what philosophy is good for.

Murkanen: train of logic doesn't go anywhere.

The arguments are all patently ridiculous, but they've all been considered quite forceful at some point after their conceptions. I'm unhappy I didn't get to argue Pascal's wager.

zeph`:
1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. God is not uncaused.
2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. God caused God to exist.

Okay that was probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. The Universe is not uncaused.
2. A Universe has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. The universe caused the universe to exist.

This "logic" fails equally well no matter what you substitute for God, whether it be Universe, Zeus, FSM, Satan, Shiva, Luke Skywalker, Inara, etc.

wippit: Not all Christians are Catholics.

most are

wippit: Some are even pro-gay marriage.

well how nice of them to allow others to do such things!

PC LOAD LETTER: What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.

zeph`: bobbette: The mere fact that you posted arguments doesn't make them right.

The mere fact that you posted a comment to the effect of denying the fact that my posts are correct solely on the basis of having been posted does not imply that my posts are incorrect.

Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.

eqtworld: wippit: Not all Christians are Catholics.


Hell, not all believers are Christian. There's lots of potential gods out there.

Look, Heisenberg had it right. Or not. We may or may not be vibrating strings of energy on a two dimensional surface projected into a 5 dimensional universe that is but one of an infinite number of universes that randomly occur in an infinite superspace...I can almost see why the poor dears get overwhelmed. But then, why can't they just admit "I don't understand this at all, so I'll let those of you who are smarter do the teachin', and I'll go back to driving fenceposts" or whatever. I suppose the ego, that enemy of logic and reason.

idsfa: //Work on it or your committee will kick your ass, n00b

Lulz, too true.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.

No, it really isn't.

Trayal: Okay that was probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

There's actually a pretty easy test:

Those who deny evolution are trolling.

100% accuracy on that one. Screw Poe's Law.

zeph`: PC LOAD LETTER: What if he typed out the words in the images, would that be more forceful a counter-argument?

Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.

A flawed observation, since I created the images ...