'The Forces of Social Evolution' - Three Times Great et al

Unity1 · February 7, 2009, 1:57am

It is very true that every scientific person agrees that evolution occurs.

I also agree that it is the how which is a very difficult question to answer for everybody.

I’m quite happy there are different opinions otherwise life would be boring.

Three_Times_Great · February 7, 2009, 2:15am

oh wait, lets see what we have here… :

i certainly see your “tolerance and politeness” unity… the irony and hypocricy is almost too funny to stand, lol.

Unity1 · February 7, 2009, 3:26am

Three Times Great:

Unity1:

We are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

oh wait, lets see what we have here… :

Unity1:

The lack of logic you are displaying tells me you are not worth speaking to.

Unity1:

Arrogance.

Unity1:

You have to learn more about human nature.

Unity1:

You are a smartass that thinks he knows everything. Ignorant and narrow-minded.

Unity1:

Bullshit. Prove it.

Unity1:

You sound like a smartass undergrad to me who thinks he knows everything beacuse he has done 2 or 3 years at Uni. I can guarantee that by the time you are dead the world will still be here. Remember me on your deathbed.

i certainly see your “tolerance and politeness” unity… the irony and hypocricy is almost too funny to stand, lol.

OK so I am intolerant and impolite.

However, I will tell you that you missed selfish because I posted the above rule primarily as a reminder to myself.

So your accusation of hypocrasy doesn’t stand.

Unity1 · February 7, 2009, 3:32am

… and apart from that I apologise for my losing control…

Unity1 · February 7, 2009, 3:44am

… but I still don’t agree with you…

… and I am still waiting for you to explain why you are ‘right’ and I am wrong in this thread…

Three_Times_Great · February 7, 2009, 7:24pm

ok. im not going to read through this entire thread atm, but i will address what seems to be your core beliefs, as quoted above. im not really sure what this has to do with social or natural forces such as selection and/or evolution, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

you believe that god created the universe. you say that god created the universe, that god has always existed, and that the universe has always existed. first of all, i will refrain from making this thread about the inconsistencies, contradictions and irrationality of taking “faith-based” beliefs (i.e. beliefs with NO REASONS) above emprical or deductive reasons… that stands on its own, and anyone who has thought about or read any epistemology/logic should easily come to the conclusion that, even IF religious or faith beliefs turn out to be true, they are STILL irrational, because there is not reason to justify belief in them… that is a separate topic, and while it tends to invalidate much of what ive seen on this thread, i will try to let it go for arguments sake.

first of all, god and the universe cannot BOTH have existed forever, if one was created. creation is an event, a point at which something NEW comes to being WHERE IT HAD NOT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY… if this is not so, then creation has no meaning. if god did create the universe, then logically god could be infinite and forever-existent, but the universe cannot be so. if god created the universe, the universe has not existed forever-- if it has, then it was not “created”.

that is the first inconsistency i see here. the second is your “6000 year” reference which i can only assume means you are a creationist who feels he can just throw out thousands of years of verifiable/scientific discovery and research in archeology/geology/astronomy/biology/physics/genetics/chemistry… i dont feel i need to refute this claim, it is self-refuting.

third,

what is the evidence that anything “was not created by god”? god could have created anything; even if we understand how something came about, we can always posit the extra existence of some super-magical-being who “allowed” or “directed” creation or the forces. it comes down to a simple principle: the absence of proof for something not existing does not equate to the proof of its existence… i cant prove that a giant wedge of cheese DOES NOT exists at the center of the universe, yet this says nothing about the either existence or nonexistence of such. environmental pressures such as selection work impersonally-- no one needs to sit there and tell them what to do. they result as emergent behavior from the individual actions of countless single entities. we can understand natural selection and evolution by looking at genetics, survivability, adaptation to environmental conditions, and reproductive ability… no personal or authoritarian/controlling force is necessary.

lastly here,

nothing is "super"natural-- everything which exists, is natural by definition. nothing can BE without it being NATURAL, i.e. real and understandable. anything which we consider supernatural is just something which 1) we do not understand yet, or 2) is imaginary, made up in the human mind. take ghosts: either ghosts are real, or they are not. we have no way of knowing. thats why they are “supernatural” because they COULD be real, but we have no proof of this. same thing with god itself: there COULD be some magical being which somehow violates all known laws of physics to exist “everywhere at once” and can “do anything” and has “always existed”, but we have no reason to believe this. because we have no reason to believe it, its irrelevant to conclude it is real, even IF it turned out to be true.

to claim that anything “supernatural” is somehow real, is a mistake. people make this mistake all the time, by assuming that some things like gods/aliens/ghosts/demons/other dimensions/psychic abilities are “supernatural” in the sense that they are “beyond” our reality, or are beyond our ability to understand. that is mistaken; nothing is NECESSARILY beyond our ability to understand, because if it were so, it would be non-existent. if something exists, it exists for real (i.e. natural) reasons, there are causal forces behind its existence, and therefore we can understand it in theory.

the last point i will make tends to nullify the concept of god as you use it here: look up occham’s razor. the principle that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” is a logical result from the realization that, if we are going to postulate the existence of some entity/entities to account for a natural phenomenon, then the “simplest” explanation is the MOST LIKELY, in terms of PROBABILITY. we obviously dont KNOW if there is a god behind the existence/creation of the universe, but to assume that GOD itself is the “infinitely-existing” entity is erroneous from the standpoint of probability-- it is much easier to just assume that the universe itself is the infinitely-existing entity, and therefore we reduce probabilities of error in our determination. occham’s razor explains why assuming the existence of a god to account for the universe is just as irrational as assuming the existence of a god who created god, who created the universe. hey, why not assume then that theres a god who created the god who created the god who created the universe? it is redundant; but of course it “cannot be disproven”, right?

clearly it is irrational to believe that a chain of gods led to the universes creation-- and for the VERY SAME REASON it is JUST AS IRRATIONAL to posit the existence of any god-being at all; lets just cut to the chase, assume the universe itself has existed forever in some form or another, and leave it at that. much simpler, more logical, much more likely.

Unity1 · February 7, 2009, 11:45pm

Three Times Great:

Unity1:

A) Nothing created God, He has always existed. The universe has likewise also existed. The creator and the creation have always existed.
B) Static? Don’t think so. In 6000 years we have developed from running about half-naked with no fire to landing on the moon. How is that even remotely static?
C) I am open to your point of view. What is the evidence that environmental pressures were not created by God?
D) A couple of million years is not a long time. Any geologist will tell you this.
E) What is the link between the environmental pressures and Human progress in your view I’m interested to know.

Unity1:

It is my position that the forces of social evolution are in essence supernatural, that science cannot define them, and that a perfect society is inevitable as ordained by God

ok. im not going to read through this entire thread atm, but i will address what seems to be your core beliefs, as quoted above. im not really sure what this has to do with social or natural forces such as selection and/or evolution, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

you believe that god created the universe. you say that god created the universe, that god has always existed, and that the universe has always existed. 1. first of all, i will refrain from making this thread about the inconsistencies, contradictions and irrationality of taking “faith-based” beliefs (i.e. beliefs with NO REASONS) above emprical or deductive reasons… that stands on its own, and anyone who has thought about or read any epistemology/logic should easily come to the conclusion that, even 2. IF religious or faith beliefs turn out to be true, they are STILL irrational, because there is not reason to justify belief in them… that is a separate topic, and while it tends to invalidate much of what ive seen on this thread, i will try to let it go for arguments sake.

first of all, god and the universe cannot BOTH have existed forever, if one was created. creation is an event, a point at which something NEW comes to being WHERE IT HAD NOT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY… if this is not so, then creation has no meaning. if god did create the universe, then logically god could be infinite and forever-existent, but the universe cannot be so. if god created the universe, the universe has not existed forever-- if it has, then it was not “created”.

that is the first inconsistency i see here. the second is your “6000 year” reference which i can only assume means you are a creationist who feels he can just throw out thousands of years of verifiable/scientific discovery and research in archeology/geology/astronomy/biology/physics/genetics/chemistry… i dont feel i need to refute this claim, it is self-refuting.

third,

What is the evidence that environmental pressures were not created by God?

what is the evidence that anything “was not created by god”? god could have created anything; even if we understand how something came about, we can always posit the extra existence of some super-magical-being who “allowed” or “directed” creation or the forces. it comes down to a simple principle: the absence of proof for something not existing does not equate to the proof of its existence… i cant prove that a giant wedge of cheese DOES NOT exists at the center of the universe, yet this says nothing about the either existence or nonexistence of such. environmental pressures such as selection work impersonally-- 6. no one needs to sit there and tell them what to do. they result as emergent behavior from the individual actions of countless single entities. we can understand natural selection and evolution by looking at genetics, survivability, adaptation to environmental conditions, and reproductive ability… no personal or authoritarian/controlling force is necessary.

lastly here,

Unity1:

It is my position that the forces of social evolution are in essence supernatural, that science cannot define them, and that a perfect society is inevitable as ordained by God

nothing is "super"natural-- everything which exists, is natural by definition. nothing can BE without it being NATURAL, i.e. real and understandable. anything which we consider supernatural is just something which 1) we do not understand yet, or 2) is imaginary, made up in the human mind. take ghosts: either ghosts are real, or they are not. we have no way of knowing. thats why they are “supernatural” because they COULD be real, but we have no proof of this. same thing with god itself: there COULD be some magical being which somehow 8. violates all known laws of physics to exist “everywhere at once” and can “do anything” and has “always existed”, but we have no reason to believe this. because we have no reason to believe it, its irrelevant to conclude it is real, even IF it turned out to be true.

to claim that anything “supernatural” is somehow real, is a mistake. people make this mistake all the time, by assuming that some things like gods/aliens/ghosts/demons/other dimensions/psychic abilities are “supernatural” in the sense that they are “beyond” our reality, or are beyond our ability to understand. that is mistaken; nothing is NECESSARILY beyond our ability to understand, because if it were so, it would be non-existent. if something exists, it exists for real (i.e. natural) reasons, there are causal forces behind its existence, and therefore we can understand it in theory.

the last point i will make tends to nullify the concept of god as you use it here: look up occham’s razor. the principle that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” is a logical result from the realization that, if we are going to postulate the existence of some entity/entities to account for a natural phenomenon, then the “simplest” explanation is the MOST LIKELY, in terms of PROBABILITY. we obviously dont KNOW if there is a god behind the existence/creation of the universe, but to assume that GOD itself is the “infinitely-existing” entity is erroneous from the standpoint of probability-- it is much easier to just assume that the universe itself is the infinitely-existing entity, and therefore we reduce probabilities of error in our determination. occham’s razor explains why assuming the existence of a god to account for the universe is just as irrational as assuming the existence of a god who created god, who created the universe. hey, why not assume then that theres a god who created the god who created the god who created the universe? it is redundant; but of course it “cannot be disproven”, right?

clearly it is irrational to believe that a chain of gods led to the universes creation-- and for the VERY SAME REASON it is JUST AS IRRATIONAL to posit the existence of any god-being at all; lets just cut to the chase, assume the universe itself has existed forever in some form or another, and leave it at that. much simpler, more logical, much more likely.

I understand it may seem irrational from your perspective.

I understand that people may not understand that faith is belief with reasons because they do not possess the subjective experience of having faith.

However true faith shows no inconsistencies/contradictions/irrationality in emprical or deductive reasoning.

Even if they are true there is no reason to believe them?
What about the ‘reoccuring universe’ or the ‘continually expanding universe’. What if there are universes inside of universes from infinity in one direction to infinity in the other.
You shouldn’t assume I am ‘creationist’. Creation does not negate evolution and evolution does not negate creation. They are compatible.
There is none. The absense of falsifiable evidence always leaves open the possibility.
something needed to set the ball rolling. ‘God plays dice with the universe’.
This is just a play on an insignificant word which has nothing to do with the fact that there is a creator beyond the bounds of materiality. The painter is completely different in nature to the painting. The painter is infinitely more than the painting. The painting cannot understand the painter. The painting cannot create itself. The painting cannot become the painter.
Just because you have no reason to believe it, does not mean there is no reason to believe it. Why violates? Why not superordinates. The accomplished painter is accomplished.
to claim that beyond materiality is non-existent is a mistake. it is a materialism.
I know Occam’s Razor.

There is nothing unnecessary about a Self Subsistent Infinite Creator that created Man because He loved us and wanted us to know Him.

The only thing that is not stricly necessary is the creation.

Scroll down to my first post for the proof:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=161396&start=75

Three_Times_Great · February 8, 2009, 1:01am

yes, faith beliefs are inconsistent, because they dont need reasons-- if a belief rests on objective reasons such as logic/empiricism/deduction, then its NOT faith.

why would you need “faith” to believe in something when you already have reasons for believing it…???

thats correct. if it turns out to be true that the world will end in 5 days exactly, it would still be irrational for me to believe this, because i have no reason for this belief. its the REASONS WHY we believe things, the causation/natural explanations which make a belief good or bad, justified or unjustified. just because you claim a belief without reasons and it later turns out that the belief happens to be true, doesnt mean you had any KNOWLEDGE. “accidental” knowledge does not equate to knowledge-- look up epistemlogy, even among the wide range of theories of knowledge you wont find a single one that asserts that “accidental knowledge” actually means you knew anything at all.

the religious creationist “young earth” belief does contradict evolution. the attempts by creationists to include and/or explain evolution in light of a god-being is just their attempt to rationalize their outdated religious beliefs in light of the fact that there is so much mounting evidence for evolution that they can no longer ignore it and pretend it isnt true. it represents an attempt by the mind to reduce cognitive dissonance, a rationalization on behalf of the ego.

evolution is incompataible with creationism because it DOES NOT NEED to postulate any god or higher force; any such postulation is erroneous and completely unnecessary.

if you think that something needed to set the ball rolling, why do you believe in god? who set god rolling? and when you state that he has always existed, why doesnt something need to set him in motion? you cant just sweep this under the rug, there is a real metaphysical/logical contradiction when you claim that a “god” which is supposedly a lifeform, doesnt need a reason or first-cause, yet the universe, the THING WHICH CREATES LIFE, somehow does need to be explained by first-causes… you need to explain why a god-being doesnt need to be explained, which of course means you need to take its existence on “faith” since faith is the only thing to fall back on when there are no reasons for believing in something.

materialism is flawed because it assumed that matter is what is fundamental; in fact, it is energy which is the only thing that exists. since all matter is energy, all forces are energy and the interactions of energies, then modified materialism is the correct metaphysics, which understands that the only thing which is REAL or EXISTENT is just different types of energies.

it doesnt seem that you do, because occhams razor invalidates the concept of god, especially when you use god to justify the problem of “first-cause”. occham’s razor explains why there is no reason to assume the existence of a god if we are concerned with first-causes of the universe/reality-- we just need to assume that the universe/reality itself is the first cause. if you accept occham’s razor as true then you must bite the bullet and accept that it is erroneous to postulate a god-being as a first cause; if you reject occham’s razor as untrue then you need to jutsify this and explain why you dont think it is accurate. no way around it, you cant have it both ways.

i know that they problem with arguing science with someone religious is that they dont care about science, but it seems you are at least capable of acknowledging that science is true-- it offers reasons for beliefs, truth about the universe and reality. so why do you cling to beliefs in imaginary beings? even the religious person must admit that they have no reasons for believing in god; if you DO have a reason, then you need to state it and explain it to us. otherwise, we can assume that your stated belief in god is based on emotionalism, on nothing but a steady indoctrination when you were young, the abandonment of which would be too strenuous for the mind to handle at this point. hence all the justifications and half-attempts to reconcile religion and science.

if you have REASONS for believing in god please tell us. otherwise, you must conceed that it is unreasonable to hold that belief. im afraid theres no way around that.

Unity1 · February 8, 2009, 1:40am

Three Times Great:

Unity1:

I understand it may seem irrational from your perspective.

I understand that people may not understand that faith is belief with reasons because they do not possess the subjective experience of having faith.

However true faith shows no inconsistencies/contradictions/irrationality in emprical or deductive reasoning.

yes, faith beliefs are inconsistent, because they dont need reasons-- if a belief rests on objective reasons such as logic/empiricism/deduction, then its NOT faith.

why would you need “faith” to believe in something when you already have reasons for believing it…???

Unity1:

Even if they are true there is no reason to believe them?

thats correct. if it turns out to be true that the world will end in 5 days exactly, it would still be irrational for me to believe this, because i have no reason for this belief. its the REASONS WHY we believe things, the causation/natural explanations which make a belief good or bad, justified or unjustified. just because you claim a belief without reasons and it later turns out that the belief happens to be true, doesnt mean you had any KNOWLEDGE. “accidental” knowledge does not equate to knowledge-- look up epistemlogy, even among the wide range of theories of knowledge you wont find a single one that asserts that “accidental knowledge” actually means you knew anything at all.

Unity1:

You shouldn’t assume I am ‘creationist’. Creation does not negate evolution and evolution does not negate creation. They are compatible.

the religious creationist “young earth” belief does contradict evolution. the attempts by creationists to include and/or explain evolution in light of a god-being is just their attempt to rationalize their outdated religious beliefs in light of the fact that there is so much mounting evidence for evolution that they can no longer ignore it and pretend it isnt true. it represents an attempt by the mind to reduce cognitive dissonance, a rationalization on behalf of the ego.

evolution is incompataible with creationism because it DOES NOT NEED to postulate any god or higher force; any such postulation is erroneous and completely unnecessary.

Unity1:

something needed to set the ball rolling. ‘God plays dice with the universe’.

if you think that something needed to set the ball rolling, why do you believe in god? who set god rolling? and when you state that he has always existed, why doesnt something need to set him in motion? you cant just sweep this under the rug, there is a real metaphysical/logical contradiction when you claim that a “god” which is supposedly a lifeform, doesnt need a reason or first-cause, yet the universe, the THING WHICH CREATES LIFE, somehow does need to be explained by first-causes… you need to explain why a god-being doesnt need to be explained, which of course means you need to take its existence on “faith” since faith is the only thing to fall back on when there are no reasons for believing in something.

Unity1:

to claim that beyond materiality is non-existent is a mistake. it is a materialism.

materialism is flawed because it assumed that matter is what is fundamental; in fact, it is energy which is the only thing that exists. since all matter is energy, all forces are energy and the interactions of energies, then modified materialism is the correct metaphysics, which understands that the only thing which is REAL or EXISTENT is just different types of energies.

Unity1:

I know Occam’s Razor.

it doesnt seem that you do, because occhams razor invalidates the concept of god, especially when you use god to justify the problem of “first-cause”. occham’s razor explains why there is no reason to assume the existence of a god if we are concerned with first-causes of the universe/reality-- we just need to assume that the universe/reality itself is the first cause. if you accept occham’s razor as true then you must bite the bullet and accept that it is erroneous to postulate a god-being as a first cause; if you reject occham’s razor as untrue then you need to jutsify this and explain why you dont think it is accurate. no way around it, you cant have it both ways.

i know that they problem with arguing science with someone religious is that they dont care about science, but it seems you are at least capable of acknowledging that science is true-- it offers reasons for beliefs, truth about the universe and reality. so why do you cling to beliefs in imaginary beings? even the religious person must admit that they have no reasons for believing in god; if you DO have a reason, then you need to state it and explain it to us. otherwise, we can assume that your stated belief in god is based on emotionalism, on nothing but a steady indoctrination when you were young, the abandonment of which would be too strenuous for the mind to handle at this point. hence all the justifications and half-attempts to reconcile religion and science.

if you have REASONS for believing in god please tell us. otherwise, you must conceed that it is unreasonable to hold that belief. im afraid theres no way around that.

You don’t seem to know what faith is. You have faith that logic/empiricism/deduction exist and are useful. Therefore it is you who is inconsistent.
I know of epistemology. I have all the reasons in the world.
I am not ‘young Earth’. Explain how evolution disproves God created it.
I take it you didn’t understand the logic in the link I posted.
Modified materialism is a materialism. Modified materialism states there a different types of energies. What is the source?
You are playing on words again. Nothing invalidates God. Read the link. I suppose you belief Zeno’s Paradoxes as well. I care about science very much. God created it.

Why do you assume ‘I cling to imaginary beings’?

Are you saying I am stupid?

LOL. Indoctrination. Should I take that as a personal insult towards my parents, or just me and my faith in general?

Do you think I am weak?

Science and Religion go hand in hand. Science can’t fully explain reality without Religion and vice versa.

What are your reasons for missing out the numbers of certain questions?

You know it is not being scientificily truthful to ignore evidence that contradicts a paradigm.

I look forward to hearing your responses, they are confirming my beliefs and I am gaining a deeper knowledge of reality with their help.

I hope the same can be said for you.

Unity1 · February 8, 2009, 1:45am

Three Times Great:

Unity1:

I understand it may seem irrational from your perspective.

I understand that people may not understand that faith is belief with reasons because they do not possess the subjective experience of having faith.

However true faith shows no inconsistencies/contradictions/irrationality in emprical or deductive reasoning.

yes, faith beliefs are inconsistent, because they dont need reasons-- if a belief rests on objective reasons such as logic/empiricism/deduction, then its NOT faith.

why would you need “faith” to believe in something when you already have reasons for believing it…???

Unity1:

Even if they are true there is no reason to believe them?

thats correct. if it turns out to be true that the world will end in 5 days exactly, it would still be irrational for me to believe this, because i have no reason for this belief. its the REASONS WHY we believe things, the causation/natural explanations which make a belief good or bad, justified or unjustified. just because you claim a belief without reasons and it later turns out that the belief happens to be true, doesnt mean you had any KNOWLEDGE. “accidental” knowledge does not equate to knowledge-- look up epistemlogy, even among the wide range of theories of knowledge you wont find a single one that asserts that “accidental knowledge” actually means you knew anything at all.

Unity1:

You shouldn’t assume I am ‘creationist’. Creation does not negate evolution and evolution does not negate creation. They are compatible.

the religious creationist “young earth” belief does contradict evolution. the attempts by creationists to include and/or explain evolution in light of a god-being is just their attempt to rationalize their outdated religious beliefs in light of the fact that there is so much mounting evidence for evolution that they can no longer ignore it and pretend it isnt true. it represents an attempt by the mind to reduce cognitive dissonance, a rationalization on behalf of the ego.

evolution is incompataible with creationism because it DOES NOT NEED to postulate any god or higher force; any such postulation is erroneous and completely unnecessary.

Unity1:

something needed to set the ball rolling. ‘God plays dice with the universe’.

if you think that something needed to set the ball rolling, why do you believe in god? who set god rolling? and when you state that he has always existed, why doesnt something need to set him in motion? you cant just sweep this under the rug, there is a real metaphysical/logical contradiction when you claim that a “god” which is supposedly a lifeform, doesnt need a reason or first-cause, yet the universe, the THING WHICH CREATES LIFE, somehow does need to be explained by first-causes… you need to explain why a god-being doesnt need to be explained, which of course means you need to take its existence on “faith” since faith is the only thing to fall back on when there are no reasons for believing in something.

Unity1:

to claim that beyond materiality is non-existent is a mistake. it is a materialism.

materialism is flawed because it assumed that matter is what is fundamental; in fact, it is energy which is the only thing that exists. since all matter is energy, all forces are energy and the interactions of energies, then modified materialism is the correct metaphysics, which understands that the only thing which is REAL or EXISTENT is just different types of energies.

Unity1:

I know Occam’s Razor.

it doesnt seem that you do, because occhams razor invalidates the concept of god, especially when you use god to justify the problem of “first-cause”. occham’s razor explains why there is no reason to assume the existence of a god if we are concerned with first-causes of the universe/reality-- we just need to assume that the universe/reality itself is the first cause. if you accept occham’s razor as true then you must bite the bullet and accept that it is erroneous to postulate a god-being as a first cause; if you reject occham’s razor as untrue then you need to jutsify this and explain why you dont think it is accurate. no way around it, you cant have it both ways.

i know that they problem with arguing science with someone religious is that they dont care about science, but it seems you are at least capable of acknowledging that science is true-- it offers reasons for beliefs, truth about the universe and reality. so why do you cling to beliefs in imaginary beings? even the religious person must admit that they have no reasons for believing in god; if you DO have a reason, then you need to state it and explain it to us. otherwise, we can assume that your stated belief in god is based on emotionalism, on nothing but a steady indoctrination when you were young, the abandonment of which would be too strenuous for the mind to handle at this point. hence all the justifications and half-attempts to reconcile religion and science.

if you have REASONS for believing in god please tell us. otherwise, you must conceed that it is unreasonable to hold that belief. im afraid theres no way around that.

Where did the first letter of the word ‘reason’ (r) come from?

What does it signify and what is its reason for being?

Give me a full explanation with all the reason you can muster.

Three_Times_Great · February 8, 2009, 2:40am

good job on not answering a single one of my above points, other than reiterating one-line soundbites from your previous post and asking a lot of redundant questions.

i will remember to not waste my time crafting thoughtful and articulate responses to your points in the future. but at least you reaffirm my stated point that it is pointless to argue or debate science or truth with a religious person, as they are not really interested in science, or in learning truth… your only interest seems in closing off your mind and confusing the issues by avoiding my important questions and hiding behind an unending number of redundant and meaningless questions to try to justify and hide the irrational, contradictory and self-defeating nature of your beliefs…

good luck with that; i wonder how long you can keep pretending to yourself that youre actually a philosopher…

have fun.

Unity1 · February 8, 2009, 5:37pm

Three Times Great:

good job on not answering a single one of my above points, other than reiterating one-line soundbites from your previous post and asking a lot of redundant questions.

i will remember to not waste my time crafting thoughtful and articulate responses to your points in the future. but at least you reaffirm my stated point that it is pointless to argue or debate science or truth with a religious person, as they are not really interested in science, or in learning truth… your only interest seems in closing off your mind and confusing the issues by avoiding my important questions and hiding behind an unending number of redundant and meaningless questions to try to justify and hide the irrational, contradictory and self-defeating nature of your beliefs…

good luck with that; i wonder how long you can keep pretending to yourself that youre actually a philosopher…

have fun.

You lose, game over.

Three_Times_Great · February 9, 2009, 1:12am

Unity1:

Three Times Great:

good job on not answering a single one of my above points, other than reiterating one-line soundbites from your previous post and asking a lot of redundant questions.

i will remember to not waste my time crafting thoughtful and articulate responses to your points in the future. but at least you reaffirm my stated point that it is pointless to argue or debate science or truth with a religious person, as they are not really interested in science, or in learning truth… your only interest seems in closing off your mind and confusing the issues by avoiding my important questions and hiding behind an unending number of redundant and meaningless questions to try to justify and hide the irrational, contradictory and self-defeating nature of your beliefs…

good luck with that; i wonder how long you can keep pretending to yourself that youre actually a philosopher…

have fun.

You lose, game over.

of course… a completely rational response to losing an argument, no denial whatsoever…

the more you try to rationalize and evade our questions, the deeper the hole gets, and youre not fooling anyone…

Three_Times_Great · February 9, 2009, 1:39am

unity, i just want an answer to one simple question-- if you can give us a satisfactory answer to this one question, i can let all the rest go, for the time being… the question is this, it shouldnt be a hard one:

why do you believe in god?

itlog · February 9, 2009, 1:47am

Okay, but according to you

Hmm. Something’s not right.

Three_Times_Great · February 9, 2009, 1:52am

itlog:

Unity1:

Cyrene:

“if something exists something created it”

A) What created a super complex and powerful God? If he always existed why isn’t it more reasonable to assume less complex things like a universe always existed?

B) 2. Human progress has been fast recently before that it was static for over 99% of our existance. C) On top of that it was environmental pressures that made it come about. D) If its inevitable why’d it take so long? E) Why only when environmental situations deemed neccessary did it happen?

A) Nothing created God, He has always existed. The universe has likewise also existed. The creator and the creation have always existed. <==============
B) Static? Don’t think so. In 6000 years we have developed from running about half-naked with no fire to landing on the moon. How is that even remotely static?
C) I am open to your point of view. What is the evidence that environmental pressures were not created by God?
D) A couple of million years is not a long time. Any geologist will tell you this.
E) What is the link between the environmental pressures and Human progress in your view I’m interested to know.

Okay, but according to you

Unity1:

Wonderer:

What of teh social structure of monkeys? or army ants?

are they ordained by God?

on what basis do you determine something i ordained by god?

Yes they are ordained by God.

If something exists then that is the basis for determining that God ordained it. If something exists, then something created it, logically it can be no other way.

Hmm. Something’s not right.

something is not right indeed… i made this point in my above posting, which unity conveniently failed to address… but dont get your hopes up for him to actually respond to your clear point that his stated beliefs are self-contradictory, those who abandon logic/reason for “faith” cannot be expected to notice its absence in their own beliefs/paradigms…

Unity1 · February 9, 2009, 4:51pm

… because He exists.

Unity1 · February 9, 2009, 4:54pm

I embrace logic and reason whole-heartedly.

Denying what I already know would be unreasonable.

spyderjoe · February 9, 2009, 5:00pm

TTG, Why do you believe in Progress?

Three_Times_Great · February 9, 2009, 5:10pm

god exists because he exists… i see, makes perfect sense.

i believe in flying purple elephants; dont bother telling me im wrong, or asking me why i believe such a rediculous idea, because i can easily justify it: they exist because they exist. period. completely rational.