The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 23, 2005 0:40:36 GMT -5
Are you trying to prove a religous point here? if you are the biggest problem is that we can see and touch a car, we can neither see nor experience any form of a higher power. I love logic.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 23, 2005 0:42:38 GMT -5
The car is evidence of a manufacturer I understood that part, however the point you are trying to make with this little story is?
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 23, 2005 13:18:36 GMT -5
The car is evidence of a manufacturer I understood that part, however the point you are trying to make with this little story is? The car is also evidence of an intelligent designer. But when we experience the joys of skiing, hiking, mountain climbing etc. the atheist rejects that water, trees and mountains had a manufacturer and a designer. And he somehow call that logic.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Dec 23, 2005 15:06:14 GMT -5
No we think that it happend by chaotic formulation or evolution. We simply dont belive that some dued came along and said oh hell why not create something.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 23, 2005 19:52:42 GMT -5
Plus let us not forget that evolution has been proven through carbon dating and such. The proof of any form of god is non-existent.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 23, 2005 20:00:07 GMT -5
What seems more logical to you that over trillions of years atoms have come to be this planet and organisms thrive in the survival of the fittest to evolve into organisms, or that some thing that there is no proof of existing said "hmm i think i'll put some thing here" so instead of matter yeilding matter, matter was made out of nothing what so ever except for some wierd asses thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 24, 2005 2:34:03 GMT -5
I understood that part, however the point you are trying to make with this little story is? The car is also evidence of an intelligent designer. But when we experience the joys of skiing, hiking, mountain climbing etc. the atheist rejects that water, trees and mountains had a manufacturer and a designer. And he somehow call that logic. The comparision is called a false analogy. I believe I've explained this before.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 26, 2005 23:29:17 GMT -5
The comparision is called a false analogy. I believe I've explained this before. That's your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 27, 2005 1:51:42 GMT -5
The comparision is called a false analogy. I believe I've explained this before. That's your opinion. No, it's not. Formal logic says it is. The false analogy fallacy is also known as the questionable analogy or faulty comparison: Source - Kahane, H. and Tidman, P. (1995). Logic & Philosophy: A Modern Introduction. (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. Di Leo, J. (2000). Morality Matters: Race, Class, and Gender in Applied Ethics.. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Douglas Theobald shows how the false analogy is utilized in an response to Ashby Camp: Source - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.htmlAnd finally a definition from the wikipedia entry on false analogy: Source - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogySo therefore when you compare biological organisms to cars and claim this evidence of a designer - it is a false analogy and therefore fallacious reasoning...not my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 19, 2006 15:38:26 GMT -5
This is true pilgrim and we know the car had a manufacture because humanity came up with it. The point I think is that this doesn't work with nature. You will find that if you go all the way back to the first things in the universe they were relatively simple things ie plasma, fire, etc. (I use simple here to describe things at the elemental level) from which every thing developed. Then you as a Theist make the jump that it must have been created by a being with a mind. You make this jump because you either don't want to or cant conceive of the complexity that is creation could be created by consequence rather than Divine intervention. THE POINT of the atheist is that even it its utmost complexity Creation as a whole can be created as a result of causality.
A 'simple' example would be a structure made out of Lego's without the use of directions. If one is building with Lego's without directions or an end result in mind then the amount of things that can be created are as vast as the Lego's at your disposal. (mind that this is biased on a time frame of infinity) Now in our case we are using elements rather than Lego's, yet the point stays the same a rather large amount of things can be created by these elements and the forces in them.
Now consider when one is done and destroys every thing. He is left with Lego's and a blank mind. (The same amount of Lego's as when he went in. Those of whom have taken chemistry know that matter doesn't break down to nothingness so this fits). The point here is that when one sits down to build again totally different structures could be created as a result. Or since every thing has come back to the beginning, and the new creation is not influenced by the past creation. (as the mind is wiped clean as result of the destruction) The same structures could be created.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 3, 2007 22:54:05 GMT -5
The car is also evidence of an intelligent designer. But when we experience the joys of skiing, hiking, mountain climbing etc. the atheist rejects that water, trees and mountains had a manufacturer and a designer. And he somehow call that logic. The comparision is called a false analogy. I believe I've explained this before. Technically speaking, the comparison may be a "false analogy," but Pilgrim has brought up a good point. A system or mechanism that possesses a high level of specified complexity (such as biological life) is evidence of an Intelligent Designer, in the same way that a complex machine such as a car could not have formed through natural processes.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 3, 2007 12:29:03 GMT -5
Specified complexity has been perverted by Dembski from the original term introduced by Leslie Orgel. His terms are continually equivocated, the categorical discrimination is arbitrary and his basic assumptions are incorrect. Specified complexity is as useless as Behe's "irreducible complexity" of which his prime examples have been shown to have a natural, evolutionary explanation. I'm sorry to say that you've been duped by bad and pseudo-science Dan.
Also, none of which changes the fact that Pilgrim's argument was fallacious.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Sept 4, 2007 8:27:13 GMT -5
Dan your point on the need for things to be created has no basis. I have never heard any one who makes this specific point (that things cannot be created by evolutionary process and without a God like designer) ever back it up with evidence other than the bible which is not a historical document much less a document based on science or any kind of real evidence.
If you do have proof then present it here so that we may evaluate it and see if we find it to hold up. If you do not however have any evidence to prove your statement (I.E. that Mountains, rivers, and the Platypus require an intelligent designer and cannot be created by evolution or causation) then it would be good of you to not bring your then uneducated opinion into this discussion.
|
|