If you belief in evolution and are atheist let me ask you a question ?

[QUOTE="azargushasb"]

Before the big bang whier the universe started their was no time , space , or matter . HOW COULD THE UNIVERSE HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM NOTHINGNESS . YOU CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING . It it not one of the laws of psychics ? Their for their had to be a god to to create something  from nothing . If you have a answer for me please tell me .

???

qetuo6

What created God?

That is not edvidence becasue you dont know if it is the remanents of("Our ancestors" according to the theory of evolution) also mutations can only use information that is already there and scramble it like a cow that has 5 legs a cow cannot get gills because it not in the dna no matter how much mutations there are at least 3 changes in necotides is lethal e.g. cystis fibrouse and the supposed hip bone in humback whales is for them to mkae more whalesChessy_Nachos

We don't know, but evolution makes alot more sense IMOzeroman089x2

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Chessy_Nachos"]and i explained it the oringinal sin is the tendency of our human nature just being born does not make you a sinner what you think and do is like a man who lust after a married woman has commeted sin in his heartFignewton50

1. Notice what words you used, "better for you". The statement, "Coke is better than Pepsi" is different than the statement "Coke is better for you than Pepsi". Two different meanings, that are not even closely related to each other.

2. I didn't say anything about right or wrong. We are talking true and false. It is wrong to speak out against the company that you work for ( not in every circumstance of course, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it ), but "Pepsi is better than Coke" isn't true or false except from the perspective of whoever holds the belief. Again, that's why it's subjective. A subjective statement is dependent on the person making the statement or holding the belief. An objective statement is not. It is true or false regardless of whatever believe the individual may have. Thus, gravity is true whether you believe in it or not.

3. The argument has nothing to do with whether or not I can prove that the rations were actually reduced. The only relevant information was the fact that they were reduced. Proof of any given truth is secondary to the underlying principle that something is true. Six hundred years ago, when Europeans had no clue that America existed does not change that fact that America did exist.

Since you are using 1984 as an example, I'm going to assume that you've read the book. One of the main weapons that Big Brother uses is to abolish the concept of objective truth. By removing the basic principle of reason that what exists, exists and what is, is Big Brother was able to control the masses because their beliefs were not grounded in reality, but instead they were grounded in wishes and whims which could be changed almost instantaneously. Thus, even though the day before it was announced that the chocolate ration would be reduced, the next day nobody questioned the telescreen when it was mentioned that people were thanking Big Brother for raising the chocolates instead. 1984 was written party as a warning of what happens with the destruction in the belief of objective truth.

4. Could it be? Perhaps, but to believe so is to go against all reason and logic. To have a belief that can't be proven is meaningless and serves no purpose. You may as well say you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they are all equally nonsensical.

5. If you were taught that Africa did not exist, you may in fact believe this to be true. Again however, what you believe and what is the truth are two separate things. You're belief that Africa did not exist, would simply be a belief that was mistaken.

Reason dictates that it is illogical to hold a belief that is either contrary to the evidence, has no evidence, or it's impossible to show evidence. The fact that you said you would still believe in God even if you were given concrete evidence suggesting otherwise indicates that you have no desire to discover the truth. Instead, you wish to hold on to dogmatic beliefs that are not grounded in reality or reason.
Decessus

[QUOTE="Atrus"]As a couple of people have already shown here, the problem in the end comes down to the inability to properly categorize between "Existance" and "Non-Existence". Therefore, if we cannot prove that an entity exists/does not exist we cannot conceivably say it does/does not.

Because of Hume's dictum, we are divided into two seperate viewpoints: Realist and Nominalist of what we consider reality and therefore existence. Because of this ambiguity, we cannot really say that God does or does not exist, but we can however assert what is more probable is the truth and the maximal probability is the ultimate (perhaps unknowable) truth.

Let me explain the above a second:

{When I speak of highest probabilities dictating truth I mean that we know as true is only the highest probability of a given occurance. 1 1=2, but it is only true insofar as 1 1= !2, but the probability of 1 1=2 is so high, it is close or as close to the maximal truth to be true. The only way we could say 1 1=2 was the maximal truth was if we knew everything and there was no case where 1 1=!2.}

Like the example, we cannot discern the maximal truth to Gods existence, but the probabilities against his existence are high enough that we can ostensibly say that God very likely does not exist. This probability arising from the body of logic and reason that weighs against Gods possible existence. Even if a God being were to exist, rationale leads it
to become purposeless or at the very least, nowhere near the entity described in religion, especially Judeo-Christian ones.

Ultimately, statements citing that God does/does not exist are incorrect. Theism relying heavily on arguments that hold little logic or reason, and Atheists abandoning logic and reason when they think the gap between what is and what is expected is close enough to form a conclusion with. The most we can reasonably state is that God very likely does not exist or is purposeless.
Decessus

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Atrus"]As a couple of people have already shown here, the problem in the end comes down to the inability to properly categorize between "Existance" and "Non-Existence". Therefore, if we cannot prove that an entity exists/does not exist we cannot conceivably say it does/does not.

Because of Hume's dictum, we are divided into two seperate viewpoints: Realist and Nominalist of what we consider reality and therefore existence. Because of this ambiguity, we cannot really say that God does or does not exist, but we can however assert what is more probable is the truth and the maximal probability is the ultimate (perhaps unknowable) truth.

Let me explain the above a second:

{When I speak of highest probabilities dictating truth I mean that we know as true is only the highest probability of a given occurance. 1 1=2, but it is only true insofar as 1 1= !2, but the probability of 1 1=2 is so high, it is close or as close to the maximal truth to be true. The only way we could say 1 1=2 was the maximal truth was if we knew everything and there was no case where 1 1=!2.}

Like the example, we cannot discern the maximal truth to Gods existence, but the probabilities against his existence are high enough that we can ostensibly say that God very likely does not exist. This probability arising from the body of logic and reason that weighs against Gods possible existence. Even if a God being were to exist, rationale leads it
to become purposeless or at the very least, nowhere near the entity described in religion, especially Judeo-Christian ones.

Ultimately, statements citing that God does/does not exist are incorrect. Theism relying heavily on arguments that hold little logic or reason, and Atheists abandoning logic and reason when they think the gap between what is and what is expected is close enough to form a conclusion with. The most we can reasonably state is that God very likely does not exist or is purposeless.
TSCombo

[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Atrus"]As a couple of people have already shown here, the problem in the end comes down to the inability to properly categorize between "Existance" and "Non-Existence". Therefore, if we cannot prove that an entity exists/does not exist we cannot conceivably say it does/does not.

Because of Hume's dictum, we are divided into two seperate viewpoints: Realist and Nominalist of what we consider reality and therefore existence. Because of this ambiguity, we cannot really say that God does or does not exist, but we can however assert what is more probable is the truth and the maximal probability is the ultimate (perhaps unknowable) truth.

Let me explain the above a second:

{When I speak of highest probabilities dictating truth I mean that we know as true is only the highest probability of a given occurance. 1 1=2, but it is only true insofar as 1 1= !2, but the probability of 1 1=2 is so high, it is close or as close to the maximal truth to be true. The only way we could say 1 1=2 was the maximal truth was if we knew everything and there was no case where 1 1=!2.}

Like the example, we cannot discern the maximal truth to Gods existence, but the probabilities against his existence are high enough that we can ostensibly say that God very likely does not exist. This probability arising from the body of logic and reason that weighs against Gods possible existence. Even if a God being were to exist, rationale leads it
to become purposeless or at the very least, nowhere near the entity described in religion, especially Judeo-Christian ones.

Ultimately, statements citing that God does/does not exist are incorrect. Theism relying heavily on arguments that hold little logic or reason, and Atheists abandoning logic and reason when they think the gap between what is and what is expected is close enough to form a conclusion with. The most we can reasonably state is that God very likely does not exist or is purposeless.
withouthatred

Saying something exist outside our understanding is taking into account the limit of our brains and resources. The idea that nothing exist outside our human understanding is the more absurd statement to me. To say that nothing exist until we know about it isn't consistant with everyday life. Without getting into "religion", a secular view of God is still one that exceeds the capacity of something he created and will only be shown in the capacity that he wants to be seen. Not everthing can be put in a beaker and taken into the lab.TSCombo

then i have a question for you, if now you believe that god created the univers.....but who created god? as you self said you cant create something from nothing. how can god exist then and where did he come from? antother god? dont think so.

are you one of those chrisitans that dont allow people to have their own oppinion on life & evolution, or do you accept that people have other oppinions other from your own?

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]Saying something exist outside our understanding is taking into account the limit of our brains and resources. The idea that nothing exist outside our human understanding is the more absurd statement to me. To say that nothing exist until we know about it isn't consistant with everyday life. Without getting into "religion", a secular view of God is still one that exceeds the capacity of something he created and will only be shown in the capacity that he wants to be seen. Not everthing can be put in a beaker and taken into the lab.Decessus

1. But then there would be fact that says that Coke is better than Pepsi, thus rendering all opinion that Pepsi is better than Coke completely non-sensical. Why should you believe that something is better than another when the another is proven to be indeed better?

2. Right and wrong can also mean true or false. If you were to speak out against your company, saying that the talk that the product your company produces isn't better, then you would be fired because you would be speaking a fallacy (since so long as you belong to the company in question their product is automatically better). Human nature dictates that we must look for what benifits us the most, and pay whatever price that comes along with it, and if company A benefits you more than company B, then you must be prepared to put your opinions about the product/company aside to reap the benefits, thus their truth becomes your truth, proving that truth is subjective.

3. I believe I am quoting WithoutHatred on this one:

I believe that the chocolate ration was reduced, not increased, because.

That's all you're saying, so far as I'm concerned, because there is no proven fact behind the statement. There exists, nowhere within that reality, so far as we know, a record that says anything to the contrary, thus there is no proof that it was indeed true. Until you can unearth facts like that, then the fact itself is false. It may exist, but you cannot prove that it does.

4. (Specifically the highlighted) That is an opinion, believing something despite the fact as to whether or not it is true. According to my logic, yes, your statements are illogical, but that doesn't mean that a number such as the square root of -1 does not exist (to our knowledge), just as your statements may or may not exist. You must take into account all the possible outcomes, whether logical or illogical.

5. You do realise that was a hypothetical situation, right? My belief (that God became God by overthrowing His God in the previous universe, and created us by creating what we know as science) cannot fall into that quandry, since it is obviously God who would have given us this problem as a test to our faith. Most theists would probably react to that situation by saying it's a test to our faith, and because it wouldn't have popular support (since so far as I know thiests outnumber athiests) it would be considered wrong by a majority and be thrown out of the window to be forgotten.
tycoonmike

This debate will go on forever but I will try to sum up my point b4 I bounce; God is emotional and spiritual like I believe our souls are. He is beyond our physical and mental capacity to "know" him unless God chooses otherwise. The right approach to knowing God's existance won't be presented under a curtain, it will be a emotional and spiritual connection by the individual. Some see the order of nature as proof while others see that same order as random. You can't convience either person otherwise with more or less scientific data.

TSCombo

how was god created? something has to be created from something. you completely contradict yourself saying that something cant come from nothing and then say there is a magic guy floating in the sky who has been there forever.curtkobain

There is no law or science book you can read that can limit God, that's what God does, the unthinkable. If you don't believe in God that's one thing but you can't expect to conclude his existence because he's not human enough for you on a scientific level.

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

This debate will go on forever but I will try to sum up my point b4 I bounce; God is emotional and spiritual like I believe our souls are. He is beyond our physical and mental capacity to "know" him unless God chooses otherwise. The right approach to knowing God's existance won't be presented under a curtain, it will be a emotional and spiritual connection by the individual. Some see the order of nature as proof while others see that same order as random. You can't convience either person otherwise with more or less scientific data.

Decessus

thats why its just a theory... isn't proven yet lolJenovawitness

1. This doesn't make any sense to me. You seem to still be confusing the meaning of two completely different sentences. "Coke is better than Pepsi" is NOT the same thing as "Coke is better for you than Pepsi."

Note that nowhere within that post I said that Coke is better for you than Pepsi. I limited myself to saying that Coke is better than Pepsi. The definition of the word better is something "of superior quality or excellence" as well as something "of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable" ( Link ) To say that Coke is better than Pepsi can mean either that it is of superior quality, as well as meaning that it is more preferable than Pepsi.

2. Right and wrong do not mean true and false. You are right or wrong because something is true or false. The idea that one product is better than another product is purely subjective and is neither true or false. The rest of what you said is irrelevent. One product being better than another is opinion, subjective, neither true or false independent of the person holding the belief. You have done nothing or said anything to counter this argument. This is my argument

"Coke is better than Pepsi"

This statement is a subjective statement because whether or not it is true depends entirely on the person holding the belief. If I believe that Coke is better than Pepsi, it is true. If I believe that Pepsi is better than Coke, it is true. My belief is correct, regardless of which belief I think is true.

"Gravity exists"

This statement is objective because it is true or false independent of any one persons particular belief. If I believe that gravity exists, the statement is true. If I believe that gravity does not exist, the statement would still be true. No matter which belief I hold, the statement itself is still true.

Funny, I thought that gravity was a theory, or something that has not been proven. For all we know it is God's doing, He created us from the earth and he gave us a sort of magnetic attraction to it. We can break it, just as one can break the connection between two magnets, but if we stay off the Earth for too long, bad things start to happen to our bodies. How can you prove to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that gravity is what is keeping us on the earth and not the idea I came up with?

3. I can pretty much answer this the same way that I answered the last response.

"The chocolate rations were reduced"

This statement is an objective statement. Regardless of what my belief about this statement is, it will either be true or it will be false. In this case, we know that it is true. I do not have to prove that it is true for it to actually be true. The statement is true, end of story. It will never be a false statement.

Again, note that I am not refering to our reality. In our reality, we know that the chocolate ration was reduced because we have a normal memory. In regards to the people of 1984, however, they didn't know because they have a defective memory, just as they can be convinced, for example during Hate Week, that instead of being at war with whomever they were at war with at the time (I think it was Eurasia) they were actually at war with the other. And the events afterwards, how Winston was overworked at the Ministry of Truth, to eradicate all knowledge of the past from the records and replace it with the "new" past, can prove that the truth is easily changed, so long as the majority believes that the "old" past was false. That is doublethink, it must be conscious or else it wouldn't be accurate enough, and it must be unconscious or else the feeling of guilt would descend upon its practitioner. If evolution was considered a lie by the majority, then it would have never made it out of the 1800's intact. Instead, Darwin convinced the majority of people that he was right, despite the vast majority of people being religious at that time. Thus, 150 or so years later, we are taught the theory of evolution instead of the theory of intelligent design.

4. I don't understand what you mean when you say I need to take into account all possible outcomes. Logic also isn't something that people create for themselves. If you're going to say that my argument is illogical, you need to say why. Saying that it isn't "your" logic makes no sense.

When I say that you must take into account all possible outcomes, that means you have to shut off the part of your mind that says "This is illogical," because for all you know that is the truth. It happened with Darwin, it happened with Galileo, it happened with Einstein, and it will happen again, humanity will be proven wrong. Your arguement is as illogical as my arguement because logic, like most human traits, is subjective. To you, I have a deficient sense of logic, and to me, you have a deficient sense of logic. Who is right depends on who you talk to.

5. I find it highly amusing that people can believe in a being that would create them with a brain capable of reasoning and logic and then stipulate that they have to believe everything that is contrary to what reason and logic says. If this is the case, then God is a jackass.

For one, I never said this, and for two, that's what is known as free will. God gave us this gift so we can decide for ourselves, ultimately, whether or not we deserve to go to heaven. Our actions here on Earth determine this. That is the Theory of Natural Selection, something considered logical and reasonable to an athiest, in action from a thiest's standpoint.
Decessus

[QUOTE="Fignewton50"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Chessy_Nachos"]and i explained it the oringinal sin is the tendency of our human nature just being born does not make you a sinner what you think and do is like a man who lust after a married woman has commeted sin in his heartDecessus

Sorry for the lateness of my reply i was asleep for a while

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Fignewton50"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Chessy_Nachos"]and i explained it the oringinal sin is the tendency of our human nature just being born does not make you a sinner what you think and do is like a man who lust after a married woman has commeted sin in his heartChessy_Nachos

You could say that or replace it with another word that you though was scientific enough. God can't be said to exist to you because of your view of existence. If you can convience everyone who believes that they are happy, that they aren't then you have accomplished something but because God connects with people in a way that can't be presented in a fashion of your liking you choose not to believe. It's personal, that's the way God operates, you say he doesn't exist, I say he does. TSCombo

1.  Note that nowhere within that post I said that Coke is better for you than Pepsi. I limited myself to saying that Coke is better than Pepsi. The definition of the word better is something "of superior quality or excellence" as well as something "of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable" ( Link ) To say that Coke is better than Pepsi can mean either that it is of superior quality, as well as meaning that it is more preferable than Pepsi.

2.  Funny, I thought that gravity was a theory, or something that has not been proven. For all we know it is God's doing, He created us from the earth and he gave us a sort of magnetic attraction to it. We can break it, just as one can break the connection between two magnets, but if we stay off the Earth for too long, bad things start to happen to our bodies. How can you prove to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that gravity is what is keeping us on the earth and not the idea I came up with?

3.  Again, note that I am not refering to our reality. In our reality, we know that the chocolate ration was reduced because we have a normal memory. In regards to the people of 1984, however, they didn't know because they have a defective memory, just as they can be convinced, for example during Hate Week, that instead of being at war with whomever they were at war with at the time (I think it was Eurasia) they were actually at war with the other. And the events afterwards, how Winston was overworked at the Ministry of Truth, to eradicate all knowledge of the past from the records and replace it with the "new" past, can prove that the truth is easily changed, so long as the majority believes that the "old" past was false. That is doublethink, it must be conscious or else it wouldn't be accurate enough, and it must be unconscious or else the feeling of guilt would descend upon its practitioner. If evolution was considered a lie by the majority, then it would have never made it out of the 1800's intact. Instead, Darwin convinced the majority of people that he was right, despite the vast majority of people being religious at that time. Thus, 150 or so years later, we are taught the theory of evolution instead of the theory of intelligent design.

4.  When I say that you must take into account all possible outcomes, that means you have to shut off the part of your mind that says "This is illogical," because for all you know that is the truth. It happened with Darwin, it happened with Galileo, it happened with Einstein, and it will happen again, humanity will be proven wrong. Your arguement is as illogical as my arguement because logic, like most human traits, is subjective. To you, I have a deficient sense of logic, and to me, you have a deficient sense of logic. Who is right depends on who you talk to.

5.  For one, I never said this, and for two, that's what is known as free will. God gave us this gift so we can decide for ourselves, ultimately, whether or not we deserve to go to heaven. Our actions here on Earth determine this. That is the Theory of Natural Selection, something considered logical and reasonable to an athiest, in action from a thiest's standpoint.

6.  And as a little sidepoint, we should probably quit this, or else we will end up saying things that we both will regret, like calling God a jackass. I chose to ignore this blatant challenge to my opinion, so I hope you do the same.
tycoonmike

3. It doesn't matter what the people of 1984 believe. The fact of the matter is, the rations were reduced. Proof of it is irrelevent. Their belief that the rations were increased is just flat out wrong. Why is it wrong? It is wrong because the rations were not increased, they were reduced. Let me say this again since you seem to keep ignoring it Proof of the objective truth that the rations were reduced is irrelevent, the rations being reduced is true regardless of whether or not it can be proven.

4. Logic is neither subjective nor objective because logic isn't a belief. Logic is a tool that human beings use as a means of discovering truth and knowledge. It would be like saying a hammer is subjective. No, it's a hammer. It isn't a belief, it's an object. To call an object subjective is a misuse of the term.

Darwin, Galileo, and all of these other people used logic and reason to show why the previous beliefs that people had were wrong. Again, they were wrong because they were making a statement about an objective truth. It is quite possible, and in fact its an almost certainty, that many of the beliefs that we hold today are wrong as well. They are not subjective beliefs though. These beliefs, if they are indeed contrary to what reality really is, are just simply wrong.

5a. First, the theory of natural selection has nothing to do with going to heaven.

5b. Second, your argument that God gave us free will is question begging because you haven't proven that god exists in the first place.

Decessus

Before the big bang whier the universe started their was no time , space , or matter . HOW COULD THE UNIVERSE HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM NOTHINGNESS . YOU CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING . It it not one of the laws of psychics ? Their for their had to be a god to to create something  from nothing . If you have a answer for me please tell me .

???

azargushasb

Atheist don't bother trying to explain fairytales about the creation of the universe.

Trying to understand how the universe was created is an absolute waste of time. Just as bad as believing the creation story from the many many different bibles of different faiths.

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]how was god created? something has to be created from something. you completely contradict yourself saying that something cant come from nothing and then say there is a magic guy floating in the sky who has been there forever.TSCombo

There is no law or science book you can read that can limit God, that's what God does, the unthinkable. If you don't believe in God that's one thing but you can't expect to conclude his existence because he's not human enough for you on a scientific level.

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]how was god created? something has to be created from something. you completely contradict yourself saying that something cant come from nothing and then say there is a magic guy floating in the sky who has been there forever.TSCombo

There is no law or science book you can read that can limit God, that's what God does, the unthinkable. If you don't believe in God that's one thing but you can't expect to conclude his existence because he's not human enough for you on a scientific level.

That part right there is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  The Bible does not dictate that God created time.  The Bible states that on a particular day a certain aspect of creation occurred.  Thus, since no mention is made of God creating either time or the existence of the "day", then time precedes the writing of the Bible and the creation of the universe.  All that is mentioned is that God created life on a "particular day", which does not necessarily mean that the day in question was the first day.  It can simply mean that God chose that day as "Day 1" of matter in the universe.  Since everything before the creation of the universe was eternal, then time must also be eternal.   

[QUOTE="TSCombo"] You could say that or replace it with another word that you though was scientific enough. God can't be said to exist to you because of your view of existence. If you can convience everyone who believes that they are happy, that they aren't then you have accomplished something but because God connects with people in a way that can't be presented in a fashion of your liking you choose not to believe. It's personal, that's the way God operates, you say he doesn't exist, I say he does. Decessus

[QUOTE="azargushasb"]

Before the big bang whier the universe started their was no time , space , or matter . HOW COULD THE UNIVERSE HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM NOTHINGNESS . YOU CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING . It it not one of the laws of psychics ? Their for their had to be a god to to create something  from nothing . If you have a answer for me please tell me .

???

TheStatusQuo

Atheist don't bother trying to explain fairytales about the creation of the universe.

Trying to understand how the universe was created is an absolute waste of time. Just as bad as believing the creation story from the many many different bibles of different faiths.

I'm catholic; all that "big Bang" thing seems rediculous to me.

I'm catholic; all that "big Bang" thing seems rediculous to me.

Clone_Dad

It it not one of the laws of psychics ?azargushasb

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]how was god created? something has to be created from something. you completely contradict yourself saying that something cant come from nothing and then say there is a magic guy floating in the sky who has been there forever.curtkobain

There is no law or science book you can read that can limit God, that's what God does, the unthinkable. If you don't believe in God that's one thing but you can't expect to conclude his existence because he's not human enough for you on a scientific level.

1.  Truth without proof is irrelevant. I believe God exists and I believe that the Bible is proof of this.

2.  This may be an opinion, but so long as Christians believe this, it is fact. If no one believed that the Bible was proof that God existed, then Christianity would cease to exist. In the two thousand years it has existed, not once has it been considered by Christians that the Bible isn't the proof that God exists, thus it still exists, in all its forms. It didn't matter to the Europeans, before whomever discovered America discovered America, if there even was another set of continents on the other side of the globe, all they cared about was a quicker route to India, and as a result discovered a completely untapped resource. The truth was there, they needed the proof that it was there to confirm that it was true.

3.  That is what I am ultimately trying to say, truth is objective (I guess I was confusing the terms) until there is proof to back it up.

4. ( Link ) Logic is the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. It also means the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. In the first sense, yes, logic is subjective, because the system of reasoning applicable to any branch of study differs from person to person, and in the second sense it isn't subjective or objective.

5. Then let me explain it to you. The Theory of Natural Selection is the culmination of all the hypothesis that explain evolution. Any organism with a mutation that affords that organism a greater survival value will survive and produce more offspring with the same mutation than will an organism with a lesser survival value, or this is how it was taught to us last year. To convert it so it can be used by a theist, Any person with a greater amount of sin that affords that person a greater chance of going to Hell will go to hell, while someone with a lesser amount of sin will go to Heaven. God gave us free will so that we can determine whether or not we go to Heaven or Hell. This is my belief, and you're welcome to question it.

6. Why should I bother to convert a non-believer? You will shoot down my "proof" just as I have tried to shoot down your "proof," because we are both stubborn and stick to our beliefs. I thank you for the opprotunity to meet a true man, who won't bend their beliefs for anyone, or who will stick to their guns until the end. I start school in the morning, so I won't be able to respond to your posts until then, but just keep this in mind, if either of us had any sort of scrap of what we have been debating about, logic, then we would have stopped arguing a long time ago. I bid ye good night and godspeed.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="TheStatusQuo"][QUOTE="azargushasb"]

Before the big bang whier the universe started their was no time , space , or matter . HOW COULD THE UNIVERSE HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM NOTHINGNESS . YOU CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING . It it not one of the laws of psychics ? Their for their had to be a god to to create something  from nothing . If you have a answer for me please tell me .

???

killtactics

Atheist don't bother trying to explain fairytales about the creation of the universe.

Trying to understand how the universe was created is an absolute waste of time. Just as bad as believing the creation story from the many many different bibles of different faiths.

It's a waste of time.

God did not create energy.

The only way god can create energy is if God was created by energy. Energy if a scientific sense, eventually dies.

A belief in only what you can see or sum up in a view sentences is sad and limits a human beings true potential IMO. Someone who believes in something bigger than himself is very honest and having faith in what you can't control is something we do everyday when we put our trust in another person. I can't show you trust but I feel it regardless of how grounded I am. My life is better for it. The earth my be round but from where you and I sit it's flat and that doesn't have any bearing on my emotional or spiritual being.TSCombo

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]how was god created? something has to be created from something. you completely contradict yourself saying that something cant come from nothing and then say there is a magic guy floating in the sky who has been there forever.drj077

There is no law or science book you can read that can limit God, that's what God does, the unthinkable. If you don't believe in God that's one thing but you can't expect to conclude his existence because he's not human enough for you on a scientific level.

That part right there is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  The Bible does not dictate that God created time.  The Bible states that on a particular day a certain aspect of creation occurred.  Thus, since no mention is made of God creating either time or the existence of the "day", then time precedes the writing of the Bible and the creation of the universe.  All that is mentioned is that God created life on a "particular day", which does not necessarily mean that the day in question was the first day.  It can simply mean that God chose that day as "Day 1" of matter in the universe.  Since everything before the creation of the universe was eternal, then time must also be eternal.   

I believe in Creationism. Always have. Always will. Leave Atheists believe what they want. Religious wars are pointless. They accomplish nothing. So what? Someone believes differently than me. Good for them.dodgerblue13

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

1. Truth without proof isn't irrelevent. Not for this particular argument anyway. It would be impossible to proceed if I couldn't convince you that truth is objective. Unless we can agree on that, then we have no common ground on which to go any further with this argument.

3. You had it right until you added the word "until" 8). Truth is objective, period. Proving the truth doesn't matter because whatever the truth happens to be, it's going to be true no matter what.

4. I would still have to contend that even in the first sense it is objective. Mainly because the rules of the system are either right or they are wrong. True, there is still much debate about what the actual rules are, but whatever the ultimate rules of logic ( whatever they happen to be ) are true for everyone. If we ever discover the perfect logical process, then that process will be true for everyone. One example I can give has to do with the Law of Contradiction. The Law of Contradiction states that for things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false." This is true for everyone. There is nothing subjective about it. So, whatever the other "laws" of logic may be, they too are not subjective because they apply to everyone.

5. First off, natural selection is not the culmination of all the hypothesis that explain evolution. In fact, it is only one part that explains evolution. If natural selection were the only thing driving evolution, then we wouldn't have the dirvesity of life that we do. It would take more than I can to type to explain evolution, so I'll link an article. It's kind of technical and rather long so if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'm studying to become an evolutionary biologist, so it'll be good practice for me.

Here is the page.

6. Actually, we haven't even really talked about god except indirectly. The bulk of our argument has been mainly about whether or not truth is objective. Like I said, until we can agree on this, any further argument is futile. It's like trying to build a house by starting with the roof.
Decessus

[QUOTE="TSCombo"] A belief in only what you can see or sum up in a view sentences is sad and limits a human beings true potential IMO. Someone who believes in something bigger than himself is very honest and having faith in what you can't control is something we do everyday when we put our trust in another person. I can't show you trust but I feel it regardless of how grounded I am. My life is better for it. The earth my be round but from where you and I sit it's flat and that doesn't have any bearing on my emotional or spiritual being.Decessus

I love how everyone is an expert in western philosophy and theology.mr111111

[QUOTE="mr111111"]I love how everyone is an expert in western philosophy and theology.Greatgone12

mmmm...pancakes...