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

I think you're wrong. Can you provide a link or give me a source that says the law of excluded middle requires that the truth value's have to be known?

"The law of excluded middle only says that the total ( P v ~P) is true, but does not comment on what truth values P itself may take" ( Link )

"The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator" ( Link ). In Bush's statement, the false dilemma is created because there are more than two options than either being with us or being with the terrorists.

The difference between love and mathematics is the concepts themselves. Without something around that is capable of love, then love cannot exist. As I said, the concept of love deals with the relationship between two entities. Theoretically, love could still exist without humans if other animals also had the capacity to love. However, if nothing exists that can love, then love does not exist. Math is different. If you take a group of something ( say two ), and you put it together with another group of something ( say six ), it will always equal the same amount ( in this case, eight ). The concept itself exists independent of any thing else. The only way it wouldn't exist is if nothing existed.


Decessus

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
1. As of today, yes, they are incapable of human speech, but during the time of Adam and Eve, they may have been. For all we know, the serpent was actually a metaphor for Satan, tempting Eve to sin. As I said, anything is possible.

2. Then what revolved around the sun that created the planets? As compared to the universe, the meteor-sized rocks that made up the "dust" of the solar system were indeed, dust, just as "dust" as we know it, tiny particles of pollen, dead organisms, etc., is miniscular to the "vastness" of our rooms.

3. You could try, but for one you don't know where I live, for two, it's doubtful you would be able to lure me to a place like that, and for three, even if you could, you'd still have to immobilise me before pushing me.

4. Then what does that make you, a person who refuses to believe anything but science? Just as I am a slave to religion, you are a slave to science, and it doesn't matter if you will alter your scientific knowledge to fit the latest research, that just proves that you are lead by the nose by science, and you peacefully follow. I on the other hand, have tried to escape from the organised religions by combining scientific theories with those of religion.
Decessus

I can't be bothered to read the whole thing, so sorry if it's been mentioned before...

The theory a lot of scientists are going with now is called string theory. I don't personally understand it, because I'm not a freakin' quantum physicist, but it seems to have the Big Bang (and everything else) pretty well covered. Then again, by accounting for the Big Bang they also open up questions of what caused the stuff that caused the Big Bang...so...yeah, kinda going around in circles. Anyway, I'm down with science and evolution, because it makes a lot of sense. I mean believing that some omnipotent being created everything because the church said so is harder to do than believing crippled men in wheelchairs who actually have the proof to back up what they say.

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

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"][QUOTE="-The-Freeman-"][QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

[QUOTE="joezer3003"]How did God come from nothing? Answer me that.
BOOYAKUSHA!
TSCombo

God must have created Time, therefore at the commencement of Time God had existed... thus God always existed.

That's supposing that God exists.

Yo hombre, Time cannot be created by an entity, it exists because all other dimensions exist.

If you beleive in God I'm sure it's not very hard a stretch to believe Time was created.

It's like saying that a bird can't exist because it wouldn't be able to fly :?  That's what the concept of a bird does 

I am quite safe in saying you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And again, if truth is objective, then what drives us to discover this fact? Our subjective beliefs cause us to search for an objective fact to prove that our beliefs are true, thus it is subjectivity that drives human progress, not objectivity. For example, I don't bother to look for proof that God exists because I have already found proof, the Bible. I don't care whether or not it is full of holes, if it is 2000 years old, or not, the word of God remains constant.

withouthatred

1.  Have you ever heard of figurative language? That's what I've been trying to use, which you obviously ignore. Dust as we know it is tiny, and the rocks that formed the planets are massive, yes, but as compared to what they normally inhabit, dust being in our homes, and rocks, or meteors, being in the universe, both are equally as miniscular as their scales represent. Our dust would be infinitely more miniscular if brought into space, while a meteor next to our house would make the house look miniscular, it all depends on the scale of the habitat in which the item or items exist.

2. Notice that whenever I proclaim that religion is my reasoning, that I use science to back it up. How can I be a slave, a person who is forced to follow one belief, when I have two beliefs that I follow? So far as I know I cannot be split in two and survive so that one part follows religion and the other science.

3.  The slave is you, who only follows one belief, and will only follow one belief.

4.  You seem to want to put yourself up on a pedestle (pardon the spelling) and say that "I will change my beliefs if there is proof to the contrary," but I have extreme doubt that if God were to show himself to everyone, that you would drop your beliefs and follow him, nor do I doubt that if you were to do that, that God would allow you to, since it would be out of spite, and not out of love.

5.  I follow my parents because I love them, not because I agree with some of their choices, and according to your logic, I should break contact with them, which I have absolutely no intention of doing, because I don't agree with some of their practices.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"][QUOTE="-The-Freeman-"][QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

[QUOTE="joezer3003"]How did God come from nothing? Answer me that.
BOOYAKUSHA!
Buffalo_Soulja

God must have created Time, therefore at the commencement of Time God had existed... thus God always existed.

That's supposing that God exists.

Yo hombre, Time cannot be created by an entity, it exists because all other dimensions exist.

If you beleive in God I'm sure it's not very hard a stretch to believe Time was created.

It's like saying that a bird can't exist because it wouldn't be able to fly :?  That's what the concept of a bird does 

I am quite safe in saying you have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

I have not been reading the tread but I want to put my 2 cents in about the Big Bang.mindstorm

I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, nor Evolution.  God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  When the Bible says 7 days, it is a literal 7 days. mindstorm

When God created the animals, he created the dinosaurs as well (keep in mind that all animals were vegitarians until after the Great Flood). mindstorm

Man was created on the 6th day mindstorm

  Note: It was kinds of animals, not breeds, so that means that there were only 2 dogs, not 2 german shepards, 2 poodles, etc. mindstorm

Even the dinosaurs got onto the ark, keep in mind that at one time, even the largest of dinosaurs are small at one point in time (when they are young).  The dinosaurs mostly died sometime after mindstorm

  (there are dragon slaying legends all over the world).  After the flood people were 'fruitful' and had many offspring and soon separated after the tower of Babel and created their own cultures.mindstorm

By the way, I am a Young-Earth Creationist
mindstorm

[[[[said bunch of BS]]]t
mindstorm

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
1. Have you ever heard of figurative language? That's what I've been trying to use, which you obviously ignore. Dust as we know it is tiny, and the rocks that formed the planets are massive, yes, but as compared to what they normally inhabit, dust being in our homes, and rocks, or meteors, being in the universe, both are equally as miniscular as their scales represent. Our dust would be infinitely more miniscular if brought into space, while a meteor next to our house would make the house look miniscular, it all depends on the scale of the habitat in which the item or items exist.

2. Notice that whenever I proclaim that religion is my reasoning, that I use science to back it up. How can I be a slave, a person who is forced to follow one belief, when I have two beliefs that I follow? So far as I know I cannot be split in two and survive so that one part follows religion and the other science.

3. The slave is you, who only follows one belief, and will only follow one belief.

4. You seem to want to put yourself up on a pedestle (pardon the spelling) and say that "I will change my beliefs if there is proof to the contrary," but I have extreme doubt that if God were to show himself to everyone, that you would drop your beliefs and follow him, nor do I doubt that if you were to do that, that God would allow you to, since it would be out of spite, and not out of love.

5. I follow my parents because I love them, not because I agree with some of their choices, and according to your logic, I should break contact with them, which I have absolutely no intention of doing, because I don't agree with some of their practices.

Decessus

"In classical logic, the only possible truth values are true and false." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value

You cannot deduce (Pv-P) is true without P. Given that theism and atheism take a dualistic approach as even you stated, one is either a theist or atheist, it requires that P be either true or false. In our case we use G as the God statement:
(G v -G) is true.

In the Bush statement the flaw lies in the assumption that -A is B. Your original statement is actually an if A then B, not an A v -A (You are with us or you are not with us) which is where the misunderstanding of the case lies.

(A ->B) != (Av-A) because (Av-A) is true in all cases while (A->B) is false when A is true and B is false.

Without an observer one cannot take a group of quantities and incorporate it in a relation. The universe doesn't actually work in mathmatical relations, it is just a system that can be defined by it. Math and physics are simply abstractions that allow us to define aspects of the universe based upon our perceptions. In fact, there are abstractions in math and physics that aren't even observable or proven to exist but are said to exist as a result of explaining universal structure.

These properties exist without human existence as that is how universe fundamentally operates, but it technically doesn't exist until there is an observer since math and physics are abstract definitions for human interpretation. After all what is 2? There is no definite meaning as to what a number is and our number systems themselves are one of perhaps many number systems to define the universe with. For instance, Complex Numbers use i, but where in the Universe do you count i except for mathmatical equations?
Atrus

1. As individual stories, yes, just as Aesop wrote about different morals in his stories, but as a whole, minus the story of creation, no, because no matter the wording, so long as it isn't turned into something that contradicts the true meaning, that God is merciful to His followers and vengeful to the heretics, it doesn't matter, because the word of God is constant.

2. I have used every experiment that has defined our planet, from Darwin's Finches, to whatever experiments show evidence that the Big Bang created our universe to be true, indirectly, granted. God created our universe and all that which inhabit it in the way that science describes that it was indeed created. When the Earth was created, evolution took place, which created all the organisms that would eventually lead to what exist today, minus the dinosaurs, which I believe God destroyed to ensure the dominance of His master species, humans. And because we haven't discovered the "missing link" that connects humans to the rest of the evolutionary process, it stands to reason that either we were created outside the normal evolutionary process or that we were transplanted here by an alien race. Thus is my belief.

4. That is the point of faith. Even though theists fly in the face of reason, they continue to believe that God created the universe and all that which inhabit it in six days, despite all the evidence. What you are doing is similar, you have faith that God doesn't exist, and place your meaning in science, just as a thiest usually rejects science and places their meaning in God.

tycoonmike

Dang, you two have been going back and forth for like 200 pages ^.^withouthatred

I don't think we are arguing the same thing. "For any proposition P, either P is true or P is false", this is the principle of bivalence ( Link ). The law of excluded middle is "formulated in traditional logic as 'A is B or A is not B' , in which A is any subject and B any meaningful predicate to be asserted or denied for A" ( Link ). The example that is given is "Socrates is mortal or Socrates is not mortal." The false dilemma fallacy is when you apply the law of excluded middle to a poorly defined predicate.

This is what occurs with President Bush's statement. This was the quote that I originaly took: "You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terrorists." That is not an If/Than statement. It is a disjunction ( hence the word or in the proposition ).

The number two is simply a word that represents one "something" in relation to another "something" ( sorry, I can't think of a better way to phrase this ). When this concept was first discovered, it could just have easily been called cat. Cat plus cat would equal dog. The words themselves are only useful as a means of communication. The concept itself however doesn't change. The concept of two cannot at the same time in the same instance also be the concept of three. So while there may be other numerical systems, they will deal with separate concepts.

It's basically how we say two plus two equals four and in Spanish it would be dos mas dos iguales cuatro. They are completely different words, but they both represent the same basic concept. Thus we are able to effectively communicate between different languages.
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

I believe in evolution... now before you start to critixize, a am Catholic, I believe in God. I also believe that God created humans, now please don't go and contradict me becuse that's wat i believe and im stick'n to it. I have read a little bit of the bible and i read how god created everything even Humans, But the bible is full of holes. You have to read in between the lines, u have to interpret it. the bible is a/the Story of man. NOT the HISTORY. I believe in evolution and i believe that GOD created mankind

a) Classical logic holds onto 3 consistent related laws. The law of bivalence, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. The law of excluded middle cannot be instantiated until the truth value of P is known, otherwise the law becomes nonsense.

b) You're right, it seems I added the then, but even in that case it's the statement by bush is incorrectly made into an (A v B) statement rather than (A v -A) to comply with the law, hence the mistake is from assuming -A=B,C,D etc. which results in the fallacy. In our example we are limited to (G v -G) to comply with the law and we must know G. Without G, we cannot assume G is true or false to complete the statemet.

c) 2 is only our definition of 2. It does not actually have any place in the universe because the unobservable universe does no adding or counting. It simply functions as a sytem that is observed to comply with our definition in the number system. Take the negative set of integers or the sq. rt of -1. Do those concepts exist in the universe? Are there -1 atoms, -5 planets? or i (sq. rt. of -1) kilometers? Yet these abstracts are fundamental in our interpretation of the universe.

In this way abstract concepts do exist and do not. Twoness is present in the Universe, however what we know as two is also dependant on an observer to give existence to the concept. The same goes with an imaginary number (i) which allows us to represent the square root of negatives for our purposes, but don't really exist in the universe. This is one of the reasons why the debate as to whether something exists or does not is still debateable, as the human universe is different from the actual universe. Math exists in the world as we know it, but it does not exist in the universe itself.
Atrus

Alright, I think I can agree with you on this one. You can't use the law unless you know the truth of the proposition. That makes sense. My point was that the law itself doesn't deal with the truth value of the proposition itself. I think we are in agreement on this.

Let's have "You are with us" be represented by A. It follows that -A would be the same as "You are not with us". Correct? Bush's statement was "You are with us or you are against us." The phrase "You are against us" is equivalent to "You are not with us". So, Bush's statement can be represented by an (A v ~A) structure. The fallacy comes from the fact that it isn't an either/or choice. There are more options available.

If God's existence lies outside the realm of what can be known, isn't it fair to say that God's existence is false?

"2" does not exist anywhere in the universe, you are right about that. However 2, as a concept would exist even if there was no one around to put words to it. This is kind of along the lines of the same argument that me and Tycoonmike were having. It's almost an argument about objective truth. In much the same way that the truth of a proposition would exist regardless of our belief in it, certain concepts will also exist regardless of whether or not we are around to put a name to them.

The concepts of negative numbers and complex numbers are in relation to the concept of positive numbers. No, a negative planet doesn't exist. This is a misuse of what a negative is for though. Negative numbers are used as a concept to describe what happens when you subtract from zero.

Talking about abstract concepts over the internet is really a pain in the butt.
Decessus

2. Another issue I have an objective to is the us of the bible as proof of God's existence. This doesn't work. If that were the case, then it would be just as true that Allah exists based on the Quran. Before you can show that the bible is the work of God, you have to first prove that God exists.

3. The experiements that you described are not evidence of God's existence. We'll use Darwin's Finches as an example. This shows that characteristics of a population will change in response to environmental changes. Read my blog for a more detailed description.

4. What do you mean by the "missing link"?
Decessus

The phrase "You are against us" is equivalent to "You are not with us". This is where we make the jump to fallacy. The law simply cites a negation of the same sentence (ie. Me and not Me, The Apple falls far from the tree and The Apple does not fall far from the tree, P v -P). We really cannot say "You are against us is equivalent to You are not with us" because "With us" and "against us" are two different statements even if they are linguistically opposite.

While the fallacy results from a spectrum of outcomes it also is in part due to mis-stating the correct negation of the sentence.

This is why God's existence is difficult to diffuse. If we make a statement that is most probably true, it must achieve some level of logical and scientific truth to be correct. Otherwise the lack of logical, mathmatical and scientific proof would allow God a shelter with which to exist in because the concept of God is extremely maleable. Intelligent Design exists solely because God literally is representative of the gaps in science and logic, no matter how ludicrous such suppositions are in the first place. So long as there is a gap it seems, there is a possibility for God, and no matter how hard we try to dismiss that tiny gap, it allows theists to dismiss the massive body evidence as well.

Because of that we cannot really assume an opposite stance and butt heads, because this only serves to strengthen faith. Only truth can diffuse faith, and there will be a time when the body of truth is so large that the remaining gap itself will be so abstract nobody will dare contemplate it.

As far as existence goes it is a pain in the butt, more so because there is no real headway in discussing existence. Some things exist, some things do not exist, some things exist conditionally, others do not exist tangibly at all yet exist conceptually etc. etc. A lot of it is based around how we precieve the Universe as both an observable entity and also as an unobservable entity. If you go the route of Descartes, then the only thing we can be sure of that exists is that we are thinking things.
Atrus

Even though "not with us" and "against us" are different, they mean the exact same thing. The words themselves don't have to be exactly the same ( not counting "not" ) to use logic. What matters it the meaning.
Decessus

Prove that in the beggining there were nothing. Then we talk.belinchu

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

exactly my point of view

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

first of all evolution has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang....

Law one:

That every body will remain in its state, either of rest or movement in a uniform direction, unless it is driven by forces impressed upon it to change its state.

In the so-called "big bang," what were the forces impressed upon this ultra dense ball of matter that caused it to explode?

In my opinion, atheists' answers to the origin of the universe and origin of life questions often contradict what we already know.

In my opinion, atheists' answers to the origin of the universe and origin of life questions often contradict what we already know.

nbtrap1212

Or what you THINK we know. ;)

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

In my opinion, atheists' answers to the origin of the universe and origin of life questions often contradict what we already know.

Deity_Slapper

Or what you THINK we know. ;)

No, I'm talking about what we know i.e. about the physical world, such as Newton's laws, which is what I originally quoted.

In the beginning, there was nothing...then it exploded.Atheist

In the beginning, there was nothing...than a completely omnipotent life form suddenly appeared.Christian

Well that didn't work. ^ Sorry for the double post. lolpdevil21

stop bumping dead threads.

EDIT HOLY **** this thread is OLDDDDDDD

[QUOTE="Atheist"] In the beginning, there was nothing...then it exploded.Fortier

In the beginning, there was nothing...than a completely omnipotent life form suddenly appeared.Christian

I wouldn't say that Christians consider God a "life form."

No, I'm talking about what we know i.e. about the physical world, such as Newton's laws, which is what I originally quoted.nbtrap1212

Anything can change at any time. What we all think to be true, may all be a brilliantly designed illusion, or just wishful thinking that was ignorantly agreed upon. Learning never ends...

[QUOTE="Fortier"]

[QUOTE="Atheist"] In the beginning, there was nothing...then it exploded.nbtrap1212

In the beginning, there was nothing...than a completely omnipotent life form suddenly appeared.Christian

I wouldn't say that Christians consider God a "life form."

Is that even relevant?

And even if something had a hang in the Big Bang theory, how can we prescribe it to be God when you can't even define him?

Faith is good enough for me.kingdre

I'm disheartened by the fact that you would set your standards so low. You can do better than that.

[QUOTE="kingdre"]Faith is good enough for me.Deity_Slapper

I'm disheartened by the fact that you would set your standards so low. You can do better than that.

For questions that can't be unanswered, you're gonna have to take a leap of faith. I don't have low standards. I just think that science can't answer everything.