Evolution vs Intelligent Design

In the interests of starting a flamewar, let's have a fun discussion about evolution and intelligent design! :)

Inteliggent Design FTW!

ebolition ftw!1ELEVEN

I believe in intelligent design

BY ALIENS

Anybody who considers ID to be a serious scientific theory has no idea what science is at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It's a university lecture on the subject. Its kinda long, but watch it anyway. Trust me.

Intelligent Evolution!!!! 

Retarded Design!!!!

people that even discuss this issue are about as stupid as the people that belive in ID

people who think ID is 100% total bunk obviously have never taken any kind of biological science course higher than the bare minimum required to graduate HS / undergrad.

You want to tell me that random chance happenings gave rise to mutiple overwhelmingly complex, highly organized interdependent systems whose sum result is life as we know it?

... I suppose stranger things have happened... oh no, wait. It hasn't.

>>8
ZOMG NEW THEOROR!!!


100% TRUE AND CORRECT 2!!!!!1eleven

You want to tell me that random chance happenings gave rise to mutiple overwhelmingly complex, highly organized interdependent systems whose sum result is life as we know it?
Yes! Aren't logic and science beautiful?

>>10
I havent got anything against intelligent design, but to say it can't happen by the natural order of how it all came together? There is not much a way for anyone to perform a feat like putting together a solar system and putting lifeforms all over it, this intelligent design thing sounds more like coyly guised creationism that anything serious.

aww man it is all like a noodly appendage and shit. this is not a debate. sometimes things get designed other things happen.  i fear death because i think consciousness is fleeting. but there is no god, is there?

>>10
     its not 100% bunk but the reason you gave dosnt hold any water.

i have a BA in microbiology and pluging away at a masters also.

its not 100% bunk
Yes, it is.

>>10

And I suppose "Unknown power/deity created life through unknown, unobservable means without leaving behind evidence" counts as a scientific theory for you. Gb24thgrade.

>>16
   i think people like this confuse ID as a concept, and ID as the bible states it. for the bible version i would agree its 100% bunk, im forced to belive this, if i questioned its validity i would have to question the basis of science as a whole.
   the concept, however, can include evolution and other scientific theorys. i see no reason why god cant include evolution in his "plan" or why god even needs a plan.

>>18
Or why there even needs to be a god.

>>18

but whether or not it's god's plan (c), has nothing to do with science, that's a matter of belief. The problem is the ID retards are trying to say "GOD CREATED THE WORLD BECAUSE THINGS WORK THE WAY THEY DO! => GOD EXISTS"
or the other way around, something like that anyways.

and to the guy who's all "omg, could nature really create something this complex?!?!" yes.

why wouldn't it? simply because something is of a level of complexity which most of us cannot comprehend, does not mean it's impossible, or must necessarily be made by god, it simply means it's complex. I think you give too little credit to mother nature when you give god the honour of our complexity.

"Intelligent design", as in the consequence of natural selection. The "stupid design" gets killed, and the not-stupid survives. OMG.

>>19
>>20

missed the point

nature is god, thread over.

>>13
Creationism and Intelligent Design may seem similiar, but one implies the explicit existance of one divine, omnipotent being, where as the other makes no such assumption. For all intents and purposes, the time and effort required by the ... whatevers who designed "life" may be equiviliant to us say... creating an ant farm... the complixity differs in several magnitudes, I know. But the parallel is there.

>>15
If you don't beleive it to be 100% bunk, then my statement obviously doesn't apply to you.

>>17
Hi, that fits Creationism more than ID. Might want to actually go through some of the materials from their respective representative organizations before making yourself appear stupider, k?

Religion, creationism and creationists = ▄█▀ █■█ █ ▀█▀

>>24
ID is '100% bunk' because it's a cop-out, it basically says 'the current state of the universe is too complex, therefore it must have been designed by something'. Whichever way you look at it, that's just not science. And creationism doesn't specifically require omnipotence at all; if you don't see that ID is basically an argument for creationism (although a horribly flawed one), then you're just deluding yourself.

>>22
no you missed the point

why would one argue for ID if not to use it as an argument that god exists?

>>21-24 and >>26-27 missed the point: religion is bullshit.

Is anyone really still seriously pushing ID anymore?  I hadn't heard about it for a few months and figured it'd died out, seeing as it's become a laughingstock and all.

http://www.idsoftware.com/ ?

>>29

You'd be surprised how many people are still pushing to have it in  school textbooks, etc. The problem is that to Joe Average, both are equally valid theories.

Prove god exists and you will be permitted the honour of sucking my dick.

K go!

The people who came up with this thing obviously haven't considered many possibilities of exact what could have feasibly happened, saying since the 'universe' which we find ourselves existing in is complex=was designed by a sentient or some sort of super sentient being is not only being vague but it basically makes it sound like its just a fancy name for creationism and a vie for cultist bastards of the church to try and have their backwards and counter evolutionary ways accepted still in this modern world which has proven that all of their claims are bullshit long ago and that anyone with even half a mind can spot and completely disregard a cultist from a mile away.

This is all that is possible as far as we know it, for the entirety of existance to be created by 'intelligence' isn't the case, however this doesn't rule out the possibility that at one point something or someone who we have no contact with may have done something with our planet, none of could every truly know what that might have been without actually having been there when it happened, we can only make stupid guesses and even putting aside that, all we're really left with are more crazy ass cult worshipping bastards who call themselves 'scientologists'.

You know, I would have hoped that people in this day and age would be able to realize that trying to figure out how we got here is no where near as important as how in the hell we're exactly going to get off this rock, but if you're going to wonder about the past why look at Earth, people already have plenty of claims about the situation of the past here, but what the hell happened next door over at Mars, looks like a dead planet to me, who knows how long ago it was or what happened, but it would appear something did, of course we'll never even have a clue unless we can get there.

So when the sun explodes, or we run out of fossil fuels to power our hundred year old technological dinosaurs or when the idiots nuke up the place bathing the atmosphere in a stifling amount of background radiation, any sentients who find our planetafterwards can know, we spent all our time fighting each other while making up ass backwards and retarded theories about what happened before we got here the entire time instead of doing anything at all, these visitors will be able to move on konwing there is quite nothing special to see here, which is a good thing for them I'd imagine as it means one less planet to have to dig through in hopes of finding anything of real value.

In closing, it doesn't matter what anyone could try and assume about what could have happened, because all such things are all too easily written off with the explanations of chance and coincidence, which are of course key values we hold dear in our civilization. Because, surely survival and weening ourselves of shit technology and beliefs aren't any of those values.

>>33

Might you also beleive that history is totally irrevelent?

>>33

Agreed.  It's rather sad that we spend more time wondering about how we got here rather than wondering about how to stay here (alive).

>>35
no its not

OK, Suppose, that the universe is intelligently designed.  What are the consequences of this?

>>37
It would mean Christians have the amazing ability to alter the nature of the universe simply by believing in something.  I guess the pope would be Haruhi or something, lol.

>>37

If, and I emphasize the if, the universe is intelligently designed by some other being(s), then it would stand to reason that each and every little nook and cranny of the universe follows some type of logic, just waiting to be understood.

It would be as if we were presented with a finished product to reverse engineer. If we accomplish that, then we'd theoritically be capable of at least manipulating some aspects of these designs and produce results that may be currently unimaginable.

To use a loose example, it would be as if someone programmed a sentient AI capable of learning independently. If that AI realizes that it is an artificial construct that was designed by another... and somehow manages to learn to code, that AI can technically re-write itself to whatever form it wishes.

... sounds pretty sci-fi... then again, airplanes were once considered lunacy.

lol

>>37
I'll prove the intelligent design is bs through reduction ad absurdum.

The Universe is like 13.7 billion years old. Lost the count of birthdays. With so many time on its hands an an intelligent design, ...

... WHY THE FUCK HASN'T IT GOT RID OF NIGGERS???

Therefore, the Universe does not feature intelligent design. Q.E.D.

>>37
There are absolutely no consequences, unless God decides to show himself (which he hasn't)

Either way, people get to debate and kill each other! :)

>>37
>>39
"If, and I emphasize the if, the universe is intelligently designed by some other being(s), then it would stand to reason that each and every little nook and cranny of the universe follows some type of logic, just waiting to be understood."

Cities are designed by intelligent beings. Not everything in them is necessarily logical.

>>43
because they are designed by beingS with a "S" if it was designed by a being the city would be 100% logical in one frame of reference (barring in mind that he dosnt make a mistake). then if this being created other beings that found this city also very logical they would then thrive and wonder why this world makes so much sense (exclude faggot teenagers). in short your rebuttle sucks

DETERMINISM PROVES GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
THE PROOF IS IN CUBICS TIME.

FREE WILL IS ILLUSION!
THE BELIEF IN GOD TAKES FREE WILL.
IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN GOD IS ALREADY SET.
IF IT'S ALREADY SET, HE'S PUNISHING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T CONTROL.

FREE WILL IS ILLUSION!
THE BELIEF IN GOD TAKES FREE WILL.
IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN GOD IS ALREADY SET.
IF IT'S ALREADY SET, HE'S PUNISHING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T CONTROL.


god does not care about you beliving in him, and he does not punish

>>46
This doesn't hold up because only a God-like entity could know what the future holds. You're still a human thus you cannot know your own future. Free will is still in existence for you right now....and now...now..and again now. You see where I'm going with this?

Now GTFO Fag.

god does not care about you beliving in him, and he does not punish

Have you read religion?
What's the point in worshiping him if he's completely ambivalent?

>>48

The religion you refer to are mostly of the western persuation... the whole concept of heaven / hell / judgement / apocalypse / etc etc.

Most eastern religions don't preach the "Believe or be forever damned" route.

>>34
I already answered that.
>none of [us] could ever truly know what that might have been without actually having been there when it happened
I was trying to pound out the post asap so that explains the grammatical issues but the statement applies to 'history' as well, not only is it pretty irrelevant since none of us experienced it, but also because what happened back that is not nearly as important as what is happening now and what will happen from here on in.

Don't bring up Religion when the topic is Science.
Don't bring up Science when the topic is Religion.
Thread Over.

>>49
I'm not sure about specifics but in most traditional Chinese beliefs you go to hell no matter what you do or believe in. Even so, somehow there's plenty of idiots who accepts these beliefs as the only truth rather than converting to a religion that doesn't guaratee you eternal suffering. Truly human stupidity in all it's glory.

>>52
I can't say I'm familiar with those traditional Chinese beliefs that you refer to. Having been raised in a Buddhist household, I distinctly recall being instructed in self-dicipline and some empathy 'training', but nowhere in the past twenty years of my life have I heard anything about being damned to hell regardless.

While there exists an equivilant of 'hell' in eastern religions, including Buddhism, the notion that you're damned to suffer for all eternity if you do not beleive in whatever diety is a distinctively Christian notion.

Quite frankly, in the context of most eastern religions, it doesn't matter what you do, you're essentially golden as long as you're not trampling on others.

That is vastly different from the core Christian notion that all heretics and/or non-beleivers are automatically damned... and even if you're a beleiver, you're still damned if you slip and step out of line of the horroribly out of date, archaic list of rules written by someone centuries dead. That scripture was probably written to prevent the then uneducated masses from killing eachother and really holds no real significance outside of sentiment today.

These are, however, only my views on the subject. If they agree with you, great. If not, I'm not open to the discussion of said topics. I used to talk about it before, but I inadverntly run into the same age old rhetoric.

>>44
But doodles are created by an intelligent being as well: and these aren't necessarily reasoned drawings.

If the universe is intelligently designed by one or more beings, then, yes, there should be much engineering or reasonable design that can be reverse engineered, thus producing unimaginable results. Come to think of it, is our engineering really reverse engineering in a way?

>>54
the aim of a doodle often has motives that are not rooted in reason

>>53
Very well said.  I thought I was the only one with those thoughts.

>>53,57

Same person

>>58

Yeah, anyone who agrees with a previous posts is -obviously- the same person. /eyeroll.

Hey! I agree with you 58! I must be you.

>>55

Stem Cell research is probably a step in that direction.

Plus, much of our modern marvels are modeled after working tidbits found in nature. Much of the principles of aviation, for example, were inspired and heavily modeled after flying animals. Modern Medicine has its roots in the variety of folk medicine and practices, which relied heavily upon herbal remedies... a large portion of modern pills are -mostly- extracts and purified forms of the active ingredients found in natural medicinal plants.

... and so on and so forth.

>>59
Actually the concept is this: Regardless of whetehr or not the posts are by seperate physical bodies, if the posts are in agreement then that means the thoughts are in agreement and since they are so similar they'd might as well be regarded as the same person as the possible minds (let's not forget it actually COULD be the same person, not saying its the case here, but we're talking generally) are essentially the same.

The only way to really avoid this is to not just claim agreement but either include more information to the discussion and/or cite the reason(s) why one agrees with the given statement.

>>61
only solution: be a namefag

>>61

And these "same person" posts offer oh-so-much to the conversation at hand, other than stating (by your defination) that those people share the same mindset...

... which would be blatently obvious to anyone who can comprehend English?

There's nothing wrong with voicing agreement with someone else... or do you -always- have something to add when you find yourself in agreement with another?

>>63
>And these "same person" posts offer oh-so-much to the conversation at hand, other than stating (by your defination) that those people share the same mindset...

Yes and thats why the people are refered to as various derogatory names, trolls, bfags and what have you.

>There's nothing wrong with voicing agreement with someone else... or do you -always- have something to add when you find yourself in agreement with another?

Oh there's nothing wrong with not adding to the discussion on a discussion board thread, unless you feel there's something wrong with posts that say same person. Because posts that merely agree and bring nothing more to the table will always result in those posts that say same person. It certainly helps explain WHY one posting agreement agrees with the post in better clarity while avoiding shitty one-line responses (and so too are the "I just agree" posts one-liners) and at the same time continuing to fuel active discussion.


But go ahead, post more one line agreements and complain two posts later when the next post says same person. If you ask me, such simple agreement posts would be better off unposted.

>>64
I find these views to be strongly in accordance with my own.

>>65
ROFL

It's surprising how this flamewar I started about ID/evolution evolved into bashing those who agree with previous commentators.  Apologies for being guilty of the said crime, but I did not realize that agreeing with previous posts was so looked down upon; occasionally one sees a commendable post, but is unable to add anything more to it.

In any case, it seems that the general consensus here is that most 4channers agree with evolution (not surprising, given how morally depraved other sections of 4chan can be).

hey guys this is >>74 here, just letting you know that here in the future, everyone realized that religion and science have two different roles in life, religion to get people to behave with civility and strive for enlightenment, and science to try to explain the world around us, which we decided doesnt really matter whether was created by what you're calling God or not.

Religion and science have two different roles. Science's role is achieving knowledge and development in the widest sense of both words. Religion's role is controlling the lambs and leech them off.

>>67

Yeah, and that's why people are so shocked and amazed when the choir boy or the priest goes off and kills a half dozen people and/or decides to molest underaged boys.

If you really think that religion gets people to behave with civility, you're in for quite the rude awakening.

"Godless heathens" can behave with as much civility as any other... it's got much more to do with the manner in which the person was raised as opposed to beleiving in any given religious dicipline.

>>66
>occasionally one sees a commendable post, but is unable to add anything more to it.

So tell me this, at what fucking point does it become logical to make another post if you are, AND I FUCKING QUOTE: >unable to add anything more to it.

>>67
religion knows and promotes enlightenment as much as i know and promote heterosexuality

"The Universe is too complex to 'just exist', it must have been created by God."

"So God 'just exists'?"

>>70

chill dude. You're being an ass over nothing.

People reply and express their agreement/disagreement with another all the time without adding anything useful.

You ever clap after something cool happens? Cheer something cool? boo and hiss at something crappy?

None of that offers anything to what you just witnessed, other than your approval or disapproval.

when u think about it is it pure coincidence how everything in the universe seemes to be so mathmatically accurate? justthe way that both science and math equaions are all linked in some way. for example joules, seconds, grams seem to bethe base units for everything imaginable, of course the others like degrees kelvin are important and that but most universal equations hav at lease one of those things in them...

>>73
I must not be understanding the point you're trying to make.

>is it pure coincidence how everything in the universe seemes to be so mathmatically accurate?

It works because our universe is a logical one, even if we haven't figured it all out yet.  Let's take an extremely simple example:  what if 1 and 1 didn't equal 2, but 1.93462138153290214514614614646454?  Or 2.8?  The universe would either be reduced to nothing almost immediately, or become infinitely huge and filled to the brim almost immediately.  And that's just one aspect, basically everything else about the universe would be taken to extremes within the short time frame of it's existance.

>justthe way that both science and math equaions are all linked in some way.

Are you retarded?  Of course the base units for energy, time and mass are going to be used a lot.  What, you're going to express velocity without a unit for time?  Gravity without mass?  It's not even an argument.

>>72
>You're being an ass over nothing.
Posting just for the sake of it without adding shit is what being an ass is, I'm over here trying to maintain VIP quality at any place I give the fortunate grace of my presence, its ridiculous for you to even try defending that which is detrimental to significant communications.

>People reply and express their agreement/disagreement with another all the time without adding anything useful.

People do a shit ton of stupid things for no reason and AT NO POINT did I ever say I condoned anything they ever did nor do I accept to be lumped into the same considerable group.

>You ever clap after something cool happens?
No, and of course, this clapping goes on at the same place that the first thing happens amirite.
>Cheer something cool?
No, I may note significance, and its importance or relation and connection to other important concepts and facts, but all of this happens within myself and I'll be dammed if anyone within 500 miles of me would ever be worthy of being privy to a word of it.
>boo and hiss at something crappy?
I call people niggers if their action warrants it, does that count?

>>73
all those points are false and cant be argued, that line of questioning should be droped. instead you should consider why man came to the conclusion of god and not the conclusion that 1.93462138153290214514614614646454 = 2. god is a must and if you try to deny yourself this concept your as stupid as any fundi, instead choose "its" nature in a way that does not interfere with objective reality

>>76
the reason why men came up with the "conclusion" of god, is because coming up with a god gives a reason to things we don't know, and that makes us happy in our pants. That's about it, god is there to please people who can not believe that there are basic things of which we do not know the reason of existance.


"instead you should consider why man came to the conclusion of god and not the conclusion that 1.93462138153290214514614614646454 = 2. god is a must and if you try to deny yourself this concept your as stupid as any fundi, instead choose "its" nature in a way that does not interfere with objective reality"

could you explain to me what god has to do with objective reality?

"the reason why men came up with the "conclusion" of god, is because coming up with a god gives a reason to things we don't know, and that makes us happy in our pants. That's about it, god is there to please people who can not believe that there are basic things of which we do not know the reason of existance."

could not have said it better myself, proved my point. for you happy in the pants should be avoided right? or does knowing that there is an unknown make you happy in the pants?

"could you explain to me what god has to do with objective reality?"

nothing, thats the point i was trying to argue, god only has the power to affect objective reality through men. something that should be not avoided, but a logical choice, something religions cant handle

>>75
"Posting just for the sake of it without adding shit is what being an ass is, I'm over here trying to maintain VIP quality at any place I give the fortunate grace of my presence, its ridiculous for you to even try defending that which is detrimental to significant communications."

rofl

Take a step back and just look at it.

Come back when you get your head unstuck from your ass, Mr. IobviouslyknoweverythingsojustdowhatIsay.

people make up objective reality through their observations
therefore, people = God

pbtpbtpbtbtbtttt~!

Intelligent Design is the only truth!

ITS INTELLIGENT FFS HOW CAN IT BE WRONG

>>78

yes, happy in the pants should be avoided. ignorance is a bliss, but living in a perpetual state of ignorance(therefore bliss) is something i can't condone, even if it makes you happy.
it doesn't make me unhappy not to know, it simply makes me aware that there are some things which i am not aware of how work, or why exist.
Of course i'd be happy if i knew those things, but ignoring the fact that i don't, and saying that it's something i have nothing to do with, because it was made by some divine being, simply gives me some thing i don't have to think about, not that i have to think about it anyways, i can simply admit that i do not know it.
I just don't believe in leaving an area of science to "god" just so i won't have to consider it anymore.
People who for some reason do believe in not thinking about something and just saying "it's god", are all happy about it, well be my guest, just stay the fuck away from science or scientific discussions.

if it brings you in to an existentialistic crisis to be told that there are some you don't know the reason of, then don't just give up and say "it's just god, i don't have to think about anything anymore" consider it and be critical.

>>74
1+1 = 2 by definition of 1 and 2
WE MADE THAT SHIT UP, NOW GO SUCK A HYENA'S SPERMY NUTSACK MOTHERFUCKER

>>83
"I just don't believe in leaving an area of science to "god" just so i won't have to consider it anymore."

I don't either, but nothing prevents us from using "generic divine entity" as a temporary place holder.

Microsoft comes out with an imperfect product because they want something out, but they don't have the time to make it perfect.  After some time, they release patches to fix the security holes.

It's the same idea.  Do with what we can, and the rest becomes "god" until we get a better solution.

>>85
...But there might not be a god! :O

In... other news... I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my hairy bitch-tits are so huge you could squeeze them and squirt milk out. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>85
That's jumping to conclusions, and Micro$oft makes more money by doing what you said they do.

>>85

but the problem is that whenever we put in a "temporary" placeholder in the form of god, some people will not want to give up that placeholder once we find the solution, because god is something very personal to them. Thus we end up with a conflicting science and religion, and if the religion get's the upper hand, the science won't get developed, etc. etc., hello dark ages.

Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. That it's really related to this thread. I went to Yoshinoya a while ago; you know, Yoshinoya? Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had "150 yen off" written on it. Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You, don't come to Yoshinoya just because it's 150 yen off, fool. It's only 150 yen, 1-5-0 YEN for crying out loud. There're even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some Yoshinoya, huh? How fucking nice. "Alright, daddy's gonna order the extra-large." God I can't bear to watch. You people, I'll give you 150 yen if you get out of those seats. Yoshinoya should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of the U-shaped table can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that's what's great about this place. Women and children should screw off and stay home. Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes "extra-large, with extra sauce." Who in the world orders extra sauce nowadays, you moron? I want to ask him, "do you REALLY want to eat it with extra sauce?" I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. Are you sure you don't just want to try saying "extra sauce"? Coming from a Yoshinoya veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, extra green onion. That's right, extra green onion. This is the vet's way of eating. Extra green onion means more green onion than sauce. But on the other hand the price is a tad higher. This is the key. And then, it's delicious. This is unbeatable. However, if you order this then there is danger that you'll be marked by the employees from next time on; it's a double-edged sword. I can't recommend it to amateurs. What this all really means, though, is that you, >>1, should just stick with today's special.

>>86
Fine then, replace "god" with "flying sphaghetti monster."  Happy?

>>89
I'm glad you understand why humans are so retarded! :)

>>90
???  I don't even know what yoshinoya is?

....Shema Yisrael, Monotheism is Bunk

>>91
you are stupid because this "flying sphaghetti monster" is not real.

>>93

You're only saying that because it just seems so absurd. What you fail to realize is that the concept of "god" is pretty much just as absurd.

Do what 91 said and apply it to those arguments for the existance of god. Replace every instance of "god" with "flying spaghetti monster" and you'd realize that not many of them could be disproved, even though there's probably no such thing as a flying wad of pasta roaming about.

even though there's probably no such thing as a flying wad of pasta roaming about.

Oh yes there is, and he even touched me with his noodly appendage!!

>>94
that argument is retarded, the word god is very very very very vague. i would agree flying spaghetti monster is as real is thor, jesus and muhammad but to say it applys to god is just stupid

people argue against the concept god by refuting individual assertions as to what that concept is, which is almost always a christian personal god, or otherwise any spiritual god, simply because they associate the word god with the definition they were given when they were little.

>>97
could not have said it better myself

What if the origin of life comes from a specific energy pattern exhibited by carbon, which dictates that the energy/molecules within carbon could behave in a way which would simulate desire to 'live'. By desire to live i mean to seemingly eat, reproduce, and be animated with intention. Similar to the way a negative voltage seemingly 'seeks' out a positive or neutral voltage, with intention.

With intentions to gain energy by eating, and intentions to create more of itself, it would also be seemingly logical for it to possibly have the intention to make itself more complex, hence procreating or modifying itself into more elaborate 'living' tructures.

This is just out of my head give me a feedback on it.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, the license plate said 'Fresh' and there was dice in the mirror. If anything, I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought, "Naw, forget it. Yo, homes, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to a house about seven or eight and I yelled to the cabbie, "Yo, homes, smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air.

>>96
What separates God from Jesus, etc?  Oh right, nothing.  If you'll actually read the FSM literature/FAQ, you'll see that it fits in perfectly with every definition of "God" - from universal spirit to angry giant guy with a beard killing babies.

>>97
That's because the people trying to refute it are (usually) logical, sane people.  That's how you refute something: disprove a theory's basis or disassociate it with any evidence.  People like you try to protect your childish belief systems by holding them above logical and scientific scrutiny - if we're not allowed to disprove it, it doesn't exist, right?  Wrong.  It's been said, "Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  We're trying to compromise by showing you the error in your beliefs, but we don't really have to.  The burden is on YOU to prove such an entity/force/whatever exists.


>>99
Interesting, but your, uh... "theory" lacks structure and it's kinda worded in a way that I'm having trouble following it this late at night.  Life happens at a higher order than atoms, though.

I had sex with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he was lots of fun

>>101
As for proving I exist, along with other divinities, fat chance. We're too good at hiding ourselves. Or maybe we're fictional anyhow. I don't care. Just because I supposedly say I exist is not proof I exist. You are right, however, in attempting to prove Our existence or lack thereof. The search for truth is the act of exploration and discovery and speculation and thought. Go ahead and pursue it.

What separates Jesus from god? Well for starters we have no idea what god is/could be, it could just be a piece of energy with no volition, purpose or drive. Or it could simply be an action (see M theory) anyone that trys to identify god is subject to the spaghetti monster argument. But what of the people that only try to defend the concept. You need to drop the idea that god has to be this big flying guy that shoots fire and watches you fap and just take St. Anslems definition “That which nothing greater can be conceived” and relies it does infact apply to reality.

And before you home-schooled sophists try the age old argument of well what is great, we decide what is great. But someone in another thread already addressed that very well and ill quote him.


"They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM"

Not true, what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it, what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first. What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived, the end, we do not decide, we have no choice. We do not construct anything

You say what is great cannot exist without a mind, I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great.  By definition god is reality

>>103
As far as I can tell, you just ranted saying only one thing:

We don't know what "God" is.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you're defending something... without knowing what it is?  And trying to define "God" as “That which nothing greater can be conceived”?  First off, "great" is subjective, as you said.  Second, by using that "definition" you basically surrender your right to defend the existance of God.  Because "great" is an adjective that has different meaning to everyone, you can never pin down a real answer - bypassing any attempts for argument.  That "definition" is a carefully crafted attempt to foil any arguments against your ridiculous belief system.  You throw this at your enemies while you preach that God is an omnipotent being in Heaven or whatever.

The second half of your post is a series of poorly thought out strawmen.

"what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it"

Basically, "great is subjective", right?  Correct.

"what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first."

What?  Where the fuck did this argument come from?  What are you building this claim on?  I can give plenty of counter examples.

"What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived"

Again, what?  Are you saying mankind cannot build anything great, only think something is great?  We already established that "great is subjective", remember?

"the end"

The end?  To what?

"we do not decide, we have no choice."

I'm beginning to think you're mildly retarded.  Or drunk.  Your thought process is broken.  Where did this statement come from?  We've already established that "great is subjective".  From that you can interpret that we decide what is "great" to us.

"We do not construct anything"

... Mind explaining this one, too?  The Egyptians constucted the Pyramids, and most people would say those are pretty great.  Or am I missing something?

"You say what is great cannot exist without a mind"

Right, you need a "mind" to make decisions, like deciding how great you think something is.  Okay.

"I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great."

What?  We already established that "great is subjective".  "If p, then q" doesn't always equal "if q, then p".  Where are you getting the argument that the mind needs something that it thinks is great in order to exist?  That leads to a circular argument, which fails at logic.

"By definition god is reality"

No, by your own definition, "That which nothing greater can be conceived”, you've defined God as whatever an individual thinks is greatest, without being able to think of anything greater.  If someone happens to think everything sucks and nothing is great (lol, emo), God does not exist for them.

By your own logic, you've argued that trying to defend God is pointless, as there is no solid definition.  No solid definition means no real proof for it's existance, only mindless bickering over philosophy.

>>104
you missed the ENTIRE point, great is NOT subjective that we have a basis of judgement on such issues. that good and evil can be defined without religion and that great and not great are part of the same issue. the definition given by St. Anslem is correct. all ive done is take the ideas of objective reality and apply it to St. Anslems definition. btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me. the reply to this statement is what i was addressing with the quote

how do i believed 11th century propoganda?

Seriously, these are the same people who believed (and had "proven") that the earth was round and at the center of the Universe, that the world was a mere couple dozen centuries old, that a single boat can fit and sustain a pair of each of the millions of species populating the world, etc, etc, etc.

Not to mention that Anslem's argument has been broken since HIS time, so why the fuck are you parading it around NOW?  For the last century at least, philosophers have more or less agreed that his argument fails to stand up to logical scrutiny and the only people defending it are Christians without any sort of related education.

>>105
Perhaps you can provide us with an absolute, objective definition of great?

"They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM"
Who's they?  If they refers to god(s), then that only proves the point that there is no god(s).

>>107
great is somthing that keeps you alive and/or is responsible for your being alive, you have obviously chosen to live, not die, and thus adopted an objective reality. everything you use to keep youself alive is filled under great. this is why a mind cannot exist without that which is great. we have no choice about what we consider great and not great. only a choice between life and death, AKA: the choice to reject reality or accept it


and ill repeat myself from the last post about that statement which i did no make.

"btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me"

in another thread someone was defending that great and not great do not exist in reality, only in mans mind. to which someone replyed

"Not true, what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it, what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first. What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived, the end, we do not decide, we have no choice. We do not construct anything

You say what is great cannot exist without a mind, I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great.  By definition god is reality"


and i thought it applied to this thread also, which is does

>>108
My adopting an objective reality (or not) should be unrealted to whatever entity maintains my existence...  I'm not quite following your argument.  I see no connection to choice.

"great is somthing that keeps you alive and/or is responsible for your being alive"
A fair definition, but unrelated to previous definition of god.  Under this definition, there can be no "greater."  Hence, "That which nothing greater can be conceived" is meaningless.

"btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me"
True, but I thought you would know what they're talking about before copying and pasting their stuff.

>>108
Your arguments are totally disjointed.  You bring up points with no logical basis and repeatedly contradict yourself.  You have one or more problems, the solutions to which are:

1) Learn some motherfucking English.  Your grammar sucks and your vocabulary seems confused, making your posts damn near impossible to figure out.

2) Stop taking whatever drug you're on and try posting when you're sober.

3) Stay in school, because your posts sound like you're too young for 4chan.

Anyway, see >>106.  Anslem's Argument has been in question since his era by his contemporaries, and since the 1990's has been dismantled to the point where not even diehard theologists will bring it up for fear of being made into a fool.  The argument just doesn't stand up to real logical analysis.  Your strawmen and confusing ass posts won't save it.

"A fair definition, but unrelated to previous definition of god.  Under this definition, there can be no "greater."  Hence, "That which nothing greater can be conceived" is meaningless."

YES! now we are getting somewhere. you asked how can something be great and greater. thats irelivent they are one in the same. if i asked you to identify something thats the most 2'ist thing you can imagin, it would be 2. if reality is "great" then that which nothing greater can be conceived, or the greatist thing you can conceive its just reality itself. nothing is "greater" then reality. nothing exists outside of it: by this definition god is reality


"My adopting an objective reality (or not) should be unrealted to whatever entity maintains my existence"

not so, the life and death choice everyone faces is one and the same with rejecting reality or accepting it. if you are accepting reality by being alive you must accept that some entities will allow you to exist in reality and some will destroy your existance. or in otherwords, some will take the choice away from you by destroying you. if your motive to life is pure you must also accept that which protects your existance is "good", "great" or whatever title you want to use. we did not make a choice about what we will consider "great". such a choice is abserd. what we did was make a choice that reality as a whole is great by not rejecting it

now the tricky part of this is understanding that we are not required, that is, great can exist without us if it need be. BUT that we can ONLY exist with great. we cannot exist in a reality that destorys what we consider great, or, overpowers it. we would simply not be, we would not have the choice. we are simply the validation of a great reality.

in so many words or less: reality decide's its greatness, we have the choice to accept or deny it but if we ever face this choice its validation of greatness itself. when we construct what we consider good or evil, great or not great, does not affect realitys objective greatness. its of no bearing. we are then given a basis for great and not great that exists independent of man. it does not exist because man created the idea, reality is not subjective

>>111
Ok, you redefined god.  That makes sense.  What are you trying to prove then?  I can define god as an eraser.  Erasers exist.  Therefore god exists.

You also proved that reality is not subjective... but that still doesn't demonstrate anything.

"we cannot exist in a reality that destorys what we consider great"
??  Are you trying to say that reality is a sentient being?  Whatever keeps us alive is sentient?  I would imagine that physical reality either allows life to exist, or it doesn't allow life to exist.  I don't think it's something to create or destroy.  If carbon were removed from earth, life would not be possible, but the existance of carbon in this physical reality means that life is possible, even if not at the moment.

ID and evolution are both wrong.

And all of this, sirs, is why some people refuse to discuss religion for the most part...

You cannot argue reason with people who've been told what to think instead of learning how to think for themselves.

>>114
QFT.  This is the reason I HATE arguing with religious people.  I have yet to meet one who doesn't resort to blindly repeating what someone else said, and then making a fool of themselves when they're totally unable to defend it.  It always deteriorates into theists ranting and making arguments that don't follow any sort of logic and the atheists showing that the theists aren't helping their cause, as has happened here.  Atheists breaking down this kid's arguments into strawmen, disjoints, and fallacies.

Some take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone...
(The meek shall inherit nothin')
    

You say yer life's a bum deal
'N yer up against the wall...
Well, people, you ain't even got no
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care
of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO
    

Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much
nothin'
(So whaddya do)
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham...
They're all a waste of time
'N it's yer ass that's on the line
(IT'S YER ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE)
    

Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip...
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE...
(Aw gimme half a dozen for the hotel room!)

I saw Jesus graffiti when I was running this morning. I was baffled. I was like, "Jesus graffiti? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wow, that is pretty stupid." It was almost as stupid as how Britney Spears has that religious tattoo that she's all excited about, but tattoos are one of the big no-nos in her religion. Don't you guys think that's funny?

"You also proved that reality is not subjective... but that still doesn't demonstrate anything."
 
that was the whole point, that st anslem was correct but that his arguments dont actually amount to anything. if you apply objectivity to st anslem this is what you get, thats all i was saying, your the one that asked me to explain the entire foundation of objectivity.

btw if you think this is some kind of religious rant its not. no religion would ever adopt this. no religion would ever, in a million years, adopt an obective reality. i actually dont even understand how you can't agree with this, do you just see the word god and panic and disagree by default? bad memorys of parents forcing church on you?

>>116
rofl - nice poem

>>117
That's interesting, never heard of Jesus graffiti before lol.  What religion is Spears?  Christian?

>>118
I see.  I'm not the one panicking about the word god...

Granted, this is the first time I've seen the word god being defined as physical reality itself, rather than some sentient being that created the physical reality.

>>117
I dunno, but Madonna is Jewish-Christian goyish.