Fmf

Originally posted by stellspalfie
we've been over this time and again. if you are a man of logic you would understand why this is so illogical..

you are reducing proof of your gods existence down to the weakest possible argument. claiming that there is no proof that he doesnt exist, is popping him in the same box as tooth fairies and gnomes.

the onus is always on the person making the extraordinary claim, a man of logic would understand this.

nope its illogical, irrational and unscientific to expect someone else to proffer proof for their assertion while you proffer none for yours, not to mention a little arrogant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I cannot prove that my God exists, you cannot prove that he does not, its a futile argument, have you not come to realise this already?

As has been explained on these forums countless times, the theist draws inferences from an observation of the natural world. These do not constitute proofs in a purely empirical sense, but they are evidence eno ...[text shortened]... nd the poor materialist, looking through the same prism, does he really get the same experience?

"I cannot prove that my God exists, you cannot prove that he does not, its a futile argument, have you not come to realise this already?"

i respect your honest here. what i would say though is that for me i dont expect you to prove 100% that he exists, or 50%. i just want one shred of evidence, but there is zero. thats why in science terms he doesnt exist. the odds are so insignificant that it is pointless to waste time following a religion until the odds improved. if there were little bits of semi-convincing arguments, id say "fair enough, although im not totally convinced, i can see why you might" but currently there is zero evidence that god is real and lots of evidence indicating why people are drawn to religion. so which way do you go? the theory that has a bit of evidence or the theory that has zero.

if you were logical you would always go with the odds.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope its illogical, irrational and unscientific to expect someone else to proffer proof for their assertion while you proffer none for yours, not to mention a little arrogant.

you do realize that by saying that you are disagreeing with how the whole of science works? so you are defining your own form of science and how it should be carried out.

is it irrational to say that the tooth fairy doesnt exist?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"I cannot prove that my God exists, you cannot prove that he does not, its a futile argument, have you not come to realise this already?"

i respect your honest here. what i would say though is that for me i dont expect you to prove 100% that he exists, or 50%. i just want one shred of evidence, but there is zero. thats why in science terms he ...[text shortened]... dence or the theory that has zero.

if you were logical you would always go with the odds.[/b]

you think you get better odds of life having formed by chance? wow!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you do realize that by saying that you are disagreeing with how the whole of science works? so you are defining your own form of science and how it should be carried out.

is it irrational to say that the tooth fairy doesnt exist?

Its irrational and unscientific to make assertions for which you have no evidence. All you can say with any certainty is that to you, it seems unlikely that the tooth fairy does not exist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you think you get better odds of life having formed by chance? wow!

You got any evidence for a non-spontaneous start to life? I'd say that in the absence of any evidence for any particular mechanism, the mechanism that involves less complexity is the one that should be favoured by a scientist. God is an added level of complexity so that theory should be discarded until some evidence arrives that life didn't just spontaneously occur.

That doesn't necessarily mean life formed by chance, life might be inevitable under suitable conditions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you think you get better odds of life having formed by chance? wow!

yes, i pretty sure the odds are better. we have some evidence that that things join together to make more complex things, we have zero evidence for a god.

the word chance can mean almost anything statistically. we dont really know what the chances are. until we can explore other planets or recreate conditions in a lab we wont know. we may discover that life is nothing special or unique, or the opposite.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its irrational and unscientific to make assertions for which you have no evidence. All you can say with any certainty is that to you, it seems unlikely that the tooth fairy does not exist.

no its not unscientific. its exactly what science does. if there is zero evidence for something then it is discarded until evidence is found.

using your logic we are unable to categorically say that anything we know or dont know is correct. we cannot say we know what gravity or electricity or water or cheese or the color red is because there maybe some invisible, undetectable aspect we cannot prove doesnt exist.

so from now on in your life you cannot positively affirm anything. if your wife asks if you love her (sorry to bring your wife up again) you must say......i dont know, because although i feel like i do, i cannot be sure that there is some unknown variable that is making me think im in love when im not, in fact we cannot even say there is such a thing as love, or that you exist or me or the world.'

okay, give that a try see how you get on with your super-logical-scientific thinking.

Originally posted by Kepler
You got any evidence for a non-spontaneous start to life? I'd say that in the absence of any evidence for any particular mechanism, the mechanism that involves less complexity is the one that should be favoured by a scientist. God is an added level of complexity so that theory should be discarded until some evidence arrives that life didn't just spontaneously t necessarily mean life formed by chance, life might be inevitable under suitable conditions.

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”*

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”**.

*Evolution From Space, p. 24.
**New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.

I like this one from the New York Times,

Even this process of protein folding is significant. In 1996, scientists around the world, “armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . . Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times.

source:Jehovahs Witnesses

Perhaps you have some statistics of your own?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
no its not unscientific. its exactly what science does. if there is zero evidence for something then it is discarded until evidence is found.

using your logic we are unable to categorically say that anything we know or dont know is correct. we cannot say we know what gravity or electricity or water or cheese or the color red is because there maybe s ...[text shortened]... orld.'

okay, give that a try see how you get on with your super-logical-scientific thinking.

dude i have a chess rating approaching 1900 on here and 2000 at chess.com and I am to take lessons on logic from you, plueeeeeze! 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude i have a chess rating approaching 1900 on here and 2000 at chess.com and I am to take lessons on logic from you, plueeeeeze! 😛

not this old chess-nut. this is a self defeating argument. by arguing that chess is proof of your logic skills you are proving that you have no logic skills.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get th ...[text shortened]... he New York Times.

source:Jehovahs Witnesses

Perhaps you have some statistics of your own?

this entire thing is proof of your lack of logical thinking. its full of errors. if i thought you would listen objectively i would go through them. but as i know thats impossible for you, i wont.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
not this old chess-nut. this is a self defeating argument. by arguing that chess is proof of your logic skills you are proving that you have no logic skills.

really you dont think chess relies upon logic?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
this entire thing is proof of your lack of logical thinking. its full of errors. if i thought you would listen objectively i would go through them. but as i know thats impossible for you, i wont.

good, you will spare yourself some time and spare me the unsavoury duty of putting your, illogical and unscientific arguments to the sword.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really you dont think chess relies upon logic?

there are so many variable to take into consideration that your chess score becomes almost meaningless as a measurement of logic.

its complex, but ill try and explain briefly.

you may actually be brilliant at chess, but there are lots of different ways to be good at chess. some people are good a seeing patterns in play and repeating them on the board, some people are good at remembering and can read what to do in a book and remember that move, some people are good at working things out like a puzzle.

most people are different combinations of them all.

then we have the variable of effort put in. how much time have i spent playing chess, how much have you, did either of us have lessons? who is more competitive? who player the harder opponents? and so on.

then we have more variable.....

clear thinking, you or i may be very logicial, we may come to the correct conclusions but may be we let our heart rule our heads, maybe with certain subjects we lack or lose objectivity. you can send the most logical un-biased man on the earth to watch his football team and all logic goes out of the window.

there are tonnes of variables i could go on all day, intelligence and thinking skills are complex and not east to pin down.


im sure you are a logical, intelligent guy in general, but your eagerness to prove your point lets through some bizarre, illogical thinking.