Originally posted by chaney3And its a stupid quote given that atheists by definition, lack belief. But take it to spirituality if you want to discuss that further.
I heard a quote, but cannot remember its author: "Atheists require more faith to sustain their belief than that of a theist".
Maybe you can dismiss events individually, but add them all together and the necessary "probabilities" add up quickly.
Necessary for what? The thing is, I do not 'dismiss events' or 'dismiss probabilities', I dismiss your appallingly bad understanding of astronomy and mathematics.
Positions of earth, sun, moon.
Magnetic shield.
Gravity.
Not just life, but human life.
The brain, which still cannot be explained by science.
The 'accident' that food just happens to be plentiful on the 'accidental' planet earth.
Etc etc.
There are many more, and the 'probabilities' and 'maybes' seem endless.
You are just waffling on with no clear argument. What are those probabilities?
You made claims about the moon then discovered you were wrong. Perhaps you are wrong about each and every item in the list above. Lets go through them one by one. What is the 'Magenetic shield' item all about? What is the probability in question and why does it point towards design? Make an actual argument instead of assuming we have all read the same creationist websites that you have (especially since you refuse to give any actual link to your source).
Meanwhile, I will compliment the Designer on His work.
Go ahead, but I strongly recommend you also try and get an education so you have a better appreciation of his work instead of your current very poor understanding of it. I mean seriously, why did you think that the moon had to be an exact distance away in order for its shadow to fall on the earth?
Also, it would be unwise of you to continue trying to convince others that there is a designer based on such obviously poor arguments. If you believe in a designer then fine, but why do you need to lie to others to try and convince them to believe as you do?
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Man, I hope you realize that all those examples have been scientifically explained right?
"Probabilities".
It seems that people reluctant to believe in any "design" whatsoever, will resort to:
Probably, maybe, if, possibly, we think, might be, etc. Much guessing.
I heard a quote, but cannot remember its author: "Atheists require more faith to sustain their belief than that of a theist".
Maybe you can dismiss events individually, but ...[text shortened]... es' and 'maybes' seem endless.
Meanwhile, I will compliment the Designer on His work.
Sir.
Why the anger twitehead?
Do you really think that minus my phd in math and science that I think I am going to convert anyone? Of course not.
My thread was meant for some light discussion or debate, not to keep anyone out of hell.
Keep patting yourself on the back for your science and math knowledge, I don't mind. 🙂
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3We are in the science forum, so lets talk science and rational argument.
I heard a quote, but cannot remember its author: "Atheists require more faith to sustain their belief than that of a theist".
Let us suppose that you have a case and that there is a rational argument that would lead one to look at various probabilities about the earth and conclude that it was designed.
Let us suppose that your argument could be set out in such a way that it could stand up to scrutiny by intelligent people.
Do you realise that such an argument would be worthy of the Nobel prize? Why hasn't anyone published the argument in a science journal? Why is it only coming from an anonymous poster on the internet with an obviously poor understanding of science? Think this through. You are claiming to be more insightful than all the great philosophers and scientists of the world, including fellow Christians. You believe you have stumbled upon this revelation all by yourself and that you are now announcing this amazing news to the world, but your chosen place to announce it is a Chess forum? What if one of us steals your idea and claims the Nobel prize for ourselves?
Originally posted by chaney3No, you delusional fool;
"Probabilities".
It seems that people reluctant to believe in any "design" whatsoever, will resort to:
It is the probabilities that make rational people disbelieve in any "design" whatsoever, regardless of whether they want to believe there is a designer or not.
We generally do not want there to be NO "design"; we just follow the evidence/logic.
I do not want there to be NO design/designer/God/gods/fairies/ghosts/magic.
Why would we want there to be NO "design"?
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadLol lol. C'mon???
We are in the science forum, so lets talk science and rational argument.
Let us suppose that you have a case and that there is a rational argument that would lead one to look at various probabilities about the earth and conclude that it was designed.
Let us suppose that your argument could be set out in such a way that it could stand up to scrutiny by i ...[text shortened]... t is a Chess forum? What if one of us steals your idea and claims the Nobel prize for ourselves?
I'm curious twitehead, do you have any respect at all for ANY scientist that may believe in Design?
Or do you only give credence to atheist scientists?
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney31) you didn't mention dark matter. And can you give an example about the brain?
Really?
Science can fully explain the brain?
Science can explain dark matter?
2) Science is trying to give a reasonable explanation that if possible can be proved with expirements. Saying a Designer made everything is just lazy and isn't science
28 Jan 17
4 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Science can partly explain those things and probably will eventually fully explain those things (I see no insurmountable barrier, do you? If so, what is it?).
Really?
Science can fully explain the brain?
Science can explain dark matter?
Can religion ever explain the brain? No.
Neuron transmitters and nerve synapses are not mentioned in any religious scriptures.
Can religion ever explain dark matter? No.
Explanations for the rotation behavior of galaxies are not mentioned in any religious scriptures.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by humyThis question is not meant to be a joke.
Science can partly explain those things and vary possibly would eventually fully explain those things.
Can religion ever explain the brain? No.
Can religion ever explain dark matter? No.
Why has science named something a ....God particle?
28 Jan 17
2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Not to imply there is a God but just to stupidly try and be melodramatic; pretty childish of them, actually.
Why has science named something a ....God particle?
Me and most of my scientific expert friends groan in dismay every time we here that stupid unscientific term.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3That's all you've got? Did you even bother to read my post? What do you think of my argument. What flaws do you see in it?
Lol lol. C'mon???
I'm curious twitehead, do you have any respect at all for ANY scientist that may believe in Design?
Sure. I have a lot of respect for many Christians and people of other religions. I have no respect for people who claim they have an argument demonstrating design who then try do doge and lie when it is pointed out that they are mistaken.
Or do you only give credence to atheist scientists?
I give credence to any scientists of any religious persuasion with regards to their science. I give no credence to their religious beliefs.
So, do you want that Nobel prize or not? If not, then please lay out your argument in a more coherent fashion instead of dodging at every turn. I want to steal it so I can get myself a million dollars.