Evidence Deficiency

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do. Like you, I cannot forget it.

It was a revelation. A bombshell. The ultimate "Aha!" moment.

Beautiful!!

I have always called it my "Eureka!" moment. I'm so glad to hear you describe it just as I remember it. Thanks.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I just posted this in another thread...
Lack of evidence is only in their corrupted minds, seeing that evidence is everywhere to be found by just looking around at the order of the universe, plants, weather, etc. Chaos does not produce order, intelligent design does.

Chaos and order are deeply entwined. The Chaos Theory revolution in the 60s showed how simple systems could produce complex results and how completely deterministic systems could not be determined!

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern to see how chaos can
produce order.

And read the brilliant Chaos by James Gleick

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do. Like you, I cannot forget it.

It was a revelation. A bombshell. The ultimate "Aha!" moment.

Yes, faith IS personal. As I said in another thread, that is the beauty and the genius of it.

There is no argument against that Suzianne. Your personal evidence is your own feelings which support your faith. Good.

But when others say "Look around" as proof of a creator!! Thats when most
rational people get riled. We have perfectly good explanations for the natural world. (And even some good ideas about what faith is ...) So "Look in the mirror" is not evidence!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Chaos and order are deeply entwined. The Chaos Theory revolution in the 60s showed how simple systems could produce complex results and how completely deterministic systems could not be determined!

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern to see how chaos can
produce order.

And read the brilliant Chaos by James Gleick

That is all nonsense.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You said chaos can produce order.

I know I did. But I still fail to see what you are getting at.
You said you know something by "good old fashioned logic" and I asked whether you could present it. Instead you tell me that I claimed something contradictory to your claim. I really don't follow.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
There is no argument against that Suzianne. Your personal evidence is your own feelings which support your faith. Good.

But when others say "Look around" as proof of a creator!! Thats when most
rational people get riled. We have perfectly good explanations for the natural world. (And even some good ideas about what faith is ...) So "Look in the mirror" is not evidence!

The idea of "look around" goes deeper than just asking someone to glance at the trees and the sky. As we look deeper and deeper into creation and see all the genius and complexity of it all, it just makes natural sense to believe there was some kind of creation involved. All the "instinctive" actions of every organism from the blue whale all the way down to a single-celled organism, suggests strongly that a set of instructions was implanted into all of creation.

Even the seemingly simple explanation of organisms doing what they do just as a survival instinct... a universe without a Creator doesn't explain why anything or anyone would even care to survive. The only reason anything or anyone would care to survive at all is if they "naturally" think that life is a precious gift not to be discarded. If everything came about out of nothing for no particular reason, then it would stand that the natural order of things is... to not be. And life wouldn't be something everything and everyone is striving for and trying to hold fast to, at all cost.

All of this and much more, is what Saint Paul meant when he said the skeptics need look no further than reality itself, to understand a Creator was involved.

Originally posted by sumydid
As we look deeper and deeper into creation and see all the genius and complexity of it all, it just makes natural sense to believe there was some kind of creation involved.

Unless you've been to school and learn't how it really works.

The only reason anything or anyone would care to survive at all is if they "naturally" think that life is a precious gift not to be discarded.
Yes, my pot plant is a theist.

If everything came about out of nothing for no particular reason, then it would stand that the natural order of things is... to not be.
You just contradicted yourself.

And life wouldn't be something everything and everyone is striving for and trying to hold fast to, at all cost.
Just admit that you haven't really thought this through. Try to give actual reasoning as to why you think this would be rather than simply stating it as fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Unless you've been to school and learn't how it really works.

More insults. How predictable.

Yes, my pot plant is a theist.
Oh. You're a doper. Even more predictable.

You just contradicted yourself.
No I didn't. If everything sprung from its natural state of nothingness without any outside force or causal agent -- then all of reality--having a natural state of nothingness--I argue wouldn't place such a high priority on survival. Everything shouldn't have any problem at all with the idea of returning to its natural state.

Just admit that you haven't really thought this through. Try to give actual reasoning as to why you think this would be rather than simply stating it as fact.
Judging from your immaturity and childish behavior, I would guess that I've put thought into this for longer than you've been alive.


And by the way, I'm not stating any of this as fact, I'm arguing a point. Now, if you want to issue some counterpoints other than the usual hostile and insulting remarks, we might actually have a debate on our hands.

Originally posted by sumydid
More insults. How predictable.

Its not an insult, its a fact. If you had learnt how evolution works, you would not make the claim you did and think you could get away with it.

Oh. You're a doper. Even more predictable.
You said all life strives to survive because of its belief in the value of life, presumably taught to it by God. Or did I misunderstand you? Please clarify.

No I didn't. If everything sprung from its natural state of nothingness without any outside force or causal agent -- then all of reality--having a natural state of nothingness.
That right there is the contradiction. First you say that everything naturally sprang from nothingness, then state that nothingness is the natural state, ignoring the fact that you have just pointed out that 'everything springing from nothingness' is the natural state.

--I argue wouldn't place such a high priority on survival.
And you present no actual argument. You simply state it as fact as if it is obvious, when in fact it does not follow at all from the premise. Why would a natural state of nothingness lead to living things placing a low priority on survival?

Everything shouldn't have any problem at all with the idea of returning to its natural state.
Now we are confusing death with nothingness.

And by the way, I'm not stating any of this as fact, I'm arguing a point.
Except I don't see any argument. I see a list of claims (mostly false) that do not follow from each other.

Now, if you want to issue some counterpoints other than the usual hostile and insulting remarks, we might actually have a debate on our hands.
I don't believe everything sprang from nothingness. Do you? If not then its a strawman.
I don't see how it follows that 'nothingness' being the natural state would affect what life cares about.
Most of life doesn't have cares anyway as it cant think.
The reason why life strives to survive is easily explained by evolution.

Originally posted by sumydid
As we look deeper and deeper into creation and see all the genius and
complexity of it all, it just makes natural sense to believe there was
some kind of creation involved. .

Unfortunately "natural sense" does not stand up to science.

It's "natural sense" to suppose the earth is flat.

It's "natural sense" to suppose the sun goes around the earth

It's "natural sense" to suppose matter is solid.

It's "natural sense" to suppose heating without heat is impossible.

It's "natural sense" to suppose light is instantaneous.

et cetera, et cetera.

Our "natural senses" are for survival in our living world of beasties and creepy crawlies and foraging for seeds. we have moved beyond that (mostly).

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Unfortunately "natural sense" does not stand up to science.

It's "natural sense" to suppose the earth is flat.

It's "natural sense" to suppose the sun goes around the earth

It's "natural sense" to suppose matter is solid.

It's "natural sense" to suppose heating without heat is impossible.

It's "natural sense" to suppose light is instantane ...[text shortened]... d creepy crawlies and foraging for seeds. we have moved beyond that (mostly).

Very well put!