Originally posted by NosracI've told you before. Proving a negative is impossible. So that means that it is impossible to prove that Jesus didn't raise people from the dead, it's impossible to prove that he wasn't a homosexual and it's impossible to prove that he wasn't a dinosaur.
YOU prove that they did not happen!
1 edit
Originally posted by NosracWhy should I? You are the one making extravagant claims.
YOU prove that they did not happen!
YOU read the Bible!
YOU get your act straight young man!
READ IT!
This should be REAL EASY for YOU
I'm waiting.....
I'll tell you what. I'll prove those things didn't happen as soon as you prove that the world is not inhabited by invisible, pink, flying kittens.
[edit; and don't call me "young man".]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWrong Freaky.
Your response begs the question. Chance is the driving force, the impetus behind the origin. Impersonal chance (in opposition to personal determination) does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. No matter how far we try to extrapolate the equation back--- even to the point of conferring upon 'uncreated matter' self-contained preference cod ...[text shortened]... mains unanswered still: why? There is no meaning to it. And that's just the main obstacle.
Chance is not the driving force, it's the mechanism. The driving force is environmental pressure. Chance produces alternatives, environmental pressure weeds out those that are no good.
As for meaning - why does meaning need to be external to us?
Why can't we create our own meaning?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZDo you believe anything from history?
I've told you before. Proving a negative is impossible. So that means that it is impossible to prove that Jesus didn't raise people from the dead, it's impossible to prove that he wasn't a homosexual and it's impossible to prove that he wasn't a dinosaur.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt wouldn't matter because you still couldn't prove that Jesus wasn't a dinosaur. Maybe the few ancient sources got the nature of Jesus wrong. You can't prove that they didn't (at least not in the way you have been using the word "prove" in this thread).
How do you determine what is actual history and what is not?
Would you accept that Jesus was a historical figure?
You can however use the historical and/or mythological history of Jesus to strengthen your case that Jesus was not a dinosaur. That's analagous to what all the people arguing for evolution have been doing in this thread. For example, they can't prove (again in the way you use "prove" ) that the Earth is roughly 4.3 billion years old, but they can give you a lot of empirical evidence that supports their view.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are using the term chance inconsistently. You are using the term
Your response begs the question. Chance is the driving force, the impetus behind the origin. Impersonal chance (in opposition to personal determination) does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. No matter how far we try to extrapolate the equation back--- even to the point of conferring upon 'uncreated matter' self-contained preference cod ...[text shortened]... mains unanswered still: why? There is no meaning to it. And that's just the main obstacle.
chance like in regards to a coin flip. For example, you wrote: Impersonal
chance does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. This
is direct opposition to what I wrote, so either you misunderstood it or
are being willfully difficult.
Let's say creature A has two children, one of which is strong, one of
which is weak (or fast or slow, or having keen hearing or poor hearing).
Which do you suppose is more likely to reproduce and pass on their
particular traits? The 'better' one. Given that being strong (or fast or
having keen hearing) is a trait which is passed on to progeny, this
means, after several generations, the 'weak' trait will become rarer and
rarer, and the 'strong' trait will become more and more common.
So, it's not so much chance as increasing probability. It is more
probable that the strong creature will survive and pass on its strong
traits, thus it is more probable that strong traits will be in the progeny
of the species.
You are also using the term 'value' inconsistently. Natural value and
moral value are not interchangable. In nature, being more fit is the
only 'good' in the contest -- being more fit will vary from creature to
creature, ecosystem to ecosystem, of course.
No one is imparting matter with subconscious; I in fact took great pains
to make clear that my use of the word "desire" did not signify anything
greater than the urge to stay alive. That a deer doesn't lay down and
die when a wolf is nearby doesn't 'prove' that there is some Divine
Purpose to things, which seems to be the main 'hidden' point in your
claim that a question is begging.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzI see meaning within my life - because I choose to give meaning to things
Perhpas the way YOU see it. I see meaning within my life - because I choose to give meaning to things, but these are personal aspects of my life - I see no reason why life needs to exist - it certainly doesn't exist in most places most of the time.
This is "big bang syndrome" again - you require a "cause" for the big bang, I do not. You require a " ...[text shortened]... a chance that reason came into being through chance? That would be a logical fallacy.]
This is precisely the issue. There is no meaning possible if chance be the force. By chance, matter squirted out of nothingness where it just as easily may have resulted in a universe completely unlike what we have around us, or maybe a cherry pie with a lattice topping. There was nothing predetermined about it, it was simply happenstance, the splatter of paint it created itself on the canvas it created itself.
Now comes you, wanting to give meaning to the chaos. The nerve. The universe has no pattern, no hard and fast rules, no obedience to any plan, and you wish to sully this perfection of imperfection with something so absurd as meaning? Meaning is meaningless, because the universe did not put it onto the hard drive: it's all chance.
Originally posted by amannionWell, you're opening more bottles than you can drink with that one. We are considering the actual impetus of the Big Bang, and the agency which drove the energy thusly.
Wrong Freaky.
Chance is not the driving force, it's the mechanism. The driving force is environmental pressure. Chance produces alternatives, environmental pressure weeds out those that are no good.
As for meaning - why does meaning need to be external to us?
Why can't we create our own meaning?
While much ado can be said about mechanisms and whatnot, the consensus among anti-theists is that there were no rules or grand designs inherent within the blast from the past: it was simply chance-medley that set the stage for then other agents of chance to do their individual bidding-that-is-not-really-bidding.
At the time of the Big Bang, there were no environmental pressures, as the environment had yet to be self-created.
Originally posted by NemesioYou are using the term chance inconsistently. You are using the term chance like in regards to a coin flip.
You are using the term chance inconsistently. You are using the term
chance like in regards to a coin flip. For example, you wrote: Impersonal
chance does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. This
is direct opposition to what I wrote, so either you misunderstood it or
are being willfully difficult.
Let's say creature A has tw ...[text shortened]... he main 'hidden' point in your
claim that a question is begging.
Nemesio
Not at all. You've quoted one sentence without the benefit of the descriptive one which preceded it:
"Chance is the driving force, the impetus behind the origin."
That exactly describes the anti-theist perspective of the impact and results of the Big Bang. This whole thing started by sheer, dumb luck. In any willful dictionary, that amounts to chance.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou seem to thrive on refusing to answer people's questions.
[b]I see meaning within my life - because I choose to give meaning to things
This is precisely the issue. There is no meaning possible if chance be the force. By chance, matter squirted out of nothingness where it just as easily may have resulted in a universe completely unlike what we have around us, or maybe a cherry pie with a lattice topping. T ...[text shortened]... aning is meaningless, because the universe did not put it onto the hard drive: it's all chance.[/b]
Why is no meaning possible if chance is "the force"(quite what you mean by that is similarly obscure)?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am simply laying bare the anti-theistic stance of origins, and showing how such a stance does not allow for reason. For a more concise and flourished treatment of the topic, try this link.
You seem to thrive on refusing to answer people's questions.
Why is no meaning possible if chance is "the force"(quite what you mean by that is similarly obscure)?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html