The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah OK I am not stupid just dishonest. I agree with evolution as a general principle but think the theory needs work. I also believe that there are some good arguments that show that complex things may show evidence of design. It is good that they did not give me a polygraph test before I got my PhD in Electrical Engineering/Physics. Maybe I was brainwashed as a kid....
This forum seems anomolous to me. I sympathize a lot with atheism as a philosophy. It might well be right in my view. I've met very very very confident atheists before, just wasnt thinking I'd find so many in a poker forum. There's nothing wrong with being confident you are right though - that's fine. But when you get to the point of thinking anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or dishonest that's an indication that groupthink has taken over for some reason. The reason for that in this particular forum is now what interests me more I think.
Well in any case - best of luck to everyone out there - have a good Thanksgiving all. I dont want to aggrivate anyone really cause I'll listen to anyone's comments on poker. I used to post only in there under a different name a while back but forgot my password.
I suppose I should say that discussing a topic on a forum does show some interest in building one's knowledge so for that kudos to all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying they are being dishonest (maybe they are being silly [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) just that as there exists an extremely simple explanation of how complexity can arise naturally, it is hard not to think they are being dishonest if they use ID as an argument.

chez

Sorry great I didnt agree with your ghosts and goblins point about Newtonian Physics/ design the first time around or the second or the third. I appologize for not confirming with you that I re-read your post. Feel free to post the point again if you like.

[jthegreat]

Then you're simply being obstinate and ignoring the facts. Proponents of ID see that current evolutionary theory is (supposedly) lacking, but instead of proposing refinements to the theory, they create an untestable, supernatural explanation. It IS equivalent to saying "ghosts move things".

Heya Chips_,

Personally I don't care what proponents of ID think, I don't even want to get in the argument of whether or not it is stupid or dishonest.

What I strongly object to, is to have it introduced in a science education facility. I find that, both stupid and dishonest. Teach it all you want in a religious education facility or a bible study class if you think it matches, but not in a science class.

By the way I have observed many intelligent people holding very stupid notions in specific areas. If they are friends of mine, or I have the time, I will point it out to them to the best of my abilities. It is not a judgement on the whole person, just a remark on one of their idiosyncracies. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I dont view it as a fact that any hypothesis of design in nature is untestable or that a proposition about ghosts moving furniture would be untestable. I dont view it as a fact that people are arguing specific hypothesis that are untestable. I've heard these arguments for 20 years. I do not accept them as factual arguments. I do not view others who reject this notion as stupid, dishonest or brainwashed. Sorry I keep comming back to that point but its really the superlatives that I see that bother me. The insistance that theories are facts.
Also its perfectly OK in my book to say that we examine certain models with tests and the model did not hold up very well. You don't necessarily have to offer a complete answer as to why it did not hold up well at the same time. When people first did the experiemnents where something was burned and we found that if you added up the weight of all the ashes and smoke, there was more weight than what you started with - that in an of itself is worth examination. You dont have to understand that Oxygen is being added at the same time. That comes later. But the clear realization that previous models of science don't explain a certain phenomenon is not outside the realm of science.
Its funny that if someone were to speculate any specifics about who designed life or why, they would be labelled as preaching religion - "this is not science" would be the cry. So if someone abstains from commenting on who the designer is or their motives, then its deemed "not science" as well.

MidGe - OK fair enough on your last point about idiosyncracies. I think thats a better way of putting it than past posts I have seen.
I agree with you on reservations about the so called "intelligent design movement" leading to changing science curriculums in schools. In some cases "intelligent design" is a cover phrase for introducing religion.
The ideas that I am talking about though really have no place in a bible study. To me this is not about ideas from the bible vs science. Its about looking at current theories and being able to think critically about them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

An axiom is an idea that is self-evidently true. The existence of a God is not self-evidently true, no matter how much you claim it is. This is the part of the argument where we see a really smart guy say really dumb things.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are writing your own dictionary, then I guess you're correct.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You do that as much (if not more, actually) than every atheist. Every time you write on this forum, in fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

I try to limit my statements concerning the universality and necessity of something to the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]

There goes that "faith" word again. It's l ike you want to water it down so much so that when someone talks about your "faith", you can be secure in thinking they also have "faith".


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that the faith required for an atheist to do science is equivalent to the faith needed for salvation. But there is a similarity. Beyond that, everyone has a fundamental worldview that they will abandon only for the strongest of reasons, and that worldview is always accepted at least in part by faith. Everyone is convinced about something concerning ultimate truth and no one can demonstrate their position with absolute certainty. Scientists who really believe they are neutral are fooling themselves.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How much effort have you spent learning every other religion to see if they are right? Not much, I'm sure, since your faith prevents you from finding the truth


[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't take long to compare the realistic candidates for worldview. The differences between Christianity and everything else is stark. And I have spent much effort verifying Christianity as well as other systems during the process. No human being is complete as to his epistemological awareness during this lifetime. But the heart is set on a path at some point, and the awareness and convictions of people become more firm as life progresses.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your faith in induction is supported by rational examination of the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe induction is valid because God exists, created the universe, and is reasonable. I see no other possible way induction could be valid.

[ QUOTE ]

Your faith in God is supported by your brainwashing throughout the years of reading religious texts, and limiting your environmental exposure to things that may shake that faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes you're just disappointing.