The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, it's basic conditioning. If each time a certain man gets out of hi s car he gets a static shock when he touches the door, he will eventually realize that it is going to happen again and will brace himself when he closes it. (this happened to me, because of the shoes I was wearing) Then I wore different shoes, but found myself bracing for the shock. It didn't come. Again and again, I went shock free. I stopped bracing myself.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just describes the process. Hume doesn't argue that. Locke established it very competently. What is lacking is the rational justification.

[ QUOTE ]

The sun is the same way. Let the sun stop coming up a few times, and we won't expect it. This is not circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you expect isn't the argument. Hume agrees, you see cause and effect because of repetition. But repetition doesn't amount to rational justification.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why existence isn't possible in chaos. It would certainly be different from what we're used to, but there's nothing inherently contradictory about chaos. Why not chaos?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing inherently contradictory about chaos. What is contradictory in chaos is order, meaning, purpose, logic, morality, love, science.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

ID is equivalent to saying that since Newtonian physics can't completely explain motion, ghosts must move things around.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't any different than saying since design can't completely explain the universe, chance must have done it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let them chase you away - if they get too hostile do what I do, ignore them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

We had a long thread on this idea started by DS some time ago. Stop teaching atheistic evolution, i.e. evolution by chance, and you might find most Christians won't complain too much about the teaching of real biology.

[ QUOTE ]

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 idio syncracies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't any different than saying since design can't completely explain the universe, chance must have done it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, a strawman wrapped in a non sequitur.

What a joke.

[jthegreat]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

Luckily Merriam-Webster's agrees with me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
We had a long thread on this idea started by DS some time ago. Stop teaching atheistic evolution, i.e. evolution by chance, and you might find most Christians won't complain too much about the teaching of real biology.


[/ QUOTE ]
Does this point to the reality behind the ID argument? Its not that IDers believe ID is science but they want to prevent evolution being taught as science. ID is a tactic.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Scientists who really believe they are neutral are fooling themselves. </font>

Why isn't it possible to be neutral based on observable evidence?

I consider myself to be neutral (although I'm not a scientist). Now granted, I have to have faith in science, but that is based on observable evidence and has a historic record of making accurate predictions.

Even though you believe as strongly in your convictions as does a scientist, I rarely read anything you write which can be backed up by any observable evidence nor capable of accurate prediction. This is a HUGE difference. You must place tremendous amounts of faith in your non-scientific/non-observable sources.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We had a long thread on this idea started by DS some time ago. Stop teaching atheistic evolution, i.e. evolution by chance, and you might find most Christians won't complain too much about the teaching of real biology.


[/ QUOTE ]
Does this point to the reality behind the ID argument? Its not that IDers believe ID is science but they want to prevent evolution being taught as science. ID is a tactic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Hey Chez and NotReady, I think that I'm begining to argee with NotReady on this. It appears that scientists believe that they have disproven God by evolution and the Big Bang adn the emergance of life. They make statements that these things randomly occured. Science wishes to continue the war that religion started with it. Partaking in this war is the reason why ID is finding an ear in the education community. ID is not ready as a theory to be taught in schools, but since the scientific community will not stop attacking religion, it is nessesary to include a lacking theory, to keep the scientists from an early victory over religion. If we wish to know more about the "random" causes of life and the universe, ID is good for keeping that question current.