• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

To denote the thread has been moved
Lion IRC said:
God can predict the actions of people who assert that God doesn't even exist. Their free will is unaffected because they are completely unaware of His ability to fast-forward in time and know their future actions.
Click to expand...
Similarly, when Wile E Cyote runs off a cliff, his altitude is unaffected because he is completely unaware that he is no longer supported by solid ground.

Of course, in reality, we need not be aware that our future is fixed in order to be unable to change it, just as Mr Coyote need not be aware that he is unsupported in order to begin to fall into the canyon.
 
Lion IRC said:
Now, if you want to claim you're just another Alexa and Someone else caused you to cause Alexa to ring that's your business.
Click to expand...
It's exactly what your claim that God is real, is all knowing, and is the cause of everything, implies.

That you suck at logic so bad as to be able to pretend that it doesn't is a problem only for you.
 
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
God can predict the actions of people who assert that God doesn't even exist. Their free will is unaffected because they are completely unaware of His ability to fast-forward in time and know their future actions.
Click to expand...
Similarly, when Wile E Cyote runs off a cliff, his altitude is unaffected because he is completely unaware that he is no longer supported by solid ground.
Click to expand...

You just made it analogous with atheists who think God doesn't exist eventually learning that He does. Well done.

Atheists freely choosing to run off the edge of a cliff because they don't think there's a God called gravity. That's your genius analogy?


bilby said:
Of course, in reality, we need not be aware that our future is fixed in order to be unable to change it, just as Mr Coyote need not be aware that he is unsupported in order to begin to fall into the canyon.
Click to expand...

He fixed his own future by running off the edge of a cliff.
 
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
Agents with free will,
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
Click to expand...

John 7:18

bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
made in God's likeness,
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:27
Click to expand...
Yeah, I expected that.

Do you have any evidence that's not just somebody writing down the claims, and expecting everyone to believe them just because they are written down?
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to believe it.
I thought you were capable of internal critiques - ad arguendo

But if you wanna do the ..yabbut God isn't real thingy instead *shrug*
 
Lion IRC said:
You just made it analogous with atheists who think God doesn't exist eventually learning that He does.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. You wanted me to, but (as I just pointed out to you) wanting stuff to be true doesn't make it true.
Lion IRC said:
Well done.

Atheists freely choosing to run off the edge of a cliff because they don't think there's a God called gravity. That's your genius analogy?
Click to expand...
No, that's your rather stupid analogy, very loosely based on mine.

For your analogy to be apt, we would need to inhabit a world where god was as easily detected as gravity is; Yet we have VAST evidence of gravity, and ZERO evidence of god.
 
Lion IRC said:
Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"
Click to expand...
As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.

Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"

Why do you feel this word excludes natural process? Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?
 
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"
Click to expand...
As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.
Click to expand...

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

JohnG said:
Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"
Click to expand...

That's nice.

JohnG said:
Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?
Click to expand...

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

JohnG said:
Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.
 
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"
Click to expand...
As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.
Click to expand...

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

JohnG said:
Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"
Click to expand...

That's nice.

JohnG said:
Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?
Click to expand...

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

JohnG said:
Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.
Click to expand...
Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
 
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"
Click to expand...
As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.
Click to expand...

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

JohnG said:
Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"
Click to expand...

That's nice.

JohnG said:
Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?
Click to expand...

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

JohnG said:
Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.
Click to expand...
Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...
Yup, I was gonna say the same thing.

Of course he’s being disingenuous, and there is no “strawman” here. That’s exactly what he thinks, that “create” means by God, and while humans may replicate God’s “creations” nothing can be created naturally without mind behind it. Unfortunately for him, evolution shows just the opposite.
 
pood said:
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
Lion IRC said:
Maybe I'd better read the article to see if it actually does say "creation"..."create"..."created"
Click to expand...
As a matter I don't argue with religious people these days...but this is an interesting one.

You seem hung up on the word "create" - as if that word can only mean something produced by your God.
Click to expand...

I dont think that so if you want to argue you'll have to find someone who thinks that the word "create" can only mean something produced by God.

JohnG said:
Verb - Middle English createn, borrowed from Latin creātus, past participle of creāre "to bring into being, beget, give birth to, cause to grow," causative derivative from the base of crēscere "to come into existence, increase in size or numbers, grow"
Click to expand...

That's nice.

JohnG said:
Why do you feel this word excludes natural process?
Click to expand...

I dont think that so you'll have to find someone else to defend that strawman.

Words can mean lots of things to lots of people. "Natural" can mean different things to different people too.

In this thread there's a distinction being made between deliberate creation and unintentional creation.

JohnG said:
Can a cause create an effect? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

You mean can God create an effect? Sure.
Can humans create the same effect? Sure.
Click to expand...
Ok, but also in your first post in this thread...

"Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists"

it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...
Yup, I was gonna say the same thing.

Of course he’s being disingenuous, and there is no “strawman” here. That’s exactly what he thinks, that “create” means by God, and while humans may replicate God’s “creations” nothing can be created naturally without mind behind it. Unfortunately for him, evolution shows just the opposite.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to know what was going on there - it is probably a question of semantics. Lion IRC can chime in here....Is pood correct? Are you saying that man can only replicate God's creations? Therefore the word "create" can only apply to the original creation of everything?

Not really trying to argue...just want to know what the train of thought is here. Your posts were pretty vague about that.
 
JohnG said:
it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.
 
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.
Click to expand...

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all. Got it. And, of course, taking note of your straw man, natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous, though there are those pesky virtual particles …
 
pood said:
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.
Click to expand...

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes
Click to expand...

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.

pood said:
and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.
Click to expand...

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.

pood said:
...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous
Click to expand...

I know. Thats what I've been saying.
pood said:
...though there are those pesky virtual particles …
Click to expand...

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.
 
Lion IRC said:
Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.
Click to expand...
Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process.

Describing that event in the past as "caused" is just the logical fallacy of assuming your preferred conclusion.
 
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.
Click to expand...
Humans deliberately copying an event thought to have happened in the past, to determine whether it actually can have happened or not, is a natural process.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Here. I'll repeat it.

"Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process."

bilby said:
Describing that event in the past as "caused" is just the logical fallacy of assuming your preferred conclusion.
Click to expand...

There's no logical fallacy in thinking your conclusion is correct.

But your conspicuous lack of arguments for unpredictable, spontaneous, uncaused events tells me a lot about your assumed preferences.
 
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
Lion IRC said:
JohnG said:
it sure seems like you are implying that the word "created" indicates some sort of win for team creationists.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately copying another caused event does seem like a win for the idea that events are deliberately caused rather than spontaneous.
Click to expand...

So you DO feel that the word “create” excludes natural processes
Click to expand...

No.

Humans deliberately copying another caused event is a natural process.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you would stop slipping around, moving goalposts and otherwise dodging the issue.

Evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift and other factors involves no creator at all, not God, not intelligent design. Do you agree that these things happen, and do so without intelligent design, foresight, or intent? Yes or no?
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
and hence, contrary to your claim, no one made a straw man of your position at all.
Click to expand...

No. They made a strawman of someone ELSE'S position.

Thats what a strawman is. You take someone elses position and knock it down mistakenly thinking that you've knocked down my position

I dont think that the word "create" excludes natural processes.
Click to expand...

But you just DEFINED a natural process as “humans copying another caused event,” which is true, since everything is natural, BUT, the question at hand is, do you think the word “create” can involve non-intelligent, non-supernatural, non-intended outcomes? Yes or no?
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
...natural causation and creation is not (necessarily) spontaneous
Click to expand...

I know. Thats what I've been saying.
Click to expand...

No, you haven’t.
Lion IRC said:
pood said:
...though there are those pesky virtual particles …
Click to expand...

They aren't pesky.
God can create any sort of particles He wants.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, God creates everything. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms stick together to create water, is God moving the two together between thumb and index finger? Or not? Does God, or his delegated angels, push the planets and moons together to orbit each other and the sun?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom