jfish1936 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Anyhow, back on topic. How can natural selection be "a sequence of chance happenings"? Natural selection only occurs when it's required. How does requirement equate to a random "chance happening"? Natural selection happens all the time. "Requirement" implies something looking on and saying "we need to select here", while in fact it's going on always. Variation happens by chance; many variations are harmful enough not to get established as a population. Most of the living things we see have been "selected" over millenia, and so are stable "for now"; but if the environment changes, selection for different qualities may change the balance of two forms in a population, and maybe lead to one form no longer breeding with the other -- which many would accept as a species dividing into two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 In my view it takes as much 'faith' to not believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one. 'Not to believe' =/= 'to believe not'. It may take faith to believe there is a creator or that there is no creator, but it takes no faith to reserve judgement until there is overwhelming evidence either way (i.e.; not to believe). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle "False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception." The fact is quite straight forward, nobody knows. You believe there isn't, someone else believes there is. Punctuation? Neither one of you knows you simply have opposing beliefs not worth worrying about either way, as it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever actually find out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 'Not to believe' =/= 'to believe not'. It may take faith to believe there is a creator or that there is no creator, but it takes no faith to reserve judgement until there is overwhelming evidence either way (i.e.; not to believe). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle "False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception." Punctuation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle Your first point is irrelevant, as it has no bearing on the point which I made in my post. I was replying to the post which I quoted, which should have been obvious. Razvanalbu made a categorical statement, 'There is no God', therefore my observation that in my opinion it takes as much faith not to believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one was perfectly valid as a retort. Do you accept that? As has been pointed out on many occasions ( and it is becoming boring ) I personally am one of the ones reserving judgement until such time - as unlikely as it may be - that positive proof is provided of either contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Your first point is irrelevant, as it has no bearing on the point which I made in my post. You said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to not believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one.", but it takes no faith not to believe in a creator. (Had you said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to believe there is no creator, as it does to believe in one.", then my point would indeed have been irrelevant, and I wouldn't have made it. I was replying to the post which I quoted, which should have been obvious. Yes. It was obvious. Razvanalbu made a categorical statement, 'There is no God', therefore my observation that in my opinion it takes as much faith not to believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one was perfectly valid as a retort. Do you accept that? No. 2 of the 3 options require faith. You excluded one of them and included the 3rd option which requires no faith. As has been pointed out on many occasions ( and it is becoming boring ) I personally am one of the ones reserving judgement until such time - as unlikely as it may be - that positive proof is provided of either contention. Therefore, you do not believe in a creator and you do not believe there is no creator. (...no faith either way.) ---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 11:27 ---------- In law, juries have to decide between (proved) guilty and not (proved) guilty. They are not required to have proof of innocence in order to acquit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to not believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one.", but it takes no faith not to believe in a creator. (Had you said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to believe there is no creator, as it does to believe in one.", then my point would indeed have been irrelevant, and I wouldn't have made it. Yes. It was obvious. No. 2 of the 3 options require faith. You excluded one of them and included the 3rd option which requires no faith. Therefore, you do not believe in a creator and you do not believe there is no creator. (...no faith either way.) ---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 11:27 ---------- In law, juries have to decide between (proved) guilty and not (proved) guilty. They are not required to have proof of innocence in order to acquit. My Bold in law a jury only have to have sufficient dought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 To quote Douglas Adams. ......stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' "'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to not believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one.", but it takes no faith not to believe in a creator. (Had you said, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to believe there is no creator, as it does to believe in one.", then my point would indeed have been irrelevant, and I wouldn't have made it. Yes. It was obvious. No. 2 of the 3 options require faith. You excluded one of them and included the 3rd option which requires no faith. Therefore, you do not believe in a creator and you do not believe there is no creator. (...no faith either way.) ---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 11:27 ---------- In law, juries have to decide between (proved) guilty and not (proved) guilty. They are not required to have proof of innocence in order to acquit. If it was obvious, then it should also have been obvious that my reply - to someone stating as a matter of fact that there is no God - had no need of further inclusions or exclusions. It seems to me that you were that eager to jump in on your specialist subject, in order to apprise us all of your incomparable wisdom that you failed to comprehend my post correctly. My reply - as already pointed out, but apparently not understood - was to a specific statement made by razvanalbu which required no further embellishment. He said 'There is no God' I replied that in my view it requires as much faith to hold that view as the opposite one. No need for a philosophical debate, simply a one off observation in reply to a specific statement. Do you understand that now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 [/b] My Bold in law a jury only have to have sufficient dought. (Doubt?) Correct. They do not have to be convinced of someone's innocence, merely that they have not been proven guilty. (Which is what I said.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 (Doubt?) Correct. They do not have to be convinced of someone's innocence, merely that they have not been proven guilty. (Which is what I said.) Please accept my humble apologise i did not read it correctly. doubt -/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 If it was obvious, then it should also have been obvious that my reply - to someone stating as a matter of fact that there is no God - had no need of further inclusions or exclusions. Your reply was, "In my view it takes as much 'faith' to not believe in a creator, as it does to believe in one.", but it takes no faith to not believe in something. To believe either way takes faith. It seems to me that you were that eager to jump in on your specialist subject, in order to apprise us all of your incomparable wisdom that you failed to comprehend my post correctly. I don't have a specialist subject. This is not Mastermind. I apparently comprehended your post more accurately than the poster did/does. My reply - as already pointed out, but apparently not understood - was to a specific statement made by razvanalbu which required no further embellishment. He said 'There is no God' I replied that in my view it requires as much faith to hold that view as the opposite one. No you did not. Your reply stated that the middle option (...reserving belief...) required as much faith as belief in god's existence. It requires no faith. Do you understand now? If not, try looking at the Wiki link which I provided. That should explain your error. ---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 13:04 ---------- Please accept my humble apologise i did not read it correctly. doubt -/ Accepted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.