Adam and Eve or Evolution? (1 Viewer)

[live.fast]

You talk of god, and then say "suck your balls" to a thread that consists of many males.

Homosexuality is a sin. You just made an enemy of the "God" you are trying to defend. Ahahaha.

oh. Ahahaha. woah, your gayer than i thought.
..The ''God'' i'm tryin to defend? im guessing your atheist.

go suck my balls, atheist.

 

[Slidey]

oh. Ahahaha. woah, your gayer than i thought.
..The ''God'' i'm tryin to defend? im guessing your atheist.

go suck my balls, atheist.

UAI: 99.85
A STATE RANKING tutor wants YOU! :wave:
History Extension 49/50 (3rd in the state)
Ancient History 100/100 (Equal 3rd in the state)
Software D&D 95/100
2 unit Mathematics 97/100
3 Unit Mathematics 47/50
English (Advanced) 91/100 (I do have essays from someone who achieved 99/100 in last year's HSC exam!)
Philosophy HD (90+/100)
http://community.boredofstudies.org/...wants-you.html
$20p/h

DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

Perhaps you've a thread in the tutoring forum, and I can shine the light of your recent posts upon it?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

how do such dumb people get such good marks?

 

[live.fast]

oh no, no wayyy ZOMG nooo pplz will stop wanting tutoring from meee because im not always seirouss bout myself on boredofstudies.org FARKKKKKKK!!

.....

seriously. no offence. but you finisheed your HSC in 2005... it's now 2008... ???

 

[HalcyonSky]

oh no, no wayyy ZOMG nooo pplz will stop wanting tutoring from meee because im not always seirouss bout myself on boredofstudies.org FARKKKKKKK!!

.....

seriously. no offence. but you finisheed your HSC in 2005... it's now 2008... ???

a) stop trying to be funny, you're clearly failing
b) this thread are belong to us
c) just stop posting. you're an embarrassment.

 

[Stevo.]

Time to destroy his tuition business I think.

 

[KFunk]

The data so far:

(Edit: Also, for the 'lol'-factor a feasibility study of Noah's ark)

 

[KFunk]

I tried. One of my main initial contentions is that the author speaks as a philosopher, not as a scientist. It is a narrative of rhetoric and apparent logical conclusions; his idea of Hilbert's Hotel is actually logical fallacy.

I'm curious to know what you mean by "his idea of Hilbert's Hotel is actually logical fallacy."

His use of Hilbert's Hotel seems somewhat shakey to me because he only concludes that the idea is "absurd" not that it is logically impossible (the kind of claim which would be required to exclude the possibility categorically). His treatment of necessity/possibility are somewhat dicey, in particular the distinction he attempts to make between (1) logical possibility, (2) metaphysical possibility and (3) natural/real/actual possibility. In particular, many accounts of possibility will tend to merge (1) with (2) and so his desire to make part 2.11 of his argument fly (that an actual infinite cannot exist) would clash, on some accounts, with his desire to keep the infinite within the realms of the logically possible (no doubt to keep the mathematicians/set theorists at bay).

I really think he needs more than apparent absurdity to show the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite, i.e. empirical evidence that the universe is finite in some critical respect, or a logical argument against infinity (of the sort that would upset/anger the mathematicians). Nonetheless, on face value it seems reasonable that contingent objects must eventually rely for their existence upon necessary ones. I'm sure better arguments could be made.

Ahh, see your arguing with a whole point when you don't need to. The point he was trying to make was that the universe is not infinite - if you already believe that, then there is no problem.

The Kalam cosmological argument can be summarized to:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

That, is pretty much all this article entails - it does not delve much into why he believes that this cause is God (I'm pretty sure that there are other articles with his opinion in those areas). If you agree with the above points of the argument, what do you peronsally attribute to the cause of the beginning of the universe?

In broad terms I agree with the argument you state there (given certain restrictions on what is meant by the term 'universe'). However, all that argument really does is get you on the same page as those who seek a naturalistic explanation of the universe - as you identify, it doesn't show that the cause of the universe must be god, only that a cause is required for that which begins to exist. All we need in our explanation is some kind of necessary (i.e. non-contingent) 'thing' which is such that it could generate a universe such as ours. The structure of this fundamental substance (as we might call it) is best left, in my opinion, to the physicists, mathematicians and philosophers rather than the theologians (my opinion is largely due to the kind of methodologies these respective groups use; the former three tend to be open to novel explanations whereas the theologian is restricted by their belief system to engage in an ad hoc patch making exercise).

For an example of the kind of entities you might expect to be proposed you could consider structures from mathematical physics like branes in M-Theory (for a note of irony: M-theory / stringtheory are perhaps controversial in a manner similar to the 'god hypothesis' in so far as it is supposedly questionable whether they are even falsifiable at this point in time). Unfortunately the complexity of theories such as these makes it near impossible for us plebs to even have a crack at guaging their plausibility.

 

[KFunk]

Thanks guys, I appreciate it. Just to stir up the pot a little I figured I'd toss in a little link between evolution and belief in Adam and Eve. The following passage comes form a book I am currently reading by philosopher of mind and biology Daniel Dennett which makes use of the concept of a meme (a term coined by Richard Dawkins), which is a kind of self propogating cultural 'unit'. The concept arose because the notion of 'evolution' is so abstract that its basic requirements - (1) variation, (2) heredity or replicability and (3) variable fitness - might be realised in a number of different situations.

Take a cultural practice like "Uncle Joe's fishing method". (1) it competes with other fishing methods (maybe cousin Peggy-Sue devised one), (2) it can be inherited/replicated since your Uncle Joe may teach it to you, among others, and (3) it may be more likely to be passed on by virtue of its being a better method for catching fish (versus, say, Peggy-Sue's) or perhaps the method is simply more entertaining/ennjoyable to practice. In any case, with that context I thought this quote may be of interest here:

"... whatever virtues (from our perspective) the following memes have, they have in common the property of having phenotypic expressions that tend to make their own replication more likely by disabling or preempting the environmental forces that would tend to extinguish them: the meme for faith, which discourages the exercise of the sort of critical judgement that might decide that the idea of faith was all things considered a dangerous idea; the meme for tolerance or free speech; the meme of including in a chain letter a warning about the terrible fates of those who have broken the chain in the past; the conspiracy theory meme, which has a built-in response to the objection that there is no good evidence of conpiracy: "Of course not - that's how powerful the conspiracy is!"

...

Other things being equal, population memetics predicts that conspiracy theory memes will persist quite independently of their truth, and the meme for faith is apt to secure its own survival, and that of religious memes that ride piggyback on it, in even the most rationalistic environments."

 

[chaldoking]

Creationism all the way!

 

[chaldoking]

a) stop trying to be funny, you're clearly failing
b) this thread are belong to us
c) just stop posting. you're an embarrassment.

a) He is funny - much more funny than you.
b) Get your english right - you can't even string a sentence together.
c) I think you should stop posting, see above.
d) I agree - you finished university ages ago - get a life.

 

[Trefoil]

a) He is funny - much more funny than you.
b) Get your english right - you can't even string a sentence together.
c) I think you should stop posting, see above.
d) I agree - you finished university ages ago - get a life.

Get the fuck out of this thread, moron.

 

[chaldoking]

Get the fuck out of this thread, moron.

LOL are you going to force me out? Nah, im fine, im listening to the literary entertainment that evolution has to offer.

 

[martin123]

It was adam and eve who were the first people on this Earth. God createn man and woman to live in the Garden of Eden and to produce children. Jesus came to this Earth to die for the sins that mankind commits and the very first sin was when adam and eve ate of the forbidden tree.

1 Corinthians 15:22

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[chaldoking]

It was adam and eve who were the first people on this Earth. God createn man and woman to live in the Garden of Eden and to produce children. Jesus came to this Earth to die for the sins that mankind commits and the very first sin was when adam and eve ate of the forbidden tree.

1 Corinthians 15:22

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Agreed.

 

[martin123]

If evolouution was true then what people are saying is if people spent 1 month living in the sea then there body should adapt to the environment by forming fins and gills to swim because evoloution is when an animal changes its body to suit the environment features. Would this actually happpen? I dare you people who belive in evoloution to go out and live in the water and we will see if you bodies will grown new adaptions to suit the environment.Unlikely! you say evoloution happened but you havent even witnessed it. Did you see come from apes? did some one recor us evolving from apes? or is it because you cannot see God so you decide to form weird theories to answer you questions. why not turn to God to find the answes through the bible.

 

[HNAKXR]

More like DEVILoution !

brother can i get an AMEN!

 

[Trefoil]

If evolouution was true then what people are saying is if people spent 1 month living in the sea then there body should adapt to the environment by forming fins and gills to swim because evoloution is when an animal changes its body to suit the environment features. Would this actually happpen? I dare you people who belive in evoloution to go out and live in the water and we will see if you bodies will grown new adaptions to suit the environment.Unlikely! you say evoloution happened but you havent even witnessed it. Did you see come from apes? did some one recor us evolving from apes? or is it because you cannot see God so you decide to form weird theories to answer you questions. why not turn to God to find the answes through the bible.

Evolution doesn't say that.

Evolution simply says that without society's safe nets to protect the profoundly retarded like yourself, you would not survive in nature, and hence you would not have children who are also profoundly retarded - allowing the intelligent people who do survive to reproduce instead.

 

[chaldoking]

Evolution doesn't say that.

Evolution simply says that without society's safe nets to protect the profoundly retarded like yourself, you would not survive in nature, and hence you would not have children who are also profoundly retarded - allowing the intelligent people who do survive to reproduce instead.

L.A.M.E.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Creationism all the way!

This comes to mind