Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Exactly what is it that you are arguing? When you say humans evolved by exactly the same process exactly what do you mean? Do you just mean a process of adaptation determined by natural selection?
Created:
This is actually evidence of common ancestry. It tells us litteraly nothing about the existence or nonexistence of any god(s)some evidence for godhumans have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthdogs have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthhorses have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1mouthkangarooshave2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthbears have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthbeavers have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthrabbits have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthdeer have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthtiger have2 eyes2 ears1 nose1 mouthlions have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouthracoons have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouthcheetahs have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouthmonkeys have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouthmole have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1mouthrats have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouthelephents have2 ears2 eyes1 nose1 mouth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You will forgive me but I was under the impression that cult and religion were synonyms. If that is not the case what precisely is the difference between a cult and a religion?
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen--> @disgusted
I'm not sure I understand this feud you two have been having on so many threads of late. It seems like disgusted once said humans evolved just like everything else did and Stephen is hung up on the semantics saying "nuh uh not 'just like' everything else. We didn't evolve into trees or frogs or emus all of which have their own evolutionary line! So there!
Am I misunderstanding that?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not sure what you are asking here.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If an AI existed with the ability to seem self aware by every testable standard then I would be unable to distinguish it from a truly self aware thing even if it was not.
Under those circumstances I believe my empathy would guide me to argue for this hypothetical AI's personal rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
how can the fern have medical properties that help humans if humans did not appear for another 360 mill years
This is a non sequitur. You seem to be implyimg that the purpose of a fern is its medicinal properties. The purpose of a fern, if it has one, is to reproduce. Any medicinal properties are therefore entirely coincidental.
Created:
Posted in:
were does it say that in comparison to other plants because it looks like there saying that there generally primitive
Right here where it specifically singles out non-flowering plants
Non-flowering plants like mosses, horsetails, ferns, clubmosses, ginkgos, and cycads, though often referred to as primitive
I mean you provided the quote man. Primitive plants not plants are primitive. So specifically in comparison to flowering plants. Not in cimparison to animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Because that is what the evidence (both fossil and genetic) supportswhy do the say the single cell came before a deer in there timeline
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Cause and effect.why do you think they said ferns formed before animals like bears deer and others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
In comparison to other plants not in comparison to animals. Your argument remains a non issue.Non-flowering plants like mosses, horsetails, ferns, clubmosses, ginkgos, and cycads, though often referred to as primitive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I am telling you that yoir argument is a non issue. Where is your sources are plants as a whole refered to as primitive? Where in your spirces is it claimed that complex plant life preceded complex animal life?
Evolutionary science is not arguing either of those things. Pleaee stop strawmanning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Again evolutionary science does not make the claim that plants are primitive nor that plants preceded animals.
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
That is a little vague. If my answer is to be equally vague I wpuld be forced to say "someone".
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
Wisdom is subjective to the situation under discussion. When sailing an experienced sea captain may behave wisely while a lawyer may not be but the same sea captain may not make very wise decisions in a court of law while the lawyer is more likely to.
Created:
Posted in:
if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God.
Is heaven not a perfect world?
you guys are assuming a perfect world is best.
No I did not. You presented a hypothetical in which freewill is impossible in a perfect world. I asked for a clarification of this thought experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
No evolutionary science makes this claim. Neither that plants were the first life nor that contemporary plants are "primitive".they say plants were the first life to appear on earth. something billion years ago. they say this because they believe plants are primitive
Please address this issue since the rest of your argument seems to hinge on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's.
What makes some god(s) preference better than that of Hitler or mother Teresa (by all accounts both Terrible people but neither of whom commanded quite as many genocides as the god depicted in the bible.)
Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared?
Show me why some god(s) moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared?
While you are about it perhaps you can also explainhow you have determined any god(s) moral preferences in the first place.
One other thing. I don't think we actually need a universal standard just one we agree upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In which way are you rejecting the flying spaghetti monster?I say "reject to be untrue" because that's not what the atheist experience hosts mean when they say they "reject" the existence of God claims. By "reject" they mean to remain merely non-acceptant.
Also could you still stop using that double negative and find a way of saying that that does not gramatically cancel itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Non-physical sounds like another word for nothing. This includes non-physical beings, non-physical consciousnesses and non-physical pasta equally. If you are making am exception for your personal pet hypothesis why not make an exception for everyone personal pet hypothesis?Spiritpasta sounds like another word for nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well statedI haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.You just redefine the item with "special" properties. Like when someone says "god is love".Does this mean that god is a human emotion that facilitates the propagation of the species?Does love have any physical properties?Is love omnipotent and omniscient?No, of course not. In every example "god" is a "special case".The same is true for the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok spiritpasta. It is identical to pasta in every way except that it is nonphysical. So essentially nonphysical pasta.All you need to do is pick a new word. Pasta is defined by its composition of physical characteristics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Could you please think of another way of saying this the double negative makes my head swim.reject to be untrue.
I've said many times that I do not care about people's psychology of belief/disbelief. I care about that claims that they accept to be true and the claims they reject to be untrue.
That is why I am asking precisely how you separate one from the other. What is the difference between the brainstate that expresses a belief and the belief when expressed? Clearly this dustinction is very important to you but it seems like you are proposing nonphysical pasta to me. Sure its plausible if we accept a broader definition of consciousness/pasta than is supportable by science. My question is why apply this standard to one and not the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It only violates the law of identity if you prescriptively define pasta as physical. If you are open to a broader definition of pasta then no violation occurs. If you are not open then I must ask why you expect me to be more open in my definition of conciousness which so far as I can tell is just a brainstate.I haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.
Since brainstate are physical a nonphysical consciousness violates the law of identity.
So which is it. If you expect me to produce evidence for nonphysical pasta I expect you to provide evidence of a nonphysical consciousness. If you expect to dismiss nonphysical pasta as logically inconsistent just because you have never seen any then I expect to dismiss nonphysical consciousness on the same grounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please explain the discernable difference between acceptance and the brainstate of acceptance. Please explain why the dustinction requires a burden of proof from a disbelieve but not from a believer.One means to accept a given state of affairs as true and the other doesn't take into account any given state of affairs aside from the belief/,no belief brainstate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What are we awake and aware of if not our physical surroundings? Unless you can demonstrate the existence of nonphysical surroundings you are in the same position as someone who proposes nonphysical pasta.
Your standard for what is reasonable should be applied equally to all claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You have failed to eliminate the possibility of non physical pasta merelyvasserted your disbelief/belief to the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok so what specifically is the difference between the two. If a belief is discernable different from the attitude or psychological state of believing?“belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well statedI don't believe in that BB theory in it's present form is the complete answer and solution to 'where do we come from?', but I do believe it is a lot closer to the truth than Moses' six-day theory.I believe the final answer will be a refinement of the BB. If you think in black and white then I too 'disbelieve' the BB because its not a perfect theory yet, but my disbelief towards the BB is not the same kind of disbelief I have towards Genesis.What you wrote implies you have exactly the same attitude towards Genesis and the BB. I'll concede they are both wrong, but the important thing is they are wrong in different ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does.
Can you prove that consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does?
Also do you believe consciousness does not derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta does or do you disbelieve that consciousness does derive its meaning from a composition of physical properties like pasta doesn't.?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
At the minimum it is a nonphysical pasta monster responsible for the existence of the universe. I thought I had made that clear but if not there it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In what way is believing or disbeliving claims not simply a brainstate? Please explain the difference beyween the brainstate of belief/disbelief and the belief/disbelief itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I defined the pasta monster concept as well as some theists define their god concepts. A definition being vague dies not affectcits voracity remember?
If you disbelieve in nonphysical pasta just because there happens to be apparently physical pasta then why not disbelieve equally in consciousness because there is apparently physical consciousness? How does one violate the laws of identity and the other does not?
I propose you are applying a double standard between your beliefs and the beliefs of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"I believe it is true that there are no god(s)" then qualifies as a belief. It is after all the acceptance that something is true."Correct.
Excellent since we agree that beliefs do not require a burden of proof then this belief does not require any burden of proof. Or at least no more of aburden if proof than the statement "I believe it is true that some god(s) exist" would.
If someone claims "God exists" and you disbelieve them, you are mentally rejecting that to be untrue. Note that this, by itself, is not accepting that "God does not exist" is true. The "God does not exist is true" part is *logically entailed* by their disbelief in the "God exists" claim.
That is irrelevant. Either beliefs require a burden of proof or they do not. If this is not a universally applicable standard please explain why believing something todoes not exist should be subjected to a different standard and why you continue to tefuse to conform to this different standard in regards to your apastaism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I already have. The word "pasta" derives its meaning from its composition of physical properties. The word "pasta", therefore, cannot also refer to a non-physical object as it would be a violation of the of indentity, one of the three fundamental laws of logic.
If nonphysical pasta exists then it clearly also refers to pasta that is non physical. Unless you can disprove the existence of non physical pasta it is not, by your presented metric, more rational to disbelieve than to believe.
Also while we are on the subject do you believe that it is true that there is no non physical pasta or do you disbelieve in non physical pasta? Two different things apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"I believe it is true that there are no god(s)" then qualifies as a belief. It is after all the acceptance that something is true.Is it accepting that something is true or exists? If no, it's not a belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Clearly if nonphysical pasta exists it also refers to the non physical sort. Please disprove the existence of non physical pasta.Okay, the word "pasta" refers to something comprised of physical properties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please explain how this is not a belief.Disbelief means mentally rejecting something to be untrue or false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If it's not physical then it isn't pasta
Please disprove the existence of non physical pasta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Please explain how this standard of appeal is anything but some hypothetical god(s) subjective opinion?God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appeal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well if you disbelieve two options where one option must be correct then you're guaranteed to be wrong.
A conscious creator and the universe beginning with the big bang are hardly the only options.
Also how is disbelief not simply a belief? And if it is just a belief and beliefs do not require a burden of proof why do you claim that disbelief does. And if it is not a belief what the hell is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
When did I ever claim it was a physical pasta monster?The pasta monster violates the law of identity as a physical but non-physical entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The distinction is meaningless. I disbelieve both.I submit you reject neither, not both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Did all things originate from an eternal pasta monster or not? That's about as simple as the distinction between pastaism and apastaism gets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Particularly if we make indescribable part of its prescriptive definition.The Flying-Spaghetti-Monster defies description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How does the existence of such a being make what is better or worse anything but a subjective opinion?There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
God's existence is a prerequisite for moral realism, so "better" can't be meaningful.
No god(s) needed only a universal self evident standard. The fact that neither would appear to exist does not mean the two are contingent upon each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Is heaven not a perfect world?if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
By our current standard of what constitutes educated (the holding of a degree) that would seem to be supported by available statistics but correlation does not necessarily equal causation so perhaps some factor other than their college education makes degree holders more statistically likely to be atheists.Is it true that the more educated you become, the less inclined you are to believe that God exists? What is your level of education and do you believe that God exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Apologies again kieth. The conversation seems to have picked up a momentum that is not easily stemmied. It is almost as if we have no choice.
Created: