Advertisement
by Ermarian » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:39 pm
by Farnhamia » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:41 pm
Ermarian wrote:"Yes" represents my answer most closely, but the question is worded extremely poorly.
Do you believe in physics or mathematics? In magnetism or electricity?
These terms are meaningless because they use a form of the verb "believe" not applicable to reality. We can believe that a certain thing is true. But believing in something doesn't mean anything.
by Salandriagado » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:42 pm
That anything exists at all could be said to be proof of god. To admit the absence of a extra-universal object/being would be to suggest that the universe and therefore anything can come out of nothing for no reason at all, an argument which destroys the very basis of logic instantly.
Why would any sane group of humans profess to an ideal that renders them no better than anything else?
Evolution can also be interpreted to suggest that what exists is superior by virtue of the fact that it does exist compared to all the things that no longer exist. Evolution just being a system to test viability of different types, what succeeds is superior and what fails like all the species we are wiping out are inferior.
Evolution leads to atheism? If God does not exist then the logical conclusion for any sapient being to come to is that one must be made. Either the sapient being becomes the god or he makes it in his image.
A new belief system, that is what you are proposing here isn't it, will not stand a chance in the market place of people unless it raises and empowers them in some form, above others around them and the natural world.
You are just espousing an extreme deranged form of egalitarianism a jumble of present merged intellectual/social tends.
Mainly because being pro-life and anti-gay is not only tolerable within Libertarian ideals, but it is in line with the entire philosophy.
Libertarians believe that the worst thing is aggression against another. Since abortion is aggression against the unborn child, it is not only permittable but admirable to ban abortion.
Also, libertarians want to take the State out of marriage, hence gay marriage is no longer a possibility and cannot be forced on the people.
Maintaining a church-state separation could well be impossible if some form of belief system like Sociobiology's drivel further back must be recognized by all the government bureaucrats.
Politics in the past generation has taken an unusual turn. Saying a church/state separation is a bit like saying a belief/state separation. We also have economy/state separation in the form of the federal reserve. Can a state be valid if it is too disaggregated and broken up? Maybe it is for the better but I am no long entirely sure.
What's to believe in? It's proven.
The reverse could be said for atheists. The fact that an omnipotent entity who would punish them eternally for leading an immoral life is frightening to some.
Moral according to whom? Also, there are other factors than just that.
No.
No, because it can be incorrect depending on the source, ranging from oneself to society. The absolute standard is God.
No, because if the "morality" came from anywhere except God there is a chance of it being wrong.
Yes, there is an absolute standard. Denying it does not mean it does not exist.
1The Bible says there is only one God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe/multiverse. There are other supernatural beings, yes, but they are not immortal, and they certainly did not create the universe/multiverse, and they were created by God.
by CVT Temp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:47 pm
by Hurdegaryp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:50 pm
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Straughn » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:51 pm
Yeah, that's pretty well worded for a forum post.Hurdegaryp wrote:CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
Damn, I like that line of thought! I like it a lot!
by Farnhamia » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:53 pm
Hurdegaryp wrote:CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
Damn, I like that line of thought! I like it a lot!
by Hurdegaryp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:53 pm
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Hurdegaryp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:11 pm
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by New Sapienta » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:14 pm
by Big Jim P » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:15 pm
New Sapienta wrote:I believe in Intelligent Design.
In that, Darwin outlined the theory of evolution quite well, so he was intelligent, and designed how we should be aware of evolution.
by New Sapienta » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:17 pm
by Straughn » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:17 pm
Farnhamia wrote: Staying silent over a minor bit of semantics lets the creationists think they've won.
by Straughn » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Hurdegaryp wrote:I just did what I felt I had to do: I put CVT Temp's words in my signature. That way more people get to read it, which I consider to be a good thing.
by GSSR » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:19 pm
by Farnhamia » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:21 pm
GSSR wrote:No. It is completely absurd
by New Sapienta » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:21 pm
GSSR wrote:No. It is completely absurd
by CVT Temp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:23 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Evolution is absurd? Do tell.
by Farnhamia » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:25 pm
CVT Temp wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Evolution is absurd? Do tell.
Well it is. I mean, how come everything doesn't evolve at the same level? Why do some things take moon stones, fire stones, etc. to evolve, and why do some things only evolve if you trade them? Some don't evolve unless you trade them with special items, and others only evolve if they like you a lot. Espeon will only evolve if it happens to be really close to you and it decides to evolve during the day.
What a load of absurd, unscientific nonsense!
by CVT Temp » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:27 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Herador, Kenmoria, Kowani, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union
Advertisement