I can prove God exists

[invest07]

I brought Thomas Acquinas into the discussion as a counter to the comment about William of Occam (I've no clue who Billy is).
Acquinas argued 5 logical reasons for the existence of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae

 

[Coyote]

coyote

"Again, it's not linear."

And I am not contending that evolution is alleged to operate in a linear manner. The overall direction must be one way (higher levels of organization) but evolutionary theory allows for accelerations and decelerations.

My point is that over 1.5 billiion or so years, evolution must make progress toward the goal of 6 billion chems in the right slot and the average rate that must be maintained can be calculated.

If a teacher has 30 papers to grade and it is 4 days until grades are due, the teacher must maintain an average rate of grading 7.5 papers a day. This does not mean the teacher sits at his/her desk and grades papers for the entire 4 days. The teacher can grade a few in the morning and a few more at night. The teacher can even skip a day. The only critical thing is to maintain the overall average rate of 7.5/day.

Slower some times, faster others, but evolution must always be moving toward higher levels of organization all the time.

There is not enough time, even with 1.5 billion years. Even speeding up and slowing down, there is not enough time.

There is no where near enough time.

Whether evolution is hypothesized to behave in a linear manner or in spurts, there is no where near enough time.

[/quote]

Your mathmatical progression here is still a linear one. Evolution is likely a geometric type of progression.

 

[numinus]

Sublime,

Where you referring to this?

"The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.
2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.
3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.
4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God."

Or this?

"Despite pagan associations with natural law theory, a number (though not all) of the early Church Fathers sought to incorporate it into Christianity (the suspect devotion of the Stoics to pagan worship no doubt aided in this adoption). This was true in the West more so than in the East. The most notable among these was Augustine of Hippo, who equated natural law with man's prelapsarian state; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law and grace. In the Twelfth Century, Gratian reversed this, equating the natural and divine laws. Thomas Aquinas restored Natural Law to its independent state, asserting that, as the perfection of human reason, it could approach but not fully comprehend the Eternal law and needed to be supplemented by Divine law."

Either way, what you are saying is off by miles. You need to read sources other than the comic book version for academic discussions, I'm afraid.

 

[numinus]

Aquinas was intellectually dishonest. He either lied to himself or lied to everyone else. He was anything but rational.

And yet, you can't point out the fallacy.

Your OPINIONS are wearing thin.

 

[numinus]

The problem is that your trying to replace science with your metaphysical bull****, which comes from a western/christianized thought process, and people are calling you on it.

I have replied to all your posts with the same SCIENCE you purport to be speaking from.

I assumed that your long absence was spent on verifying what I have said for the purpose of debunking them. Seeing none, this post merely serves to amuse.

 

[numinus]

Your mathmatical progression here is still a linear one. Evolution is likely a geometric type of progression.[/QUOTE]

A geometric progression {a*b*c*......}, as opposed to an arithmetic progression {a+b+c+....} would only prove invest's proposition, I'm afraid.

 

[Coyote]

Your mathmatical progression here is still a linear one. Evolution is likely a geometric type of progression.

A geometric progression {a*b*c*......}, as opposed to an arithmetic progression {a+b+c+....} would only prove invest's proposition, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how as less time is needed. Geometric may be the wrong term for what I mean but evolution is definately not a linear progression.

 

[ArmChair General]

I have replied to all your posts with the same SCIENCE you purport to be speaking from.

I assumed that your long absence was spent on verifying what I have said for the purpose of debunking them. Seeing none, this post merely serves to amuse.

Nah I have a life where I do things outside of the internet. I guarantee you I didn't give you or your bogus metaphysical opinions a single thought while I was away. Your not that important.

 

[ArmChair General]

And yet, you can't point out the fallacy.

Your OPINIONS are wearing thin.

I don't need to. Read Hume, Dawkins or a library of other great thinkers if you'd like to see Aquinas's work reduced to the bull**** that it is.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What are you guys even talking about any more?

 

[ArmChair General]

coyote

"Again, it's not linear."

And I am not contending that evolution is alleged to operate in a linear manner. The overall direction must be one way (higher levels of organization) but evolutionary theory allows for accelerations and decelerations.

My point is that over 1.5 billiion or so years, evolution must make progress toward the goal of 6 billion chems in the right slot and the average rate that must be maintained can be calculated.

If a teacher has 30 papers to grade and it is 4 days until grades are due, the teacher must maintain an average rate of grading 7.5 papers a day. This does not mean the teacher sits at his/her desk and grades papers for the entire 4 days. The teacher can grade a few in the morning and a few more at night. The teacher can even skip a day. The only critical thing is to maintain the overall average rate of 7.5/day.

Slower some times, faster others, but evolution must always be moving toward higher levels of organization all the time.

There is not enough time, even with 1.5 billion years. Even speeding up and slowing down, there is not enough time.

There is no where near enough time.

Whether evolution is hypothesized to behave in a linear manner or in spurts, there is no where near enough time.

Your perception of "evolution" is incomplete. Your (incomplete) definition of evolution is merely a hindsight model, the tracing of steps from present, backwards. Evolution looks perfectly linear that way.

What you've failed to realize is that when tracing an evolution back, the Genetic Algorithim selection is implied along the forward direction. You've failed to see that the selection takes place, and in fact failed to see that there's a forward direction in the first place, hence your belief that the model is linear.

If you are interested, follow the link above and give it a read. You'll find pretty much every challenge you've raised is met there, and you won't find one shred of linearity in it once the "hindsight" view is discarded.

 

[ArmChair General]

What are you guys even talking about any more?

just the same old nonsense that creationists and verbose sophists use to attack things they do not understand.

 

[gtanner79]

Does God exist?

Not that I've read every reply in this post, but there seems to be a lot of back-and-forth concerning Design vs. Nature.

I believe God exists, but my definition of "God" has changed much over the years.

I recommend reading "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" by Carl Sagan. It's a transcription of a lecture series he gave in 1985 that is concerned mostly with how we define God and using scientific parameters and thinking to "search for God". It's fascinating.

Some points that I learned from that book.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Surely this must be true.

Some scientists and physicists now believe that God is somewhat of a representation of physics itself, perhaps the underlying forces of Nature that seem to be ever-pervasive and just beyond our understanding (i.e. a Unified Theory). This is an interesting proposition.

Most of the arguments of Design vs. Nature center on God's motives or his "personality". For example - if God did "design" everything - why have failed "experiments" like extinct animals and such? Or, if God simply started the process and sits back to enjoy what's created (somewhat of a Nature theory) why would he care to "meddle" in our lives?

I think the search for God or against God is truly a personal one. The search for science is something that humans as a species must pursue. But, perhaps the two can serve one another. For example, it would seem that our scientific knowledge has only enhanced our view of God and clarified it for us (or it should). For those of us who don't believe in God, perhaps studying it can enhance one's view of science or the world itself.

That was a bit rambling...sorry about that.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

just the same old nonsense that creationists and verbose sophists use to attack things they do not understand.

One thing is sure. There is a **** load of verbose sophistry going on in this thread.

 

[vyo476]

One thing is sure. There is a **** load of verbose sophistry going on in this thread.

That's pretty much why I ducked out of this thread myself.