Originally posted by Blackamp.....spanky
can we agree that:
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
Darwinian evolution of species via natural selection, with some modification, has been ...[text shortened]... oy entire cities, flood the entire planet and so on as per various religious tracts.
I have doubts about everything. I change my mind all the time. Reality is conceptual and contextual. Truth is interpretational. The existence of God, an omniscient, omnipotent, prime creator, absolute and only planner and determinant of the entire universe, is an uninteresting questions for me. The reason is that such a God wouldn't leave any doubts in my mind if that were part of this absolute and total and infinite universal plan. In fact, once the question is asked, the non-existence is answered. However, if the definitions are tweaked, then the existence is proved. For instance, God is good. God is "everything, sum total, from the beginning, as it is now, and until the end, and that means EVERYTHING, material, energy, symbolic, aesthetic, metaphorical, humorous, evil, meaningless, yes, even the best and worst chess moves, even the worst and lamest poster in the general forums of RHP, even the lowly bug and the highest form of art, everything is god, when summed. That's why the question is uninteresting. Ask better questions and you'll have a chance to get better answers, like 42.
Originally posted by coquetteWha !?!
I have doubts about everything. I change my mind all the time. Reality is conceptual and contextual. Truth is interpretational. The existence of God, an omniscient, omnipotent, prime creator, absolute and only planner and determinant of the entire universe, is an uninteresting questions for me. The reason is that such a God wouldn't leave any doubts in my m ...[text shortened]... uninteresting. Ask better questions and you'll have a chance to get better answers, like 42.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by Blackampone cannot prove a negative, therefor the only sensible solution is to buy into Pascal's wager and believe. It's the smart and logical thing to do.
can we agree that:
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
.
Originally posted by duecerI totally buy it. I believe that my neighbor, Bob, is God, and I follow him wholeheartedly. What else could I do? He threatened me with triple-infinite torment if I defy him. 😞
one cannot prove a negative, therefor the only sensible solution is to buy into Pascal's wager and believe. It's the smart and logical thing to do.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you kill him in his sleep, you get to be God next. shhhh that's supposed to be a secret.
I totally buy it. I believe that my neighbor, Bob, is God, and I follow him wholeheartedly. What else could I do? He threatened me with triple-infinite torment if I defy him. 😞
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe eyeball's evolution is not that difficult.
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
False. You can't prove a negative.....It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
D icate mechanism would be impossible....or at least so unlikely to make it nonsensical.
1) Eyespots - nerve cells on the surface of the skin become sensitive to light e.g. Euglena, Chlamydomonas. This is the origin of the retina.
2) Cup/Pit - the eyespots sink into a hollow with a small opening, allowing for the ability to tell which direction the light is coming from e.g. the planarium, some snails.
3) Pinhole camera - The opening to the Cup narrows until there is only a very small opening, allowing the eye to function as a pinhole camera, producing images e.g. nautilus.
4) Covered hole - transparent cells grow over the opening, preventing bacteria and stuff from getting inside.
5) Lens - Another transparent layer forms over the first, making the cover stronger, and fluid fills the space between, allowing nutrients and waste to pass in and out of the covering. When there's a gap between two tissue layers and fluid fills in between, the natural result is a biconvex lens. This second layer (the outside of the lens) has similarities to skin that is shedding.
6) Mineralization - the transparent cells are replaced by transparent minerals (ours is called crystallin). Minerals don't need biological maintainance like living cells do.
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye