Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ET_

I was talking about homosexual tendencies, that is what a man or woman feels (s)he is. As it is not necessarily related to his/her sex, your question is not correct.

I thought what you meant was that homosexual tendencies have different manifestations in men and women. If so, then my argument was: that's mostly gene-related.

But perhaps you meant something else, in which case the remainder of my response was off-track.

Not completely exact. We are not talking about roles taken by individuals.

Then I almost certainly misunderstood.

Substitute "homosexual" with "sexual".
Do you believe in the superiority of man over woman?

Well, this is part of the off-track response ... but I'd say that the differences between men and women might imply group-average superiority of one or the other in some particular limited areas, but it's not valid to assert an overall superiority of either gender over the other. I don't agree with that portion of the "strict father" worldview (http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/pr...ly/sfworldview).

[retina]

Originally Posted by ET_

Reversing your sentence shows that we (and the universe) are the purpose of God.

Okay, let my try:

purposes or reasons, gods invent to need No! what so, is just It. purpose a have to needs universe the why reason no see I.

Hmm, nope, doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it would make sense to David John Hill Jr.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by jinydu

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that you are not considering God to be an individual; perhaps by "individual", you mean "individual human". But even so, that definition of arbitrary does not support your argument:

1) Even if God were real, God's decisions would still be subject to judgment, at least under the usual definition of the word, since people are apparently still capable of agreeing or disagreeing with the judgments, even if they have no power over them. Of course, the same is true for the laws of nature; if I have just fallen down the stairs, I may develop a very negative judgment of the law of gravity.

2) I agree that the definition establishes that:

(God makes the main decisions) --> (The universe is not arbitrary)

However, that is definitely not the same thing as saying:

(The universe is not arbitrary) --> (God makes the main decisions)

This is a classic error in logic; knowing that A implies B tells you nothing about whether or not B implies A.

In fact, by your definition of arbitrary, a universe governed by physical laws but that was not created by any God would be just as non-arbitrary, since humans have no control over the laws.

First, dictionaries are written by oeople so they consequently only refer to humans, so, no, God is not a person. Second, God's law is not my idea of "subject to judgement" because "subjecting yourself, or anything, to something" is putting yourself, or that thing, under someone else's authority. Due to the fact that humans have no choice as to being under the authority of God because God created humanity, that's why it supports my idea. Yes, humans have free will to agree or disagree, but it would not matter either way in the first place when God is concerned. For my purpose in my idea, and the definitions I have given, the universe, as I said before, cannot have a purpose on its own because, and unless, the universe is intelligent on its own somehow, so its apparent laws are of no purpose either then. Now, please tell me any significant difference between the following sentenes, please:

1. God created the universe so it's not arbitrary.
2. The universe is not arbitrary because it was created by God.

I don't see a difference. They both say what I meant.

Originally Posted by jinydu

Ok, but you have now used a definition of purpose that is different from what I had in mind. It is no longer obvious why purposeless of the universe, under your definition of purpose, should imply . After all, the non-existence of an original purpose would not prevent humans from creating their own purpose. Now you may counter that this new purpose would be arbitrary, but you have not shown why an arbitrary purpose should be considered illegitimate, under your definitions of "arbitrary" and "purpose".

What definition of "purpose" did you have in mind? That second sentence of yours, unless my ability to comprehend English has evaporated, seems to either be missing a few words or you've used a word you didn't mean to use in it. I don't quite understand it and I can't really respond to it because of that. As for your third sentence, under my previous definitions, the purpose humans create on their own is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless except as what those specific people gave that purpose. It's illigitimate in relation to God, that's why. Of course, you'd have to care more about that than what you as a person want for this to make complete sense to you, I guess.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Do you think that whether a person is man or woman is driven by environment rather than by genes? I doubt you do.

Gender may not be affected by environment and nature, but gender identity is and I think that's what the post Cheesehead replied to was meaning. I learned about this in school, and no, it wasn't a psychology class. Anyway, over the last century or two it may be less subtle, but parents and society in general have always been teaching little boys and little girls to be certain ways that they are expected to be as an adult.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But there is intelligence behind all the things you mention: human intelligence!

It seems to me that you're just not willing to credit humans for all the thinking they(we) have done: Your insistence on requiring intelligence that's beyond human is based only on refusal to grant that all manifestations of intelligence that you cite are in fact traceable to humans, with no superhuman extension required.

... and humans have that intelligence, think those thoughts, make those plans, and construct those reasons and explanations.

But that's only because you've been taught (by humans!) to consider some products of intelligence (such as religion, or God) to be beyond human capabilities, when they're actually not, and to consider other ideas to be beyond human capabilities, when they're not.

Some people want to attribute part of their thinking to "supernatural" origin, and seek to satisfy that desire by convincing other people to adopt the same ideas, but that desire does not prove that there is actually any "supernatural" other-than-human origin of that thinking.

The problem with things you have said here is that it's not the same when God is supposed to be the ultimate authority. That's why, as you put it, I mention above human intelligence. Humans don't actually create in the sense that God would. I agree that humans are intelligent, but that intelligent is meaningless in comparison to God because God is in charge having created everything around us. BTW, I'm familiar with all the "people only want things to be true" line of thinking that non-believers like to use. The use of that argument shows you sort of understand what I'm trying to say, but you may not realize it. Humans WANT alot of things, but that doesn't make anything they do on their own meaningful in an absolute sense which is what you have when dealing with God.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ET_

Sounds like the episthemologic proof of St. Anselm... arrived half millennium late.

Luigi

Was this supposed to be an insult?

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ET_

Reversing your sentence shows that we (and the universe) are the purpose of God.

Now, the logical question: if God is omnipotent, could he avoid creation, defying His existence purpose (and so Himself)?

Luigi

Um, you are implying that God HAD to create things He created. Where are you getting that God didn't do it simply because God wanted to do it?

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by retina

Okay, let my try:

purposes or reasons, gods invent to need No! what so, is just It. purpose a have to needs universe the why reason no see I.

Hmm, nope, doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it would make sense to David John Hill Jr.

OTOH it doesn't sound that much more nonsensical than several
other posts in this thread

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

The problem with things you have said here is that it's not the same when God is supposed to be the ultimate authority.

< snip >

Whoops. My response to you in posting #287 was on-topic, I think, but my next response to you in #315 veered off toward "Does God exist?" territory. I see how to respond to your #288 in an on-topic manner, and will post that when it's ready.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

That second sentence of yours, unless my ability to comprehend English has evaporated, seems to either be missing a few words or you've used a word you didn't mean to use in it. I don't quite understand it and I can't really respond to it because of that.

Go back and read my post; I used a quote from you to complete the sentence.

I don't really have time to respond right now; I have a huge amount of homework due tomorrow.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Was this supposed to be an insult?

Not at all!

His proof is still believed as a most logically correct one.
The only way to defy it is applying it to a metaphisical reasoning system.

Luigi