Search results

that's not quite entirely true... there is no law saying matter cannot be created - in fact there's one that says it can (E=mc^2). the law of conservation states that E(total) must remain a constant, where E(total)=E(raw)+E(mass). and it isn't "some" that say matter was always there - the...

first we would have to cover if the big bang was even caused. causation implies time - but time wouldn't be present with the big bang. as for other possibilities, there are many. it's still debated if the big bang is part of a repeating cycle of big bang/big crunch or a single eruption within...

and that definition would still be irrelevant since it only refers to events that are random - abiogenesis and evolution are anything but random.

you sound like either a deist or natural pantheist. but there's one major flaw that makes the entire rest of the argument collapse - you're assuming that it's either a diety or pure chance (false dichotomy). In actuality, the likelihood of all those things happening by pure chance is the same as...

that's what editors are for ;) however, i seriously have to question his research - the claim "Darwin never seriously tackled human evolution" is demonstrably false - Darwin's second book, "The Descent of Man" seriously tackles human evolution.

i am not going to quote that whole post above this and have my post buried by it, but this is addressed to you malden... just because a book is published gives me no reason to think it's true - so, is there any articles supporting those claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so...

focusing in on the part i bolded, i understand that frustration. the problem is, we don't even have a definition of before the big bang (time originates at the big bang, thus defining 'before' becomes exceedingly difficult). the singularity of the big bang is a condition under which pretty much...

very good question - why do you believe it? *bangs head on desk* 2 major problems: 1 - this is an appeal to ignorance fallacy (please read my thread about logical fallacies) 2 - science doesn't claim that any of those are the result of accident or chance sort of defeats the purpose of the bible...

let's put your bolded claim to the test - ask your god to provide the argument that will convince me.

How to construct a good argument There is a great deal of debate over the internet - unfortunately, most arguments presented are very poorly developed. An argument, to quote a Monty Python sketch, is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." This occurs through 3...

which completely applies here. subjective experiences cannot be used to determine whether or not something is real without supporting objective evidence.

not in any intellectual arena it isn't. if it's not demonstrable, it's not presentable.

then it becomes a subjective experience and not evidence.

personal belief does not equal evidence. evidence is consistent regardless of the beliefs of the individual, eg. if we both test gravity by dropping a tennis ball, the result will be the same. can you present any evidence for the existence of angels/demons/ghosts/etc?

adding new assertions to an unsupported argument is usually bad practice. now you're in a position to have to provide evidence for satan, demons, and angels.

Logical Fallacies I've been noticing many people using logical fallacies in their arguments here and felt this needed to be covered. Using a logical fallacy renders your argument invalid, so they should be avoided. I'm going to cover some of the more common logical fallacies so you can...

@Soki - it's like shooting fish in a barrel also known as Pascal's Wager - and here's what's wrong with it... 1 - it's a false dichotomy. it assumes either the catholic god or no god. it ignores the plethora of other gods that could potentially exist - many of whom are quite jealous 2 - do you...

which particualr god are you claiming it is, and what evidence do you have for those claims? the big bang theory is not related to the theory of evolution intellectual honesty would require that we admit we don't know. not knowing something, however, is not evidence of the supernatural. that's a...

do you know that, or do you believe that? if you know it, as you claim, then you can provide objective evidence and it would be demonstrable.

a few things wrong here. first, you ignore the existence of 2 groups of people those that do not believe a god or gods exist those that believe in a different god or gods than you secondly, the method you describe is definately not scientific - to be scientific it must be objective, verifiable...