god created the universe and let it evolve without any furth

Post Reply New Topic

so typical. You have the ability to disagree with people that feel the same way as you but other people don't.

you seem more hypocritical than the religious people you hate

a pardon is granted.

Excuse me? Now your just pulling ideas about me out of your ass. Nothing you said made any sense, and you can consider yourself no longer worth talking to in my eyes. See ya!

I think you hit a nerve, Shiggily.

apparently.

Usually that means the person has no rebuttal.

I will break it down for you. You say " because some guy feels the same way about certain things as I do doesn't mean I agree with him completely"

which is the same way the people you hate feel about many of the things you hate. Many Christians have the same views but don't necessarily agree with each other completely. In fact. Many Muslims participate in the same religion but a large percentage do not feel that fundamentalist Muslims are correct in their suicide bombings and attacks on other countries.

However you are saying that you have the right to disagree with people who hold the same views as you. But other people do not have that right. If they are all Christian/Muslim/Jewish/[fill-in-the-blank-with-other-groups-you-hate] then they must have the same views AND must I agree with each other completely. They cannot disagree like you can. They are allllllllll the same.

which is hypocritical. You are affording yourself rights that you do not extend to other people. You hold them to a different standard then you hold yourself to. You profess to be logical and understanding, but it is obvious that you are not. You insist that only you and the people you agree with should be allowed the ability to disagree with people with the same views. But the people you disagree with should not be allowed that same freedom to differentiate themselves from people they do not want to be associated with (while still keeping the same views).

so...

if you are not being hypocritical... then what are you. what other word describes "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess" or "refusal to '...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others'"

By the way, did you know that "In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions. Also, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults which they condemn in others. This is called psychological projection. This is self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people."
Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3, 1–24.

so... you are lying to yourself. which brings me back to one of the first posts I replied to you with.

"All humans are hypocrites; the biggest hypocrite of all is the one who claims to detest hypocrisy."
Peter Wastholm

It is not simple. Life is a very complex mechanism, consciousness more so, and complexity doesn't just exist, it develops. The more complex something is, the less probable it is.

This is why Occam's Razor works. Either the universe started simple and became more complex, or something more complex than the universe designed it.

Superstitious people who use the universe's complexity as evidence of design or intent are committing a massive fallacy: they're explaining away complexity by making it more complex.

If one were to suggest that God was actually an extraordinarily simple event rather than a consciousness, that would be different. If one were to suggest that a cosmic consciousness evolved with the universe and that it is responsible for the events described in our mythologies, that would be different (involving a similar fallacy, but on a much smaller scale). Yet a being that developed with the universe rather than creating it isn't even a deistic God, and certainly isn't the one conjured by our great grandmonkeys' fireside ghost stories.

To my mind, this is an argument against the purported random nature of the universe. How could something so complex and internally consistent as the natural world have come togather by chance?

All theories about God and the origin of the universe are equally valid, given the amount of information we have on the subject. How can you argue theism over deism when the facts are simply not available to us?

Random? Chance? Bwuh?

its interesting that you find evolution simple and a god complex, when many other people feel the opposite and use Occam's Razor to justify the existence of a god.

Simplicity is a matter of perception.

Isn't this deism (as opposed to the more active theism)?

The very first question is a much different one: "Does the universe have an origin?" To repeat myself, e.g. Spinoza said No. There is no known process which creates energy/matter out of nothing, why we shall assume that there is such process at all. Even the Big Bang has its natural cause, a cause on which physics are currently speculating, and which can't determinate currently, but every hypothesis around works quite well without any divine interference.

The universe is not random. This is one of those idiotic ideas that religion keeps insisting on with no evidence. The universe is a complex interaction of a few basic laws with non-random results.

Newton was not a Christian. He denied the Trinity. He was more like a Deist. The other scientists and mathematicians you mentioned did not let their religion get in the way of their talent.

ruveyn