sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Who created us?
Who says we necessarily had to be 'created'?Occam's razor: The most simple theory is usually the correct one; we exist, therefore we had to be created.
Creation is the theory which also explains things the most without leaving huge unexplained holes in it, such as where did the Big Bang come from?
Here's a question for atheists? Explain altruism? It doesn't fit in with any of Darwin's theories. Why does it exist?
You know this forum is dead when I start discussing religion.
Creation is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Creation is a mere assertion. Try again. And be more careful in the future with the use of the word "theory".
Occam's razor doesn't apply because by asserting creation you are adding complexity by demandning a creator which is more complex than the creation. That is not the simpler explanation at all.
Your understaniding of the current biological theory of evolution appears deficient. Numerous peer review papaers and numerous lay explanations of how altruism is compatible, indeed predicted, within evolutionary thoery are avaialble. I suggest you read some of them to answer your questions.
Ok, here's his post.
Paragraph 1: Creation is a theory. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
btw, we can't deduce the existence of God with simple scientific theory as God exists outside of time and space. It's the wrong approach and will lead nowhere.
Paragraph 2: Subjective. I don't find the idea of a Creator complex at all. Why do you find it so "complex"?
Paragraph 3: It would appear that you can't answer the question. Or, you would. My understanding of Darwin and his theories is perfectly sufficient for this debate. So, again I ask you to explain altruism. Why does it exist?
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Who created us?
Who says we necessarily had to be 'created'?Occam's razor: The most simple theory is usually the correct one; we exist, therefore we had to be created.
Creation is the theory which also explains things the most without leaving huge unexplained holes in it, such as where did the Big Bang come from?
Here's a question for atheists? Explain altruism? It doesn't fit in with any of Darwin's theories. Why does it exist?
You know this forum is dead when I start discussing religion.
Creation is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Creation is a mere assertion. Try again. And be more careful in the future with the use of the word "theory".
Occam's razor doesn't apply because by asserting creation you are adding complexity by demandning a creator which is more complex than the creation. That is not the simpler explanation at all.
Your understaniding of the current biological theory of evolution appears deficient. Numerous peer review papaers and numerous lay explanations of how altruism is compatible, indeed predicted, within evolutionary thoery are avaialble. I suggest you read some of them to answer your questions.
Ok, here's his post.
Paragraph 1: Creation is a theory. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
btw, we can't deduce the existence of God with simple scientific theory as God exists outside of time and space. It's the wrong approach and will lead nowhere.
Paragraph 2: Subjective. I don't find the idea of a Creator complex at all. Why do you find it so "complex"?
Paragraph 3: It would appear that you can't answer the question. Or, you would. My understanding of Darwin and his theories is perfectly sufficient for this debate. So, again I ask you to explain altruism. Why does it exist?
As to paragraph 1: Once again, you and I seem to be using different definitions. Certainly, you will admit (and apparently have admitted) that creation "theory" is not a scientific theory. That's what I meant - "theory" as in scientific theory. Your creation "theory", regardless of how you attempt to define it, is solely composed of mere assertions. Mere assertions are a dime a dozen, and frequently boring. Mere assertions do not a scientific theory make.
As to paragraph 2: You missed the point. Adding a creator to the existing universe/existence adds complexity. 1 + 2 is greater than 2. Accordingly, your addition of a God/creator violates Occam's razor.
As to paragraph 3: I'm not your research assistant. I stated you are deficient in your knowledge of the biological theory of evolution as it applies to altruism. I suggested that you research the subject further. I could give you some information about it (I"ve actually studied the interconnection, read papers and lay material), but I choose not to do so. I have better things to do and you are perfectly capable of researching the topic all by yourself. Nevertheless, let me remind you of one point I previously stated: the current biological theory of evolution predicts that altruism will occur. Do you even know that the theory makes that prediction? Why does it do so? What empirical evidence supports that portion of the theory? What experiments have been documented which test the prediction? I would suggest an intial reading of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Not the best thing out there, but it is a lay presentation and easily accessible.
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Who created us?
Who says we necessarily had to be 'created'?Occam's razor: The most simple theory is usually the correct one; we exist, therefore we had to be created.
Creation is the theory which also explains things the most without leaving huge unexplained holes in it, such as where did the Big Bang come from?
Here's a question for atheists? Explain altruism? It doesn't fit in with any of Darwin's theories. Why does it exist?
You know this forum is dead when I start discussing religion.
Creation is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Creation is a mere assertion. Try again. And be more careful in the future with the use of the word "theory".
Occam's razor doesn't apply because by asserting creation you are adding complexity by demandning a creator which is more complex than the creation. That is not the simpler explanation at all.
Your understaniding of the current biological theory of evolution appears deficient. Numerous peer review papaers and numerous lay explanations of how altruism is compatible, indeed predicted, within evolutionary thoery are avaialble. I suggest you read some of them to answer your questions.
Ok, here's his post.
Paragraph 1: Creation is a theory. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
btw, we can't deduce the existence of God with simple scientific theory as God exists outside of time and space. It's the wrong approach and will lead nowhere.
Paragraph 2: Subjective. I don't find the idea of a Creator complex at all. Why do you find it so "complex"?
Paragraph 3: It would appear that you can't answer the question. Or, you would. My understanding of Darwin and his theories is perfectly sufficient for this debate. So, again I ask you to explain altruism. Why does it exist?
As to paragraph 1: Once again, you and I seem to be using different definitions. Certainly, you will admit (and apparently have admitted) that creation "theory" is not a scientific theory. That's what I meant - "theory" as in scientific theory. Your creation "theory", regardless of how you attempt to define it, is solely composed of mere assertions. Mere assertions are a dome a dozen, and frequently boring. Mere assertions do not a scientific theory make.
As to paragraph 2: You missed the point. Adding a creator to the existing universe/existence adds complexity. 1 + 2 is greater than 2. Accordingly, your addition of a God/creator violates Occam's razor.
As to paragraph 3: I'm not your research assistant. I stated you are deficient in your knowledge of the biological theory of evolution as it applies to altruism. I suggested that you research the subject further. I could give you some information about it (I"ve actually studied the interconnection, read papers and lay material), but I choose not to do so. I have better things to do and you are perfectly capable of researching the topic all by yourself. Nevertheless, let me remind you of one point I previously stated: the current biological theory of evolution predicts that altruism will occur. Do you even know that the theory makes that prediction? Why does it do so? What empirical evidence supports that portion of the theory? What experiments have been documented which test the prediction? I would suggest an intial reading of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Not the best thing out there, but it is a lay presentation and easily accessible.
P 1: If you have a scientific theory as to how the Big Bang came to be, I'd like to hear it. I at least have a theory.
P 2: No, answering the question of how the Big Bang happened by saying "it was created" is using the most simple explanation. That is preciously Occam's Razor. You need to get past the fact you personally don't like the answer. If you have a better or even more simple answer, let's hear it.
P 3: I'm not asking you to be my research assistant, am I? I'm asking you to debate the topic using your own thoughts and knowledge and not refer me to some author, one whom I may not even respect his theories. So, one last time I ask you to explain how altruism fits in with your disbelief in a higher being? Why do humans exhibit altruism? It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of evolution (of which I believe for the most part, but, that it was put into motion by a creator). Altruism appears to be something hardwired into human beings that comes from somewhere else than simply a mere biological evolutionary function.
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Who created us?
Who says we necessarily had to be 'created'?Occam's razor: The most simple theory is usually the correct one; we exist, therefore we had to be created.
Creation is the theory which also explains things the most without leaving huge unexplained holes in it, such as where did the Big Bang come from?
Here's a question for atheists? Explain altruism? It doesn't fit in with any of Darwin's theories. Why does it exist?
You know this forum is dead when I start discussing religion.
Creation is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Creation is a mere assertion. Try again. And be more careful in the future with the use of the word "theory".
Occam's razor doesn't apply because by asserting creation you are adding complexity by demandning a creator which is more complex than the creation. That is not the simpler explanation at all.
Your understaniding of the current biological theory of evolution appears deficient. Numerous peer review papaers and numerous lay explanations of how altruism is compatible, indeed predicted, within evolutionary thoery are avaialble. I suggest you read some of them to answer your questions.
Ok, here's his post.
Paragraph 1: Creation is a theory. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
btw, we can't deduce the existence of God with simple scientific theory as God exists outside of time and space. It's the wrong approach and will lead nowhere.
Paragraph 2: Subjective. I don't find the idea of a Creator complex at all. Why do you find it so "complex"?
Paragraph 3: It would appear that you can't answer the question. Or, you would. My understanding of Darwin and his theories is perfectly sufficient for this debate. So, again I ask you to explain altruism. Why does it exist?
As to paragraph 1: Once again, you and I seem to be using different definitions. Certainly, you will admit (and apparently have admitted) that creation "theory" is not a scientific theory. That's what I meant - "theory" as in scientific theory. Your creation "theory", regardless of how you attempt to define it, is solely composed of mere assertions. Mere assertions are a dome a dozen, and frequently boring. Mere assertions do not a scientific theory make.
As to paragraph 2: You missed the point. Adding a creator to the existing universe/existence adds complexity. 1 + 2 is greater than 2. Accordingly, your addition of a God/creator violates Occam's razor.
As to paragraph 3: I'm not your research assistant. I stated you are deficient in your knowledge of the biological theory of evolution as it applies to altruism. I suggested that you research the subject further. I could give you some information about it (I"ve actually studied the interconnection, read papers and lay material), but I choose not to do so. I have better things to do and you are perfectly capable of researching the topic all by yourself. Nevertheless, let me remind you of one point I previously stated: the current biological theory of evolution predicts that altruism will occur. Do you even know that the theory makes that prediction? Why does it do so? What empirical evidence supports that portion of the theory? What experiments have been documented which test the prediction? I would suggest an intial reading of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Not the best thing out there, but it is a lay presentation and easily accessible.
P 1: If you have a scientific theory as to how the Big Bang came to be, I'd like to hear it. I at least have a theory.
P 2: No, answering the question of how the Big Bang happened by saying "it was created" is using the most simple explanation. That is preciously Occam's Razor. You need to get past the fact you personally don't like the answer. If you have a better or even more simple answer, let's hear it.
P 3: I'm not asking you to be my research assistant, am I? I'm asking you to debate the topic using your own thoughts and knowledge and not refer me to some author, one whom I may not even respect his theories. So, one last time I ask you to explain how altruism fits in with your disbelief in a higher being? Why do humans exhibit altruism? It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of evolution (of which I believe for the most part, but, that it was put into motion by a creator). Altruism appears to be something hardwired into human beings that comes from somewhere else than simply a mere biological evolutionary function.
Paragraph 1: The Big Bang is already a scientific theory, at least according to some. Personally, I consider it a strong hypothesis, with somewhat compelling supporting empirical evidence. You do not have a scientific theory, you have mere assertions which you semantically label as a "theory", in an apparent effort to shortchange evidentiary requirements. Understand further, that a mere assertion, particularly a mere assertion about the existence of certain sky fairies, is an informal logical fallacy. Do you wish to continue to hold your position based on an informal logical fallacy? Why should I continue to debate you on this point? Give me a rational reason. Give me evidence. Or at least move on to the special pleading fallacy, so we can document the typical theist irrationality sequence.
Paragraph 2: Says you. I am not persuaded in the least. Other answers, which are far less complex, and do not violate Occam's Razor include, but are not limited to, (i) the universe has always existed, (ii) the anthropic principle requires existence as it currently exists, or (iii) natural laws of physics and chemistry demand current existence. No sky fairies requires whatsoever.
Paragraph 3: Once again, you are deficient in your understanding of the biological theory of evolution. I choose not to waste my time educating you on the interplay between the theory and altruism. I can only suggest (for the third time) that you study the subject yourself. Another hint: anthropocentrism is not a virtue, it is an apologetic excuse, and a bad one at that.
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
sdelsolray wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Who created us?
Who says we necessarily had to be 'created'?Occam's razor: The most simple theory is usually the correct one; we exist, therefore we had to be created.
Creation is the theory which also explains things the most without leaving huge unexplained holes in it, such as where did the Big Bang come from?
Here's a question for atheists? Explain altruism? It doesn't fit in with any of Darwin's theories. Why does it exist?
You know this forum is dead when I start discussing religion.
Creation is not a scientific theory. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Creation is a mere assertion. Try again. And be more careful in the future with the use of the word "theory".
Occam's razor doesn't apply because by asserting creation you are adding complexity by demandning a creator which is more complex than the creation. That is not the simpler explanation at all.
Your understaniding of the current biological theory of evolution appears deficient. Numerous peer review papaers and numerous lay explanations of how altruism is compatible, indeed predicted, within evolutionary thoery are avaialble. I suggest you read some of them to answer your questions.
Ok, here's his post.
Paragraph 1: Creation is a theory. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
btw, we can't deduce the existence of God with simple scientific theory as God exists outside of time and space. It's the wrong approach and will lead nowhere.
Paragraph 2: Subjective. I don't find the idea of a Creator complex at all. Why do you find it so "complex"?
Paragraph 3: It would appear that you can't answer the question. Or, you would. My understanding of Darwin and his theories is perfectly sufficient for this debate. So, again I ask you to explain altruism. Why does it exist?
As to paragraph 1: Once again, you and I seem to be using different definitions. Certainly, you will admit (and apparently have admitted) that creation "theory" is not a scientific theory. That's what I meant - "theory" as in scientific theory. Your creation "theory", regardless of how you attempt to define it, is solely composed of mere assertions. Mere assertions are a dome a dozen, and frequently boring. Mere assertions do not a scientific theory make.
As to paragraph 2: You missed the point. Adding a creator to the existing universe/existence adds complexity. 1 + 2 is greater than 2. Accordingly, your addition of a God/creator violates Occam's razor.
As to paragraph 3: I'm not your research assistant. I stated you are deficient in your knowledge of the biological theory of evolution as it applies to altruism. I suggested that you research the subject further. I could give you some information about it (I"ve actually studied the interconnection, read papers and lay material), but I choose not to do so. I have better things to do and you are perfectly capable of researching the topic all by yourself. Nevertheless, let me remind you of one point I previously stated: the current biological theory of evolution predicts that altruism will occur. Do you even know that the theory makes that prediction? Why does it do so? What empirical evidence supports that portion of the theory? What experiments have been documented which test the prediction? I would suggest an intial reading of the 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Not the best thing out there, but it is a lay presentation and easily accessible.
P 1: If you have a scientific theory as to how the Big Bang came to be, I'd like to hear it. I at least have a theory.
P 2: No, answering the question of how the Big Bang happened by saying "it was created" is using the most simple explanation. That is preciously Occam's Razor. You need to get past the fact you personally don't like the answer. If you have a better or even more simple answer, let's hear it.
P 3: I'm not asking you to be my research assistant, am I? I'm asking you to debate the topic using your own thoughts and knowledge and not refer me to some author, one whom I may not even respect his theories. So, one last time I ask you to explain how altruism fits in with your disbelief in a higher being? Why do humans exhibit altruism? It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of evolution (of which I believe for the most part, but, that it was put into motion by a creator). Altruism appears to be something hardwired into human beings that comes from somewhere else than simply a mere biological evolutionary function.
You are asserting that altruism doesn't jibe with the theory of evolution due to your own preconceptions. The answer is quite simple; The individuals in cooperative groups are more likely to survive and therefore pass on those traits to their offspring. A much simpler explanation than something put it there.
Help Desk