Rayman Pirate-Community

Yay, another reply from Mister Dark!

First of all I wanna apologise for insulting you in the way I did. It was unneccesary and juvenile, and it contributed nothing to the discussion. On the contrary, it retarded the discussion since you haven't been willing to listen to anything I've said since then.

There are a few issues I would like to adress:

MD wrote:Problem #1
The only response you've given to my proof for God's existence is that

Tobbe wrote:there may very well be more ways for a Universe to "come about", even though you (or I) can't think of any.

That was far from the only response. That's just the beginning of my response to your logic puzzle, where I tried my best to show you that you arrive at a false conclusion when you state that god is the only explanation for the Universe. Out of the three ways you discribed for the Universe to begin existing, I showed you that you could be false about nr. 1, something you plainly denied because it went against your common sense (which in science and the search for truth is useless. Common sense actually works as a retardant for science). I and Hunch also explained to you that your reasoning regarding way nr. 2 is wrong, because time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I re-post the entire response below:

[quote="Tobbe"]
[quote="Mister Dark"]Does God exist eh? I would like to propose my views:

As i see it, there are three ways the Universe came about...

1. Something came from nothing.
2. The Universe was around forever.
3. A First Cause.[/quote]

False trichotomy, there may very well be more ways for a Universe to "come about", even though you (or I) can't think of any.

[quote="MD"]1 is impossible as it goes against science. "Something" from nothing? ridiculous.[/quote]

Not at all. On quantum level (subatomary) purely spontanious events are quite regular. I quote an article by theoretical physicist Paul Davies (because real phyicists tend to be better at explaining scientific principles than amateur cosmologists. ):

[quote="Paul Davies"]On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

...

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.[/quote]

So, this might not be so unscientific after all. I strongly advice you to read the entire article, it's a great read, and it's written in a way that every layman can understand.

[quote="MD"]2 is also impossible. If the Universe were always here, then Time must logically go back eternally into the past. If this is the case, however, then, as each moment must logically have a preceding moment, we could never reach the present- that is, NOW.[/quote]

This is correct. But we know that time does not extend eternally into the past, but that it started in the Big Bang. Again, read the article I linked to. Stating that the Universe has existed forever is meaningless, as time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang (it might have been a fourth dimension of space, though), and thus the phrase 'forever' is rendered without meaning. Paul Davies explains this better than me, so I strongly advice you to read the article if you want to present a counter-argument.

Admittedly, some observations indicate that there might have been time before the Big Bang, and this is one of the observations that supports the hypothesis that our Universe was born out of a parent Universe, or after the collapse of a parent Universe. This doesn't really affect the Big Bang theory, though.

[quote="MD"]3: a First Cause?
Atheists (no offence to anyone ) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.[/quote]

Even if there is a 'first cause' for the Universe, what makes you jump to the conclusion that this 'first cause' is god? And not just god; the Judeo-Christian god who created the heavens and the earth, and then created humans in his image. Even if your reasoning was without fault, and a god was the only explanation for the existance of the Universe, why would you take that as evidence that Christianity is true? That just doesn't make sense (excuse me if you're not actually Christian, but I seem to recall that you commented that the Bible is historically accurate somewhere in this thread, which would kinda suggest that you are).[/quote]

MD wrote:*How* does that work!? I will say it again: you have used the stereotype of the evil condemning Christian to forward your viewpoint, or at least to brush aside arguments that you can't answer.

First: Learn the meaning of the word 'stereotype'. Second: How did I try to forward my viewpoint in this situation? It's pointless to threaten me with hell, since I don't believe in it. This is true for all atheists. I find it rather odd that Christians so often threaten us with eternal damnation. I never called you evil when responding to this, nor did I try to forward my viewpoint, I simply stated that your threats were irrelevant to the discussion (I think, I don't quite remember :p)

MD wrote:The fossils you've shown as proof of evolution are questionable, to say the least, easily belonging to ape or man but not something between each. Further more, many of my points you have completely ignored, for an example, the point about the snake with the beginnings of legs, and the verse regarding the “wells of the deep” which has been (like many other verses) proven true in our present day.

All the skulls I've posted are apes, and some of the (the ones named homo <something>) are also humans, although not the same species as modern humans. These skulls fit the predictions of the Theory of Evolution perfectly. As we progress through time the fossils become less ape-like and more human-like (all humans are of course apes, but I'm here using 'ape' to describe the last common ancestor of all the great apes, and 'human' for the species homo sapiens sapiens). And wtf do you mean none of these skulls are halfway between man and ape? Australopithaecus afarensis is just that, and that is why the discovery of Lucy, a specimen of this species, is hailed as a great achievement in the field of paleontology.

And the snakes with the beginnings of legs found in the fossil record do not at all confirm the Bible. Those snakes lived millions of years before biblical times, and if the Bible says snakes used to have legs within the last 6000 years then it's completely wrong. And what's this "wells of the deep" thing? I can't recall you bringing it up. In any case: If you can find a passage in the Bible that seems to agree with a scientific fact, that does in no way suggest that everything in the Bible is true. In fact, it's full of things we know are wrong. For instance, it claims that the Earth is a flat disc covered by a crystal dome.

MD wrote:Yet not even this is enough for you. If it was just illogic and having to constantly repeat myself I had to deal with, I would have been happy, more than happy, to continue if only it wasn't for the fact that you've been downright childish for the entire debate.

Really? The entire debate. Unless you count criticism of your superstition to be childish I really have no idea what you're talking about. All of the insults took place before my largest and most important contributions to the debate.

MD wrote:In short, I won't waste my time with you any longer. However when or if you find a proper answer for my argument beyond "you're full of crap", "you're just condemning me to hell", "you're brainwashed" and "even if I can't think of an answer for your argument it's wrong anyway, and therefore you're wrong" you're perfectly welcome to send me a PM or something and we can continue. Providing, of course, you're prepared to debate respectfully instead of relying on insults and stereotypes to avoid points.

This is getting ridicolous. I have written several pages responding to your claims about evidence for god's existance and evolution being a big fat lie. I've adressed all of your main points in a respectful and objective way. Stop trying to victimise yourself; nobody's falling for it.

MD wrote:May God bless you (I sincerely mean this)

I doubt it. I've reserved the right to bless me for the Flying Spaghetti Monster anyway.

MD wrote:While I'm sure we've all studied evolution

I'm not sure you have.

Might take a look at the links you provided later. I've had a quick look at most of them, and I haven't found anything that impresses me very much. I'm going to bed now.

Tobbe wrote:Might take a look at the links you provided later.

Don't expect anything remotely balanced...

I am confused. Stop doing posts so long.

Please, don't quote massive posts like that. Seriously, it's unnecessary and annoying.

O.K thanks for the tip

And don't fill this topic with random nonsense and pointless messages like you just did. This is one of the few spam-free topics left on PC, and I'd like it to remain that way.

Can you please edit away that huge quote? Thanks!

I have removed it

This thread needs to be revived, as it is orsum.

That's one of the most sensible things you have ever said.

Here's a question which occurred to me: when exactly does a developing foetus become developed enough for it to be considered 'human', thus making its abortion an act of murder? I wouldn't say 'nine months', since babies born several months prematurely have been known to survive. What is a woman who's nine months pregnant attempts to get an abortion? Would that be justified, even though the nine-month foetus is more developed than, say, a baby who was born two or three months prematurely?

I support abortion, but if the baby's around it's time to be born, then it should be put up for adoption instead.

spiraldoor wrote:when exactly does a developing foetus become developed enough for it to be considered 'human'

Two words: Brain function

Tobbe wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:when exactly does a developing foetus become developed enough for it to be considered 'human'

Two words: Brain function

I said "when exactly".

When there is a high degree of brain function.

But always remember:

Every Sperm is Sacred!

Tobbe wrote:That's one of the most sensible things you have ever said.

Thank you very much ^^

Tobbe wrote:When there is a high degree of brain function.

At what point in a foetus's development does it attain a high degree of brain function?

Nobody knows for sure, I guess. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

The law here in Norway says that a woman has a right to terminate the pregnancy up to the 12th week if she wants to. So that's quite a large safety margin. Between the 12th and the 18th week the pregnancy can be terminated if a board of doctors, shrinks and lawyers feel that one of the following criteria applies to the pregnancy:

a) The woman health is in danger.
b) The woman has a tough living situation.
c) There is a great risk that the child will be born with physical or mental illness.
d) The pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
e) The woman has a mental illness or psychological problem.

After the 18th week abortions are only done if the woman's life is in danger, as far as I know.

Tobbe wrote:When there is a high degree of brain function.

But always remember:

Every Sperm is Sacred!

That's agreat movie.

I found something interesting: The most premature baby ever to have survived. Amillia Taylor. She was born at less than 22 weeks.