swifty
17th April 2007, 11:23 PM
Hey, I just wanted to get some opinions on the analogy I used to reply to someone who said the following text on a website forum [not this one] that I am a part of:
"You pretty try to state that there is no God as a fact, then you defend that point by saying that evolution is more plausible than a god, as if something being more plausible makes it absolutely right."
I responded with the analogy, examples, thoughts stated below and I would really like to see if you think this analogy:
-Makes sense
-Is useful in explaining reasons that I think how I do
-Can be improved on[by deletion, appendage, etc]
So please take some time and read it, thanks!
I can see your confusion but you see to me [and many, many other critical/logical thinkers] Evolution is more plausible than a God. We have evidence of evolution and many things like the Christian God as an example involves believing in much much other ridiculous things like the age of the earth is 5000 years and etc.etc. We have no evidence that a God created us. There just isn't any... No I cannot disprove the theory, but people seem to think if you can't disprove something that it means it is proven. Cannot be disprove does not equal Proven. An example [which I am creating as I type] is I say that I used to be able to bend spoons with nothing but my shear will power but over time my powers faded. Now you can't disprove that, but I can't prove it [taking out any video evidence or whatever]. So what is your opinion? Yes, I definitely did used to be able to bend spoons with my willpower? No, I definitely couldn't bend spoons? Or maybe I could bend spoons or maybe I couldn't? Now let's say I say that I do have bent spoons that yes, indeed proves I must've bent them with my mind. Would you say because the fact that there is a result of what I claim I did exists, that it proves my point? Or would you think of another, alternative theory of how the spoon was bent, e.g. I just bent it with my hands...
So now you are in a position where you have an alternative theory and it is much more likely than what I claimed. I ask you the questions again. What is your opinion? Yes, I definitely did used to be able to bend spoons with my willpower? No, I definitely couldn't bend spoons? Or maybe I could bend spoons or maybe I couldn't? Now that you have an alternative theory does this somewhat sway you to the side of No? Yes, maybe I did or maybe I didn't is still an option but if you believe I did use shear willpower to bend spoons that would mean you believe something off no reliable evidence at all. So unless I provide some damn evidence you aren't going to believe, which places you in the position of not believing!
"You pretty try to state that there is no God as a fact, then you defend that point by saying that evolution is more plausible than a god, as if something being more plausible makes it absolutely right."
I responded with the analogy, examples, thoughts stated below and I would really like to see if you think this analogy:
-Makes sense
-Is useful in explaining reasons that I think how I do
-Can be improved on[by deletion, appendage, etc]
So please take some time and read it, thanks!
I can see your confusion but you see to me [and many, many other critical/logical thinkers] Evolution is more plausible than a God. We have evidence of evolution and many things like the Christian God as an example involves believing in much much other ridiculous things like the age of the earth is 5000 years and etc.etc. We have no evidence that a God created us. There just isn't any... No I cannot disprove the theory, but people seem to think if you can't disprove something that it means it is proven. Cannot be disprove does not equal Proven. An example [which I am creating as I type] is I say that I used to be able to bend spoons with nothing but my shear will power but over time my powers faded. Now you can't disprove that, but I can't prove it [taking out any video evidence or whatever]. So what is your opinion? Yes, I definitely did used to be able to bend spoons with my willpower? No, I definitely couldn't bend spoons? Or maybe I could bend spoons or maybe I couldn't? Now let's say I say that I do have bent spoons that yes, indeed proves I must've bent them with my mind. Would you say because the fact that there is a result of what I claim I did exists, that it proves my point? Or would you think of another, alternative theory of how the spoon was bent, e.g. I just bent it with my hands...
So now you are in a position where you have an alternative theory and it is much more likely than what I claimed. I ask you the questions again. What is your opinion? Yes, I definitely did used to be able to bend spoons with my willpower? No, I definitely couldn't bend spoons? Or maybe I could bend spoons or maybe I couldn't? Now that you have an alternative theory does this somewhat sway you to the side of No? Yes, maybe I did or maybe I didn't is still an option but if you believe I did use shear willpower to bend spoons that would mean you believe something off no reliable evidence at all. So unless I provide some damn evidence you aren't going to believe, which places you in the position of not believing!