504 replies to this topic

[Ultrafragor]

St. Anselm has already proven God's existence with nothing but logic actually.
 
Whether you agree with the logic or not is another issue however.
 
http://www.princeton...ntological.html

 

 

Lol, they teach you how to refute asnlem's argument in a basic philosophy class.

 

Just because we can conceive of a being that is perfect does not mean it exists. 

 

Anslem assumes existence is a quality of perfection. Something must exist to be perfect. That's not necessarily true. 

 

 

 

Using Anslem's same "formula" , if you will, we can come up with this counter example:

 

-Aslan is the greatest being that we can conceive of, he is perfect

 

-An imaginary being is not perfect

 

Therefore, Aslan must exist

 

Or worse:

 

-Steve the turtle is the greatest turtle that we can conceive of, he is perfect

 

-An imaginary turtle is not perfect

 

Therefore, Steve the perfect turtle must exist.

Edited by Ultrafragor, 19 August 2013 - 09:42 PM.

[Passingby]

It's just proof however that God can be explained by logic. God can be both logical and true, is what I'm saying. 

[Alpha]

It's just proof however that God can be explained by logic. God can be both logical and true, is what I'm saying. 

You with the help of our friend Ultrafragor have actually proved to the contrary.

Edited by Alpha, 19 August 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[Passingby]

A priori.

 

Lol, they teach you how to refute asnlem's argument in a basic philosophy class.

 

Just because we can conceive of a being that is perfect does not mean it exists. 

 

Anslem assumes existence is a quality of perfection. Something must exist to be perfect. That's not necessarily true. 

 

 

 

Using Anslem's same "formula" , if you will, we can come up with this counter example:

 

-Aslan is the greatest being that we can conceive of, he is perfect

 

-An imaginary being is not perfect

 

Therefore, Aslan must exist

 

Or worse:

 

-Steve the turtle is the greatest turtle that we can conceive of, he is perfect

 

-An imaginary turtle is not perfect

 

Therefore, Steve the perfect turtle must exist.

I myself don't like Anselm's argument, but for purely arguments sake:

 

Then Aslan might very well be God, if he is, the being which nothing greater can be conceived. 

 

And no, since you qualified steve as the "greatest turtle" already rules him out to be God. Steve however can be the God of turtles, but he is not the God.

Edited by Passingby, 19 August 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[disastrousmaster]

I'm sorry I stopped reading after technically. Technically is a word in this context used soley for logical reasons. A word used to describe the simplest logical inner workings of some idea , place or thing. So basically you are using logic to discredit logic(your opposing argument) and defend something you believe is beyond logic(Faith or God) which makes it illogical. And the fact you are have the idea that something is beyond logic in a debate is a logical fallacy.(i.e flawed logic).

 

Basically you are using logic to discredit logic and defend illogic which in itself makes it all illogical. Am I the only one who caught all of this?

I'm not saying you are wrong , just that this is fun to point out.

I am not trying to discredit logic with a lack of logic. you should actually read my post before you try and pick it apart.

[Alpha]

I wonder what version of God are we talking about. Christianity , Judaism or Islam?

[disastrousmaster]

I wonder what version of God are we talking about. Christianity , Judaism or Islam?

if this is directed at me, then none of them.

[Tale]

That's inhuman though. A human being cannot strictly use logic to make every possible decision in their lives because it would take them years in order to calculate the simplest of things, e.g. "should I buy this ice cream or not? Let us think of every possible effect this could ever have in my life and pick the best choice."

 
I didn't say people could or should become robots emotionally; my point was that emotions can't acquire and verify facts or analyze them rationally. To say that you know something - a fact about the universe - because of "emotion" is meaningless.
 

And logic, as it stands, contradicts itself... because, simply put, this entire universe contradicts itself. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" - it is logical, because we have observed and proven that physical mass and energy only transforms constantly, but anyone that uses "logic" would also see that this makes no sense because how did the universe come to exist without matter being created?

 
There's no contradiction there. Mass and energy are convertible, yes (which is somewhat a given from Einstein's most famous equation). When they change into each other, they're not destroyed. I don't see how - if this principle were violated - logic would be flawed. It would only mean our observations of nature are incorrect. 
 

We don't know how the universe was created. But I doubt using an approach that only works and makes sense within the universe itself and to our level of influence is going to really help. If you were to tell me that mathematics holds true, even outside the influence of our universe, then I would think it is possible that we can explain how our universe was created using it. 

 
You haven't actually shown that mathematics doesn't hold true simply because of the above.
Interestingly enough, theoretical physicists and mathematicians are developing the framework for understanding the beginning of the universe and even a way to look at things without space and time being involved. 
 

Then again, my logic here is that "in order for the universe to be, there has to be something else that exists outside of it" and that is using a knowledge gathered from our own universe... so it could be completely wrong.... when explaining what is outside of it... /head explodes

 
Given our everyday experience, that does seem to be case. However, it is a fallacy to think that what must be true for a part is true for the whole. I don't think god explains everything as a creator because he is given made-up properties by believers which avoid the problems (of causality and such) people have with the universe. I have no idea why people don't assume these properties for the universe instead, if they're confident enough to make assumptions about cosmology.
 
 

St. Anselm has already proven God's existence with nothing but logic actually.
 
Whether you agree with the logic or not is another issue however.
 
http://www.princeton...ntological.html

 

The ontological argument has undergone various permutations since then. I think Plantinga's version and William Lane Craig's version, which are similar to each other, are the popular ones right now. While the logic seems valid (and I say seems, because I've seen an objection to the modern versions that I can't even begin to understand), there are numerous problems with it. Besides the one Ultrafragor showed:

 

1) It's easily parodied, mostly because you can use it to "prove" the existence of a lot of things.

2) Its first premise is assumed.

 

In modern formulations, it's much more clear that you can simply start by saying "It is possible that a world in which a maximally.... being doesn't exist exists" (or something along those lines,) which leads to the conclusion that he doesn't exist. 

 

Unless it's proven that without god, the world is logically incoherent, then the argument adds nothing.

Edited by Tale, 20 August 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[theonlygeezy]

This is demonstrably false. 

Creationists and fundamentalists show daily that whenever science make a claim that enters their territory, they will reject science.

We're not talking about a physical conflict, by the way.

 

 

Which is why there's a nearly two-hundred year old history of fundamentalist Christians criticizing the theory of evolution?

 

You need to realize that's only the way you understand it. Scientists will seek to disprove religious beliefs forever and many times scientists will win the argument against what is usually blind religious ignorance. That has nothing to do with me or the way I understand life. Scientific discoveries do not affect my faith. I'm not the kind of person to pick a side in any argument where both sides are clearly flawed. I always look to find the correlations between the two, to come to a greater understanding. That's how I approach any argument. It's why I have so much clarity.

 

This assumes that "emotion" is just as good as logic/reason when it comes to acquiring and understanding knowledge properly. I have no idea what your specific beliefs are, but when people neglect logic, they arrive at vastly different conclusions. There are thousands of gods and thousands of religions because people rely on "emotion" to determine what they believe. There is a conflict between science and religion, creationism and evolution, facts and faith, because people rely on emotion.

 

I wasn't assuming the bolded area. What I was implying was that using logic to try to understand a concept that is fundamentally emotional, will lead you nowhere. If you originally come at the subject from a logical standpoint, you won't understand anything. Of course if you're just trying to win a debate like most people here, then by all means do continue. Also, what makes you think emotional understanding is inferior to logical understanding? Very unwise.

 

The fact still remains that a conflict between science and religion is purely your opinion. That is not a conclusion that I share. People choose to create conflicts at the notion of things they do not understand. I've never had the drawback of being influenced by the vast majority. I can only see things objectively, using my own mind to construct my beliefs.

 

I'm always stunned when people say "Prove God exists." It's like asking you to prove you love your family. You can list all these things that you do for them or how your face twists into a smile when you're around them, but you can never actually prove your love. If you could prove God exists, then it wouldn't be called faith at all would it? How silly people are. ^_^

[Tale]

You need to realize that's only the way you understand it. 

 

I'm sorry, but just because your particular set of beliefs - whatever they are - don't conflict with science, doesn't mean that other beliefs that are supplemented by faith in general, do not. Creationism is proof of that. You might argue that it is the result of a great deal of ignorance - which it is - but it is also only possible because of faith.

 

 

 

Scientists will seek to disprove religious beliefs forever and many times scientists will win the argument against what is usually blind religious ignorance.

 

Scientists do not seek to disprove religious beliefs, at least not generally. They seek to understand the world. There are many scientists who believed in god and thought the laws they discovered were proof of his perfection and brilliance and who were troubled that their discoveries did not match what they believed or expected.

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with me or the way I understand life. Scientific discoveries do not affect my faith.

 

I wish you'd elaborate. Note that I have no idea what your beliefs are, and there is a great diversity of belief out there. Coming from certain belief systems, that statement could be interpreted as, regardless of how it may contradict certain beliefs you have, your faith cannot be wrong. From other belief systems, it could mean that there's no contradiction. So what you do mean exactly? How do you understand life?

 

 

 

I'm not the kind of person to pick a side in any argument where both sides are clearly flawed. I always look to find the correlations between the two, to come to a greater understanding. That's how I approach any argument. It's why I have so much clarity.

 

And what are the flaws of each side, as you see them?

 

 

 

I wasn't assuming the bolded area. What I was implying was that using logic to try to understand a concept that is fundamentally emotional, will lead you nowhere. If you originally come at the subject from a logical standpoint, you won't understand anything.

 

I thought the assumption was implicit in your words, since you didn't actually offer an alternative to logic. I still think it is implicit in your thinking, given the question you asked me at the end.

"Is God real? Yes, for me He is. How do I know? Just as logic is conflicted by emotion, you may have to abandon your logic long enough to find that answer..."

 

First, note that earlier you began with the question: "Is God real?" Logic, reason and science all give us possible ways to answer this question. I do not agree that these courses of action will lead "nowhere". Many theists believe they lead you to the "yes" answer, and atheists disagree with them and say the evidence is not sufficient and the arguments are flawed. They all have reasons for saying what they say, some good, and some bad. My first problem with what you're saying is that you haven't given me a reason to think logic will lead us nowhere.

 

Back to the question: You're proposing that this question can be answered by abandoning logic (which leads you to abandoning reason and science, as these are based on logic), on the basis that God is a "fundamentally emotional" concept. I have two questions for you:

 

• What makes you think God is a fundamentally emotional concept?
• What criteria did you use when you answered "Yes" to the question "Is God real"? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

 

  Of course if you're just trying to win a debate like most people here, then by all means do continue. Also, what makes you think emotional understanding is inferior to logical understanding? Very unwise.

 

No one will win this debate. There are no judges, no criteria for winning, no real answer to the question. I am simply talking to you.

 

What makes you think there's such as a thing as "emotional understanding"?

If there is, what can it understand? And how does it come to have this understanding?

 

 

 

The fact still remains that a conflict between science and religion is purely your opinion. That is not a conclusion that I share. People choose to create conflicts at the notion of things they do not understand. I've never had the drawback of being influenced by the vast majority. I can only see things objectively, using my own mind to construct my beliefs.

 

I've given examples of conflicts between science and religion. I don't see how this is just my "opinion". Again, simply because your specific beliefs don't contradict science doesn't mean other people who operate on faith won't have beliefs that don't come into conflict with science. 

 

 

 

I'm always stunned when people say "Prove God exists." It's like asking you to prove you love your family. You can list all these things that you do for them or how your face twists into a smile when you're around them, but you can never actually prove your love. If you could prove God exists, then it wouldn't be called faith at all would it? How silly people are.  ^_^

 

That largely depends on what your conception of God is. So far, the only thing you've said is that God is "fundamentally emotional", and that's not much to go by. Depending on the particular definition, failing to prove God exists amounts to having no reasons to believe that God exists, except faith.

 

As for your example with love, it doesn't show that logic is flawed or in some way insufficient. You can give a very convincing argument that shows that you probably love your family. I don't think you can show that you love them directly, as you would be able to do to yourself (or people who could read your mind and experience your emotions), but this only means you have insufficient evidence to show it. 

 

So, again, I don't see why you're saying God and logic don't mix.

 

Finally, about faith. I don't see anything valuable or worthwhile in believing things because of faith. It simply shows the willingness of a person to believe in things without evidence or argument. For you, this might not be a problem, because you think there's an alternative to logic, but I'm you've failed to convinced me there is one so far.

Edited by Tale, 20 August 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Passingby]

I think Faith is a product of will and desire. I desire an outcome yet I have little to no control of the means to achieve it, therefore I rely on Faith that it shall happen. When a person is faced with a set of possibilities where the alternatives contradicts one's desires, and they only desire one outcome of possibility alone, then they rely on Faith. 

 

I want that gold medal no matter what. I may not have the talent to achieve it, but someday I will. 

 

This line of thinking is I believe what most theists go upon when faced with great questions where the answers leads to the falsification of the existence of God. They rely on faith. One cannot simply fathom the non-existence of God. It's not that their faith proves the existence of God, but His non-existence simply contradicts their desire for Him to exist. Therefore they fall back onto faith.

 

However this is a rather simplistic if not demeaning to those who hold true to their faith. And that is where logic comes to rationalize that Faith. Again, just taking a look back at St. Anselm, he used logic to justify why God must exist. His faith is hinged upon logic. 

 

It is not that one must abandon logic and cling onto emotions (faith) to prove the existence of God. Rather, when logic alone cannot prove the existence of God, one relies on faith, for their minds have already been set to the existence of God. There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking actually for having faith is inherently human. To desire something is human nature.

 

And for that matter we cannot really question theonlygeezy's stance on the existence of God. For he does not seek to rationalize God's existence, he solely relies on his desire for God to exist. Of course, I do not speak for theonlygeezy, so feel free to argue why God must exist. However, to state that faith alone is enough proof for his existence does not really contribute to the discussion. It is a close-ended statement and we cannot question your desire for him to exist.

Edited by Passingby, 20 August 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[DarkNemesis]

I wonder what version of God are we talking about. Christianity , Judaism or Islam?

 

I believe this question must be answered before determining if God exists at all. Personally, in these types of argument I am just talking about God, the being that created all. As opposed to the various interpretations of God (Christian, Hindu, Native American or otherwise).

[Goddess Nike]

That's inhuman though. A human being cannot strictly use logic to make every possible decision in their lives because it would take them years in order to calculate the simplest of things, e.g. "should I buy this ice cream or not? Let us think of every possible effect this could ever have in my life and pick the best choice."

Tale was clearly talking about emotions as a means of aquiring and deciphering factual knowledge, everything you're saying here is irrelevant to that.
 

And logic, as it stands, contradicts itself... because, simply put, this entire universe contradicts itself. "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" - it is logical, because we have observed and proven that physical mass and energy only transforms constantly, but anyone that uses "logic" would also see that this makes no sense because how did the universe come to exist without matter being created?

First of all this is technically false, "matter" can be created and destroyed, what you're thinking of are the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy which are different concepts. Secondly you're still off base...the law of conservation of mass requires time to exist and not merely time but homogenous time (and made all the more complex General Relativity is applied) and of course this like all of our physical laws and universal constants don't apply to the first 10⁻⁴³ seconds immediately after the Big Bang nor more obviously to t = 0 (ie...singularities). This is not a contradiction as this is what is predicted mathematically in the first place and doesn't even purport to relate to the orgin of the universe. Now if you have a contention with the cosmological models themselves (standard or otherwise because there isn't merely one) that's a different thing entirely and not a matter of "logic" but rather the calculations.

I can't tell how familar you are with cosmology already but if you're interested I'll recommend the same books I did on the last thread...The Primordial Density Perturbation: Cosmology Inflation and the Origin of Structure, The Cosmic Microwave Background and Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity. Basic knowledge of General Relativity, CMB, and Particle Physics is required but it's nothing too intense.
 

And then there is quantum mechanics... fml...

Hmm what about quantum mechanics specifically?

 

Also, what makes you think emotional understanding is inferior to logical understanding? Very unwise.

Emotions are subjective, fickle, and have literally no bearing on the truth value of any proposition. Try to substitute emotions anywhere where boolean algebra or propositional logic is used, it does not work. Emotions aren't intrinsicly bad or inferior but they're completely irrelavent to truth apt statements.
Even worse emotions can impair logical thought which is why they're so many cognitive bias.
 

I can only see things objectively, using my own mind to construct my beliefs.

That's...literaly the opposite of objectivity
 

I'm always stunned when people say "Prove God exists."

I'm always stunned when people come up with fallacious arguments full of epistemologically empty statements without any substance and try to pass them off as something too deep or esoteric to understand when blatantly obvious that's not the case.
 

It's like asking you to prove you love your family.

Not really since the former is entirely ontological in nature and deals with a singular reality while emotions are a subjective and personal experience. At any rate I'd say that Cognitive Neuroscience and it's various subfields as well as BioChem could do a pretty good job at demonstrating such a thing.
 

If you could prove God exists, then it wouldn't be called faith at all would it? How silly people are.

 

 

Faith is useless in an ontological argument, it has absolutely no relationship with truth...at all. People have, do, and will believe things that are either extremely unlikely to be true or even provably false. As I've said plenty of times before there is no belief so bizarre or nonsensical that at that least some people won't buy into it. There are at least a thousand Gods that people do or have believed in so either you believe in all of these dieties simultaneously (which would be a problem in and of itself) or you acknowledge that there things that can be completely false even if people place absolute faith in them. If it's the latter then you pretty much admit the obvious, that faith has no bearing on truth. Things are only true if they're true, the amount of faith any person or group of people place in that knowledge is irrelevant. Also there's a difference between reasonable faith and faith for the hell of it, which is differentiated by the amount of evidence that leads to such a belief which leads us back to empiricism and rationality which you seem so wary of.

 

Again, just taking a look back at St. Anselm, he used logic to justify why God must exist. His faith is hinged upon logic.

.
 

Faulty and circular logic, just because a proposition exists doesn't mean it's valid and it that case it's just laughable. I'd say it was the other way around, his premises were as they were because he already had faith. No line of logical reasoning can prove the existance of a deity because it an unfalsifiable claim and those are by definition unprovable.

 

Rather, when logic alone cannot prove the existence of God, one relies on faith, for their minds have already been set to the existence of God.

Faith has no adherence to truth and people place as much faith in fictional thoughts and ideas as they do in reality so it can't be used as measuring stick for anything. That's backwards thinking anyway, people should place their faith where there is solid evidence not use a baseless belief as evidence itself.

 

 

And for that matter we cannot really question theonlygeezy's stance on the existence of God. For he does not seek to rationalize God's existence, he solely relies on his desire for God to exist.

That's a cognitive bias and informal fallacy, it's called wishful thinking. That you desire something to be true means nothing and it has no merit in a discussion because it has no substance whatsoever, it's not so much questioning as it is pointing out an invalid argument when it crops up.

 

 

[Alpha]

if this is directed at me, then none of them.

 

Then having a debate with you is pointless. How can one prove something does exist without knowing what that something is?  The characteristics of god are different depending on what branch of religion we use.

[theonlygeezy]

 

 

That's just the thing. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You either take something from my posts or you don't. I said in my very first post I wasn't going to debate.

 

 

 

 

Seems like it is too deep for you to understand because you really misunderstand the point of my posts. Ah well.

 

However, to state that faith alone is enough proof for his existence does not really contribute to the discussion. It is a close-ended statement and we cannot question your desire for him to exist.

 

Not to piss off any debate fanatics, but that is how I intended it.

[Milareppa]

Scientists will seek to disprove religious beliefs forever and many times scientists will win the argument against what is usually blind religious ignorance.

I think you'll find that the purpose of science, and the goal of most scientists, is not to seek to disprove religious beliefs. Science itself does not focused on proving or disproving the spiritual and many scientists possess religious or spiritual beliefs of their own.
 

I'm sorry, but just because your particular set of beliefs - whatever they are - don't conflict with science, doesn't mean that other beliefs that are supplemented by faith in general, do not. Creationism is proof of that. You might argue that it is the result of a great deal of ignorance - which it is - but it is also only possible because of faith.

In fairness, with regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design, religious and scientific institutions in Europe are fairly united on their stance towards them. In the UK, for example, the Royal Society, the Church of England and the Catholic Church are united in the stance that Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science, should not be represented as examples of science and (if taught in the classroom) should not be taught in science classes - philosophy or theology classes, perhaps, but not science classes.

That stance is the general rule across western Europe. The Vatican itself has taken the position that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be regarded as an example of philosophical or theological thought but not an example of science. That's in line with the attitude of most of the senior scientific institutions as well.

Edited by Milareppa, 20 August 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[Passingby]

I think you'll find that the purpose of science, and the goal of most scientists, is not to seek to disprove religious beliefs. Science itself does not focused on proving or disproving the spiritual and many scientists possess religious or spiritual beliefs of their own.
 

In fairness, with regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design, religious and scientific institutions in Europe are fairly united on their stance towards them. In the UK, for example, the Royal Society, the Church of England and the Catholic Church are united in the stance that Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science, should not be represented as examples of science and (if taught in the classroom) should not be taught in science classes - philosophy or theology classes, perhaps, but not science classes.

That stance is the general rule across western Europe. The Vatican itself has taken the position that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be regarded as an example of philosophical or theological thought but not an example of science. That's in line with the attitude of most of the senior scientific institutions as well.

Good for UK. People on the US takes Creationism seriously. In fact, evolution itself is being argued to be taken out of science classes because it's supposed to be just an unconfirmed theory if not outright false.

[Raijuu]

I didn't say people could or should become robots emotionally; my point was that emotions can't acquire and verify facts or analyze them rationally. To say that you know something - a fact about the universe - because of "emotion" is meaningless.

Tale was clearly talking about emotions as a means of aquiring and deciphering factual knowledge, everything you're saying here is irrelevant to that.

 

Fair enough. 

 

There's no contradiction there. Mass and energy are convertible, yes (which is somewhat a given from Einstein's most famous equation). When they change into each other, they're not destroyed. I don't see how - if this principle were violated - logic would be flawed. It would only mean our observations of nature are incorrect. 

 

This goes back to the conversation Alpha and I were having about something that is logic could be false. So indeed, logic is not to blame here... 

 

You haven't actually shown that mathematics doesn't hold true simply because of the above.
Interestingly enough, theoretical physicists and mathematicians are developing the framework for understanding the beginning of the universe and even a way to look at things without space and time being involved. 

 

It is merely a conundrum I came up with to give people something to think about, I'm not stating anything. LOL

That'll definitely be interesting if they did... 

 

First of all this is technically false, "matter" can be created and destroyed, what you're thinking of are the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy which are different concepts. Secondly you're still off base...the law of conservation of mass requires time to exist and not merely time but homogenous time (and made all the more complex General Relativity is applied) and of course this like all of our physical laws and universal constants don't apply to the first 10−43 seconds immediately after the Big Bang nor more obviously to t = 0 (ie...singularities). This is not a contradiction as this is what is predicted mathematically in the first place and doesn't even purport to relate to the orgin of the universe. Now if you have a contention with the cosmological models themselves (standard or otherwise because there isn't merely one) that's a different thing entirely and not a matter of "logic" but rather the calculations.

I can't tell how familar you are with cosmology already but if you're interested I'll recommend the same books I did on the last thread...The Primordial Density Perturbation: Cosmology Inflation and the Origin of Structure, The Cosmic Microwave Background and Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity. Basic knowledge of General Relativity, CMB, and Particle Physics is required but it's nothing too intense.

 

Wai-hold on. The law of conservation of mass states matter cannot be created nor destroyed... how is that different from what I said? So there are exceptions to the rule that have already been stated... well now I wish my physics and chemistry textbooks said anything regarding that when I read them... 

 

I was merely giving an example, a bad one at that though apparently, to give something to think about. As in, mathematics, or the things that hold true within our universe, may not be true when speaking what is outside of it. So, I was giving the proposition that if there is a god, then such could not be explained by either logic nor calculation IF such can only be applied within our own universe. 

 

I love cosmology so I'll take a look into those, thanks.

 

Hmm what about quantum mechanics specifically?

 

The randomness of it and how mathematics has only gone as far as given estimates to their cause and effect. It's simply a fascinating thing that we are aware it exists but have yet to make full sense of.

[Tale]

That's just the thing. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You either take something from my posts or you don't. I said in my very first post I wasn't going to debate.

 
I asked you several questions about your belief to give you an opportunity to settle points of contention or possible misunderstandings I have regarding what you said. Refusing to answer and dismissing the people in the thread as "debate fanatics" who can't understand you because what you say is too "deep" isn't winning you any points or encouraging people to take what you say seriously. As it stands now, and I can only be blunt about this, there's very little to take from your posts. 
 

In fairness, with regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design, religious and scientific institutions in Europe are fairly united on their stance towards them. In the UK, for example, the Royal Society, the Church of England and the Catholic Church (as guided by the Vatican) are united in the stance that Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science, should not be represented as examples of science and (if taught in the classroom) should not be taught in science classes - philosophy or theology classes, perhaps, but not science classes.

That stance is the general rule across western Europe. The Vatican itself has taken the position that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be regarded as an example of philosophical or theological thought but not an example of science. That's in line with the attitude of most of the senior scientific institutions as well.

 
I am familiar with the situation in Europe. I once used the Pope's support of evolution to end an argument about the topic in my family (since arguments from authority apparently work). I hope I didn't sound as if I was making general statements about religion and science, as that wasn't my intention at all. I targeted Creationism and fundamentalists to provide specific examples and no more.

Edited by Tale, 20 August 2013 - 05:20 PM.

[Sauron]

More rational posters.