Cool

I'm not sure I follow your response..

So you take the giraffe for example, it starter off a smaller organism and it evolved to reach higher food which increased it's chances of survival. However, doing so increased the length of the laryngal nerve instead of being perfect, it's imperfect and flawed.

Someone doesn't consciously make a decision to evolve you evolve unconsciously.

This isn't really something to discuss, darwin already proved it.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

 

Kind of a flawed question. How can you justify that a supreme being has created our seemingly "perfect" body structure?

 

I cannot. Hence there is religion to answer those questions.

 

Darwin have proven the mechanics of evolution. But it is still up to question why things evolve the way they do.

In your giraffe example, it evolved to reach more food hence so that it "increase its chances of survival" but this also reiterates my point to question that there is a relationship between a higher power and science.

 

Why does that reiterate your point? The point is that through evolution the giraffe evolved the way it did, which is a flawed design. Hence, the imperfect design. Hence, no designer.

The way things evolve the way they do..? That's back to the point of evolving into our environment. There's no set rules or attributes. Just over a very long period of time changes will happen that better suit the environment. That's literally it, if you were to separate species and watch them evolve in different environments then the end result would too be very different. That doesn't imply that someone is making a decision for them, it implies the body is capable of evolving into it's environment..

 

I think the point fragan is getting at is that God, or, a designer is behind the process of evolution. To go further, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, evolution and so on govern the real world, and the question becomes what is responsible for these things existing, or something to that nature. Where the error in reasoning lies is that you go from the correct answer "I don't know", because we really don't know, to the fallacious conclusion therefore a designer exists. This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean religion is the answer. You don't do this anywhere in life, you don't go in Court and demonstrate that we don't know who the offender is, and then conclude that therefore God did it. The argument is structurally flawed, and even if God or religion have merit, they are not justified through this line of reasoning. Try again.

 

You've said it yourself, giraffe evolves that way to lengthen their survival. Isn't that an advantage?

 

It's an advantage of course, so the body is capable of evolving. Just because we're unaware of what reason there is to the "intelligence" behind it, doesn't mean we be unintelligent and assume that a fictional character did it.

If you mean this in the deistic sense then I understand your points more. However, if theistic then it's just clear lack of reasoning.

Pretty much my (about to be) end result from the conversation. I was just wanting to know if he could produce any logical theory behind it.

 

If we go on with "we don't know" and not conclude anything then we are back to square one of not knowing. What's the point of a conversation when one cannot assume things? If everyone here on this thread reply that there is no higher power, would their opinion get shot down as well just because they cannot prove that there is one? What happens if they agree with you, would the get shot down too?

My point is, we all have our own opinions on religion and things and this is mine. You don't have to agree with my opinion or insult my reasoning behind it. After all, are you of someone who can give us the answer to the truth if there is a higher power or not?

 

I wasn't intending to insult your reasoning, I was merely saying to come to that conclusion is a result of 'lack of reasoning'. As you're jumping to a conclusion with no evidence.

The problem with the argument is it falls into the Russell's Teapot argument. Where it's a case of disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist.

Where our opinions differ is that I'm following a proof for conclusion and we're in the "I don't know" stage, and yours is disprove my conclusion.

 

The correct response, I would imagine, is that if someone says that "there is no higher power", then you ought to respond, what makes you say that? Any statement of fact must be justified. Even if someone said a higher power doesn't exist, in a debate, they are not immune from attack just because they share the same view as you (obviously we are all biased though). All opinions with no/poor justification ought to be shot down, but especially those that are perceived to be incorrect because they are generally more harmful. For example, a child believing that boiling water should never touch ones skin but he doesn't know why isn't as harmful as a child believing that it's ok for boiling water to touch their skin, but also doesn't know why. Two unjustified beliefs, yet one potentially leading to more serious consequences.

Yes, but this is a debate forum, and with debates in general you state I believe x because [reasoning]. You have provided reasoning, but it is poor and fallacious. You are saying that you believe that a higher power exists because I don't know how x (evolution) could otherwise be explained.

This structure isn't good for anything. Play the substitution game. If someone knocked on your door and said I believe that you killed my dog because I don't know who else could have done it. Hopefully you can see from that why the argument is structurally wrong. It's all good and well to have opinions, but it's even better if you can justify them for everyone's sake. The better your justification the more confident you can be in your beliefs, the more people will respect you, and the more intelligent your thoughts can be. We're not 'insulting' your reasoning because we disagree with you, we're insulting you're reasoning because it is objectively wrong; this is not a difference of opinion, this is the identification of a logical fallacy.

 

I have provided you with evidence but in your opinion, they are not valid and in my opinion they are so we could never agree with this subject.

 

I did justify my opinion behind what I think about this issue. That there is a higher power due to the fact that there are things in the world that cannot be explained. However, I would assume that you would say that we cannot conclude that there is a higher power just because things cannot be explained. But how could you easily negate my opinion when you're doing the same thing: you also don't know that there is a higher power or not. Unless of course, you can prove it to me that there isn't one.

 

You're justifying it by stating How do the cells in a body know how to adapt into their environment. and answering It's not currently explainable so there is a higher power. which, as I've already said is bad reasoning behind your conclusion. Rather than stating and answering Let's look at evolution research and see what we can find relating to the cells ability to adapt. And see where we go from there.

The biggest problem is you say there's a higher power, that brings more questions than answers. So who created the higher power? You end up in an infinite cycle rather than understanding what's been proven and making an educated decision on what's likely to have caused it. I.e, a theory.

It's for example you provided the "perfect" body argument, I countered it with an imperfect body which was evidence against your claim. This is a debate, where rationality is a big part of it. Saying disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist is irrational, and like I said falls into Russell's Teapot. Anyone can think up anything crazy and claim it to be real, disproving of their theory is going to be impossible, because it hasn't first been proven to exist.

 

Sorry about that. But thanks for making the topic! It did produce quite of a result.

 

As I said, you're argument is an argument from ignorance.

You're problem really seems to be how I can justify my stance of a higher power not existing; my stance is that I have no reason to believe that a 'higher power' exists. The reasoning, quite simply, is that there is no empirical evidence for it existing, nor any compelling reason to believe it. You have not offered any empirical evidence, but you have offered reasoning. This reasoning being I don't know therefore a higher power exists. This is not compelling reasoning, this is a logical fallacy. The default starting point for something ought to be that we don't know, but no conclusions can be drawn from that. The next step, if we want to take a position, is to justify our opinion. I have a justification, and I'll say it again:

There is no evidence that a higher power exists, nor any compelling reason to believe in one. What would be your response to that?

You didn't even respond to my last post lol.

 

Requested lock.