Deism - solid?

[truthreality]

No, it's not defensible because it depends on faith. Faith is dependent on the notion of absence of evidence.

Testimony breeds faith:

The words "testimony" and "testify" both have a root in the Latin testis, which is normally translated "witness".

testimony is a form of evidence

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.

Deism is defensible.

That Deism is not defensible does serve as an argument that there are no gods, however.

That Deism is defensible serves as an argument for Gods. You can't use a negative to prove another negative.

[Jack]

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.

Not in a Christian context. Hebrews 11:1 (NLT), "Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."

[Jack]

Please produce absolute proof we all and all life evolved from one single celled life a long time ago. Thanks.

If you can demand absolute proof, something you ought to know by now science doesn't even pretend to offer, then it ought to be just as acceptable to demand absolute proof of the existence of your god. After all, theism, not science, claims to possess knowledge of the absolute.

[Senor Hoint]

Please produce absolute proof we all and all life evolved from one single celled life a long time ago. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

You won't read this, of course, and of course it isn't absolute proof (there is no absolute proof of anything, ever) but don't say that no one has provided you with the evidence. In fact, when I googled the phrase "evidence for common descent," that first link was purple, suggesting that this is likely not the first time I've had to pull that article here for the reading pleasure of the anti-Evolution crowd.

Of course, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution likely isn't interested in things like "evidence" anyway, so I suppose this is all pointless.

[truthreality]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

You won't read this, of course, and of course it isn't absolute proof (there is no absolute proof of anything, ever) but don't say that no one has provided you with the evidence. In fact, when I googled the phrase "evidence for common descent," that first link was purple, suggesting that this is likely not the first time I've had to pull that article here for the reading pleasure of the anti-Evolution crowd.

Of course, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution likely isn't interested in things like "evidence" anyway, so I suppose this is all pointless.

Why did you waste your precious time answering his absolutely ridiculous request? Why? You can't preach to the deaf. Trust me. I have tried.

[Hermenutic]

Development from a single cell is one thing. What blows my mind is how consciousness evolved from the big bang in a completely material universe.

Anybody got an answer for that?

[truthreality]

Please produce absolute proof we all and all life evolved from one single celled life a long time ago. Thanks.

Instead why don't you provide single legitimate argument to the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution?

[Senor Hoint]

Development from a single cell is one thing. What blows my mind is how consciousness evolved from the big bang in a completely material universe.

Anybody got an answer for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Why did you waste your precious time answering his absolutely ridiculous request? Why? You can't preach to the deaf. Trust me. I have tried.

You are the object lesson for why I did so. Don't I remember you arguing against evolution, too? At least if there are any lurkers it won't look like people are just ignoring the Creationist side (not that one one responded to him before I did).

[truthreality]

You are the object lesson for why I did so. Don't I remember you arguing against evolution, too? At least if there are any lurkers it won't look like people are just ignoring the Creationist side (not that one one responded to him before I did).

Yes but my objection was out of pure scientific ignorance not theological dogma. Not that one is better then the other but I am always open to evidence.

[Hermenutic]

I have heard of that theory. Check this out. http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...ous/index.html


[QUOTE=Senor Hoint;881975]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Senor Hoint]

Yes but my objection was out of pure scientific ignorance not theological dogma. Not that one is better then the other but I am always open to evidence.

No offense, but from where I'm standing it's damn hard to tell the two apart, and they often go hand-in-hand, anyway. It's quite sad, really.

I have heard of that theory. Check this out. http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...ous/index.html

It isn't really a theory so much as a concept. One example is bird flight; no one of the birds intends for the flock to form a "V" shape, and there sure as hell isn't an invisible hand arranging them into that shape. Rather, the (relatively) complex V-shape emerges from the individual behavior of the birds.

[truthreality]

No offense, but from where I'm standing it's damn hard to tell the two apart, and they often go hand-in-hand, anyway. It's quite sad, really.

Right. I do appreciate you enlightening me on the subject though. I actually bought the theory of evolution because of you. Your explanation was wonderful. Thanks.