God?

[Altair]

 

[Elea]

Is this the logic of the argument?

Premise 1. Genetic similarities prove that species share a common ancestor.

Premise 2. Two species share genetic similarities.

Therefore,

Conclusion 3. these species share a common ancestor.

If so, how do genetic similarities prove common ancestry?

 

[Altair]

Elea:.

Genetic similarities don't prove anything, on their own.!

There is NO argument here...

You can dress it up how ever you like. It makes zero difference.

What is REAL and Observable. (To us in this day and age).

Like 'Dawkins' says....There can only be ONE reason for life..!

You ask.."If so, how do genetic similarities prove common ancestry?

Watch the film?....

 

[Elea]

Elea:.

Genetic similarities don't prove anything, on their own.!

There is NO argument here...

You can dress it up how ever you like. It makes zero difference.

What is REAL and Observable. (To us in this day and age).

Like 'Dawkins' says....There can only be ONE reason for life..!

You ask.."If so, how do genetic similarities prove common ancestry?

Watch the film?....

I saw the video. I heard your rhetoric. The most significant words were: "Compare the genes of any pair of animals you like...pair of animals...pair of plants...and then plot out the resemblances, and they fall on a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree..."

Now I want logic and evidence.

 

[Altair]

I heard the video. I hear your rhetoric. The most significant words were: "Compare the genes of any pair of animals you like...pair of animals...pair of plants...and then plot out the resemblances, and they fall on a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree..."

Now I want logic and evidence.

You wan't Logic and Evidence...?

Ok..

Logic is Logic...We get to the answer the fastest and most economical way.

Logic works 99.99 percent of the time...Yes?

Evidence?..Chop a Tree down and study it's DNA?..

Look at a Tiger's DNA..

What more 'Evidence' is there?...

 

[Elea]

You wan't Logic and Evidence...?

Ok..

Logic is Logic...We get to the answer the fastest and most economical way.

Logic works 99.99 percent of the time...Yes?

Evidence?..Chop a Tree down and study it's DNA?..

Look at a Tiger's DNA..

What more 'Evidence' is there?...

How do you get from genetic similarities to common descent?

 

[Altair]

How do you get from genetic similarities to common descent?

Man came from Monkey and went into SPACE.!

There is NO Common Descent. (No need for them.)

What we have are facts.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

There is a common ancestor...


God.

 

[Altair]

There is a common ancestor...


God.

Ok. Which GOD would that be? There are many. What makes YOUR GOD more believable than all the others?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Ok. Which GOD would that be? There are many. What makes YOUR GOD more believable than all the others?

Now THAT is the question. The study of the origin of gods. It's an interesting study. Firstly, there are two things to do to distinguish "true" from "false", and it's quite easy for the first part.

Here is an analogy for you.

For the first part, if I have developed, or learned an official recipe, and a chef calls their meal by the title of the recipe, it is easy to compare the dish with the recipe, to see what ingredients are in it, how it was cooked, and maybe even how it was presented. This is the easiest way, and the best way to start with eliminating true from false "gods".
If a religion has official scriptures, yet the organisation claims to be a follower of it, but does not follow the "recipe" as such, it is easy to identify "true" from "false", and thereby eliminate the false. This will generally leave a very small handful behind - if any - who follow what their code states would be.

The second part though involves a bit more research outside of the books. At least, I'm speaking from a person who has no idea of what could be true/false in their search, but starts with an open mind. For this, one can study the religious similarities, and origins. For instance, there are many who have undertaken these studies and many of their works are available online. It may for instance even just be a history of the religious "guru" or whoever, and see what their point of view is, or if it is just a new, streamlined version of an already existing religion, made for national or for other similar reasons.

But that's up to you mate. That's the part where the obligation on finding truth is on you. It's out there, and in fact, it at this stage is so blinking obvious, it can come knocking on your door, but people in general are too apathetic to see it. They are not hungry for truth. In the future, it will be difficult to find the truth, because the door will be closed and time will move forward. So that's up to you. But yes, I enjoy this topic, so if you're keen, feel free to ask more specific questions. But you're obligated to do your own research. I did mine, with help, and I'm happy to be "help", but you need to do your own homework.

In essence, you'll come to see that there is a true God, and there are millions of untrue "gods". Although, "god" technically means "a divine one" so isn't necessarily "God", as in the creator, but simply a being in a position of judgement. Even Jesus quoted a psalm that identified his human harassers as "gods", when he says in John 10:34,
"Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods."'?"

For instance, what have you discovered so far? What origins of "gods" or "God" have you learned so far?

 

[Moriarty]

Ok. Which GOD would that be? There are many. What makes YOUR GOD more believable than all the others?

What makes your science more believable than others?

History is replete with scientific discoveries that were later proved to be false.

Why is that tolerance not given to the belief of something greater than ourselves.
Is not the soul, the being, the individuality of the person sacred in science as they cannot explain human conciousness?

We live in a society where the individual is paramount, where we can have opinions, thoughts, ideas.
We can create, we can live and love who we wish due not by biological imperative, but by choice.

Is that not a religion in itself?

To cling to freedom as a matter of need, to want, to desire, is that not a hedonistic ideology as strong as any religion in history.
One may not believe in a god, but the nature of modern society is to become thier own center of sprirtuality.

What I feel is more important than what is real.

That is the paradox of individuality, at its core it replaced god with the self.