So was this site, so were all the scientific documents ever written and so was your birth certificate. If you're going to claim that anything written by man is automatically invalid and useless then you're going to have nothing left.

No matter how miniscule the chance of the development of humans, it did happen. The fact that we are here debating this means that this miniscule chance did, in fact, occur.

Think what you want but for me jesus, mohamed, budda and all the rest are one in the same. A knowing god would present his persona to people in a way that works for their culture.

scientific theories are baseed in a collection of logical dat; people make observations on the world they see, record them, and put together an understanding of the world. They are founded in evidence.

Oh, by the way, in the case you did not notice, my argument was taken almost literally from the text of a conference given by the late Sir Popper. I did a summary, but i trust myself in doing that even if i don't have a clue on epistemology... 8^) So... do you want to go to heaven (where he surely lives now) to tell him that he doesn't have a clue on epistemology too? I wouldn't dare that, but you surely could... 8^) 8^) 8^)

Wrong. In order to do that you'd have to have a culture which had no religion. I'll give you a clue: there aren't any, and there never ever have been.

Wrong again. You're proving the wrong thing: you've got to prove that the miniscule chance exists, not that we exist.

Nothing in science is ever "verified". Support simply builds up until there is a concensus that the theory is most likely true.

...

Good analogy. However, there is never one "test" to "verify" a theory. Predictions which later turn out true are considered some of the strongest support for a theory, but as I said, there is no such thing as verification. For anything.

It is not unreasonable, but it is needlessly complicated. No matter how miniscule the chance of the development of humans, it did happen. The fact that we are here debating this means that this miniscule chance did, in fact, occur. Besides that, given the size and time scale of the whole universe, and so the number of times this same process would have been going on, life even as we define it was bound to come forth.

“At no point in your incoherent rambling did you ever some close to anything that might be considered a rational thought. I award you no points; you do not advance to the next round, and may God have mercy on your soul!”

Oh, and by the way, nobody takes Karl Popper’s ideas seriously anymore . . . well, besides you. He was a psychotic Austrian lunatic who never advanced a single internally consistent position.

PS:
“Science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses” – Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1934

Nope, wrong, sorry.

God (and we're assuming that He exists in order to discuss whether He invalidates free will), is assumed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

These three states as I understand them, are in part at least products of one another and mutually supporting:

Omniscient.
He knows everything that has and will happen. This is because He is

Omnipresent.
This means that He is present not simply at all locations, but at all times as well. God exists outwith the constraints of time because He is

Omnipotent.
He can do anything and everything, and is able to make decisions on what to do because He is... omniscient.

So the issue is one of relativity: God, unlike us, is not constrained by time. He knows what we are going to do, because he is omniscient and omnipresent. He enables us to breathe, act and decide for ourselves, but He knows what we'll do before we do it, without having to "work it out" - he's not in the now, looking ahead, he's already ahead, and behind. So as far as we're concerned, we do have free will to do as we see fit, because we don't know what will happen. But as far as God is concerned, although we're making decisions, since He knows what will happen, the outcome is determined. Predestination then, is a matter of relativity.

Now, whether that makes you feel like a train car fixed to the rails or not is up to you, as is whether you turn right or left at the next junction. I can guarantee that if you decide to turn left, then God will not interfere with you turning left. But I can equally say that He'll already know that you're turning left, and in that sense you're doing what he knows you will anyway. Confused? I usually am!

If God possesses the above three qualities, then His existence is radically different to ours; the mistake is to assume that He exists within our reality and is simply more "powerful" than us.

I understand that you are confused, and I stand with my position that it is a very unsatisfactory explanation of an otherwise unescapable contradition.

....ok, now I'm confused.... :? ....you'd think if "He" was at all helpful he'd have an explanation of himself implanted into our fetus brain.... then we wouldn't need to be confused and argue about "Him"....

The difference between science-derived data and the mish-mash of hearsay, third party accounts, and outright fiction in the bible is that legitimate science-derived data are the result of peer-reviewed, reproducable experiments, not simply someone's imagination.
On what basis does anyone believe anything said bible is true, let alone happened verbatim? What makes it any different than any other work of fiction passed off as the truth? Where is there any evidence that proves the bible is any more reliable or believable than the koran or any other religious text of the ages? There simply isn't any...In general the goofiest aspect of religion and gods is the fact that even their adherants can't agree on a particular vision of god - again, the Hood River phone book has about 70 or so listings for churches of various fractured denominations. Strange that all those endlessly splintered christian denominations all profess legitimacy from the bible and that their interpretation of the bible is the only "correct" one.Not really much different than taxes, really. The government could define the tax code in a sentence like "All legal entities shall pay 10% of all income in taxes". Then everyone would interpret the tax code the same way. Likewise god could have eliminated confusion over his laws and belief system - could have not left it up to a slew of [goofy] interpretations of "the way" (all million of them). Is deciding who god is part of the "choice" we are given? Why would god deliberately create, encourage, and sustain such confusion in man? Why are there literally thousands of formal interpretations of the literal meaning of the bible word for word - each professing to be the only valid interpretation?And for you who posted here who attempt to disassociate from and disclaim historical (and present) actions of churches and organized christian religions, all I can say is "how very convenient for you..." From the outside looking in such distinctions border on meaningless. Ultimately the supporters and promoters of this "story", illusion of god, and of christ in all forms bear collective responsibility for an endless litany of genocide, torture, and war perpetrated upon the world in the service of man and in the name and deed of god.The only thing I see that separates us from other species is that no other species asks questions. That, though, has generated what I consider the principal intolerance and weakness in us as a species - the inability to suffer questions without answers. We as a species will do almost anything, say anything, invent anything, or imagine anything to provide an answer to a lingering unanswered question. Since human beings have had language we have used it to conjure one more unbelievable fantasy after another to fill the void of unanswerable questions. Nothing whatsoever makes your christian fantasy/answer anymore legitimate than the Roman, Hun, Egyptian, or Mayan fantasy/answer - those cultures would have claimed the legitimacy of their beliefs as fact as readily as you do today - none of you are anymore believable than the other. All are a result of our inability to simply acknowledge that, on some things, 'we simply don't now know and might never know..." Simply put, nothing provides more incentive for fantasy than the inability of one who desires power to provide simple, verifiable answers for lifes inevitable questions...

I can't believe there are still people like you who believe this garbage.

Evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory.

The difference between these theories and creationism is that evolution, gravity and thermodynamics are theories that are supported with logic, facts and evidence.

Creationism is a theory supported by nothing by right wing beliefs, no hard evidence.

It's a shame that people like you malign truth, science and progress in society because you have a self-righteous belief that YOU are right. Jesus makes you feel good because your lives are too vapid to be filled by more worldly, and therefore, more real things... Seriously, go to hell dude--on your way there, you might want to pick up a copy of National Geographic a few issues ago.

You make me sick--holding back society. Halting progress. Stopping science, medicine, truth all because of your selfish belief structure that, if you take an honest look at it, came out of nowhere.

you ought to remember that the bible was written by man: if man is foolish, then how are you to take anything in the bible seriously, especially since it has been rewritten a thousand times in different languages, with different texts that say more about the society in which it was written than about historical facts.

My knowledge doesn't presume to be higher than god--I in no way made any statement that I was smarter than god.

All that aside, HERE'S MY POINT--which has nothing to do with whether I or you or anyone believes in god or not:

Ignoring the enormous volume of work that has been done to advance our understanding of the world just because a 2,000+ plus year old scripture claims to be right, (and if you don't believe it, you'll go to hell), is a simplistic world view that affects ME because you idiots don't allow for progress in medicine, science, and society.

I'm normally not so livid abuot it, but the fact is, our society has never been so right wing and backwards. It's never been so influential in politics either.

I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

Yep, it's best to unlearn yourself less you end up in hell. Praying always works anyway. Just say a little prayer and POOF, you'll have money, a comfortable living, a family that is happy, an understanding of the world...no work required! fcking lazy dumbasses ruining our country...you all suck

I merely said that I'm smarter than that other douche who thinks creationism is as valid as evolution.

I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

you ought to remember that the bible was written by man: if man is foolish, then how are you to take anything in the bible seriously, especially since it has been rewritten a thousand times in different languages, with different texts that say more about the society in which it was written than about historical facts.

My knowledge doesn't presume to be higher than god--I in no way made any statement that I was smarter than god. I merely said that I'm smarter than that other douche who thinks creationism is as valid as evolution.

All that aside, HERE'S MY POINT--which has nothing to do with whether I or you or anyone believes in god or not:

Ignoring the enormous volume of work that has been done to advance our understanding of the world just because a 2,000+ plus year old scripture claims to be right, (and if you don't believe it, you'll go to hell), is a simplistic world view that affects ME because you idiots don't allow for progress in medicine, science, and society.

I'm normally not so livid abuot it, but the fact is, our society has never been so right wing and backwards. It's never been so influential in politics either.

I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

Yep, it's best to unlearn yourself less you end up in hell. Praying always works anyway. Just say a little prayer and POOF, you'll have money, a comfortable living, a family that is happy, an understanding of the world...no work required! fcking lazy dumbasses ruining our country...you all suck

Evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory.The difference between these theories and creationism is that evolution, gravity and thermodynamics are theories that are supported with logic, facts and evidence. Creationism is a theory supported by nothing by right wing beliefs, no hard evidence.

There are 4 great theistic responses to the incompatibility-argument (free-will vs omniscience) still generally accepted today by a very significant portion of the philosophical community:

1. Understanding “free will” soft deterministically instead of as full-blown libertarian freedom.
2. Redefining “omniscience” as incredible insight, or an absolute knowledge of all future-free-contingencies.
3. Understand God as “timeless.” and
4. Asserting BOTH complete libertarian freedom and exhaustive specific foreknowledge on the basis that God, by definition, has an enigmatic character.

Each option offers a philosophical escape for the theist, each providing adequate explanation of an interesting, but solvable paradox. The incompatibility-argument is not as strong as the skeptic would like it to be; it seems to have been refuted anew in almost every succeeding generation.