Total Posts:283|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God must exist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

Uh oh the Atheists are gonna get you for that one.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:32:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence.

Welcome to the infinite regress which accompanies all attempts to squeeze a God into a reality which demonstrates no suggestion of a god.

If intelligence can only come from prior intelligence, then God can only come from a prior intelligence. And the prior intelligence which preceded God, must also have issued from a prior intelligence... and so on, to infinity. Hence you're assertion is contradictory.

Now, care for some reality? Alan Turing once defined intelligence as the ability to carry out a conversation, as would a human. Turing of course is known for his mathematical prowess and work in the field of computers and artificial intelligence. The Rosewood Neurological Institute has altered that definition to the ability to predict, and this is a major function of the neocortex - to predict what is most likely to happen next, on the basis of what has happened in prior experience. This prior experience comes hand-in-hand with information.

What you mistakenly refer to as "instructions" is nothing more than interaction, governed by physical properties. And no intelligence is necessary for simple interactions in accordance with physical properties. In fact, to act in contrast to the natural outcome of such interactions requires the ability to make decisions, which sets us on the path to intelligence.

This is the kind of crack you wedge yourself into when you attempt to insert imaginary concepts into reality. You have adequately demonstrated that God does not exist.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.

Which one? that God exists or doesn't exist lol.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:50:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

Interesting speculation. Can you kindly provide verifiable evidence to support your assertion that God must exist?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:37:56 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.

Which one? that God exists or doesn't exist lol.

Please excuse me. I assumed too much. In order to understand, one must first understand what evidence is, and what is required of one thing, in order to be evidence for another.

In every case, evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it serves as evidence. If there is no demonstrable link, then it's simply not evidence. Do you disagree?

With that held firmly in mind, is it possible to demonstrably link anything to that which has never existed? Certainly, before we can demonstrate a link to anything, that thing must exist. This is why all evidence necessarily indicates existence. The idea of evidence against existence is contradictive, and demonstrates pure ignorance regarding the nature of evidence, what causes it to be evidence, and what evidence means. This is why we can agree that unicorns, mermaids, Leprechauns, gremlins and fairies do not exist, but cannot produce evidence that they do not. It is never possible to provide evidence of non-existence, because evidence automatically indicates existence - it indicates a demonstrable link. And you can't demonstrate a link to anything which has never existed.

Thusly, there is no evidence in regard to...
- Fairies
- Leprechauns
- Mermaids
- God
- Gremlins
- sentient pink feathered pickles
- anything you can name

"Evidence against existence" is self-contradictory. Evidence can only indicate existence. It can never indicate non-existence.

You can never have evidence of non-existence. To ask for that is like speaking of an "invisible sighting" or a "silent noise". Evidence indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by a lack of evidence for existence. This is a basic premise you use through each minute of your life. You've likely used it numerous times already today. Have you driven in your car today? Did you encounter a stop sign? At that sign, did you wait until you had evidence for the non-existence of cross-traffic? Or did you recognize that it was safe to proceed, on the basis of the lack of evidence for cross-traffic?

When you engage to walk through your living room, do you peer carefully into the room looking for evidence for the non-existence of a pride of lions? Or are you safe and secure in the lack of evidence for a pride of lions?

When you reach into your pocket for your keys, have you ever pulled out evidence that the keys weren't there? Have you ever found a lack of evidence that your keys were there? And didn't you then search in alternate locations because you realized that the lack of evidence for the keys in your pocket, allowed for a valid conclusion that the keys were not there?

Theists operate upon this principle each minute of their waking lives. But when it comes to God, they want to invert the entire process and proclaim that the lack of evidence for God is not an indication that God does not exist. And yet, the very concept of God suggests the necessity of evidence beyond anything else known. And when it is pointed out that there is no evidence for God, they demand evidence for non-existence... i.e. the self-contradictory "silent noise".

When you ask for evidence of non-existence, you're loudly proclaiming a vast ignorance regarding what evidence is, and what it means. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is ALWAYS indicated by a lack of evidence for existence.

I do apologize, but my repetitious redundancy is a necessary device to point theists to an understanding of the contradiction they continually demand.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:09:49 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:37:56 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.

Which one? that God exists or doesn't exist lol.

Please excuse me. I assumed too much. In order to understand, one must first understand what evidence is, and what is required of one thing, in order to be evidence for another.

In every case, evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it serves as evidence. If there is no demonstrable link, then it's simply not evidence. Do you disagree?

With that held firmly in mind, is it possible to demonstrably link anything to that which has never existed? Certainly, before we can demonstrate a link to anything, that thing must exist. This is why all evidence necessarily indicates existence. The idea of evidence against existence is contradictive, and demonstrates pure ignorance regarding the nature of evidence, what causes it to be evidence, and what evidence means. This is why we can agree that unicorns, mermaids, Leprechauns, gremlins and fairies do not exist, but cannot produce evidence that they do not. It is never possible to provide evidence of non-existence, because evidence automatically indicates existence - it indicates a demonstrable link. And you can't demonstrate a link to anything which has never existed.

Thusly, there is no evidence in regard to...
- Fairies
- Leprechauns
- Mermaids
- God
- Gremlins
- sentient pink feathered pickles
- anything you can name

"Evidence against existence" is self-contradictory. Evidence can only indicate existence. It can never indicate non-existence.

You can never have evidence of non-existence. To ask for that is like speaking of an "invisible sighting" or a "silent noise". Evidence indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by a lack of evidence for existence. This is a basic premise you use through each minute of your life. You've likely used it numerous times already today. Have you driven in your car today? Did you encounter a stop sign? At that sign, did you wait until you had evidence for the non-existence of cross-traffic? Or did you recognize that it was safe to proceed, on the basis of the lack of evidence for cross-traffic?

When you engage to walk through your living room, do you peer carefully into the room looking for evidence for the non-existence of a pride of lions? Or are you safe and secure in the lack of evidence for a pride of lions?

When you reach into your pocket for your keys, have you ever pulled out evidence that the keys weren't there? Have you ever found a lack of evidence that your keys were there? And didn't you then search in alternate locations because you realized that the lack of evidence for the keys in your pocket, allowed for a valid conclusion that the keys were not there?

Theists operate upon this principle each minute of their waking lives. But when it comes to God, they want to invert the entire process and proclaim that the lack of evidence for God is not an indication that God does not exist. And yet, the very concept of God suggests the necessity of evidence beyond anything else known. And when it is pointed out that there is no evidence for God, they demand evidence for non-existence... i.e. the self-contradictory "silent noise".

When you ask for evidence of non-existence, you're loudly proclaiming a vast ignorance regarding what evidence is, and what it means. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is ALWAYS indicated by a lack of evidence for existence.

I do apologize, but my repetitious redundancy is a necessary device to point theists to an understanding of the contradiction they continually demand.

Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:09:49 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:37:56 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.

Which one? that God exists or doesn't exist lol.

Please excuse me. I assumed too much. In order to understand, one must first understand what evidence is, and what is required of one thing, in order to be evidence for another.

In every case, evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it serves as evidence. If there is no demonstrable link, then it's simply not evidence. Do you disagree?

With that held firmly in mind, is it possible to demonstrably link anything to that which has never existed? Certainly, before we can demonstrate a link to anything, that thing must exist. This is why all evidence necessarily indicates existence. The idea of evidence against existence is contradictive, and demonstrates pure ignorance regarding the nature of evidence, what causes it to be evidence, and what evidence means. This is why we can agree that unicorns, mermaids, Leprechauns, gremlins and fairies do not exist, but cannot produce evidence that they do not. It is never possible to provide evidence of non-existence, because evidence automatically indicates existence - it indicates a demonstrable link. And you can't demonstrate a link to anything which has never existed.

Thusly, there is no evidence in regard to...
- Fairies
- Leprechauns
- Mermaids
- God
- Gremlins
- sentient pink feathered pickles
- anything you can name

"Evidence against existence" is self-contradictory. Evidence can only indicate existence. It can never indicate non-existence.

You can never have evidence of non-existence. To ask for that is like speaking of an "invisible sighting" or a "silent noise". Evidence indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by a lack of evidence for existence. This is a basic premise you use through each minute of your life. You've likely used it numerous times already today. Have you driven in your car today? Did you encounter a stop sign? At that sign, did you wait until you had evidence for the non-existence of cross-traffic? Or did you recognize that it was safe to proceed, on the basis of the lack of evidence for cross-traffic?

When you engage to walk through your living room, do you peer carefully into the room looking for evidence for the non-existence of a pride of lions? Or are you safe and secure in the lack of evidence for a pride of lions?

When you reach into your pocket for your keys, have you ever pulled out evidence that the keys weren't there? Have you ever found a lack of evidence that your keys were there? And didn't you then search in alternate locations because you realized that the lack of evidence for the keys in your pocket, allowed for a valid conclusion that the keys were not there?

Theists operate upon this principle each minute of their waking lives. But when it comes to God, they want to invert the entire process and proclaim that the lack of evidence for God is not an indication that God does not exist. And yet, the very concept of God suggests the necessity of evidence beyond anything else known. And when it is pointed out that there is no evidence for God, they demand evidence for non-existence... i.e. the self-contradictory "silent noise".

When you ask for evidence of non-existence, you're loudly proclaiming a vast ignorance regarding what evidence is, and what it means. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is ALWAYS indicated by a lack of evidence for existence.

I do apologize, but my repetitious redundancy is a necessary device to point theists to an understanding of the contradiction they continually demand.

Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.

Oh excuse me lol, it means I'm not restricted to what you believe and are indoctrinated with.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:32:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence.

Welcome to the infinite regress which accompanies all attempts to squeeze a God into a reality which demonstrates no suggestion of a god.

If intelligence can only come from prior intelligence, then God can only come from a prior intelligence. And the prior intelligence which preceded God, must also have issued from a prior intelligence... and so on, to infinity. Hence you're assertion is contradictory.

Now, care for some reality? Alan Turing once defined intelligence as the ability to carry out a conversation, as would a human. Turing of course is known for his mathematical prowess and work in the field of computers and artificial intelligence. The Rosewood Neurological Institute has altered that definition to the ability to predict, and this is a major function of the neocortex - to predict what is most likely to happen next, on the basis of what has happened in prior experience. This prior experience comes hand-in-hand with information.

What you mistakenly refer to as "instructions" is nothing more than interaction, governed by physical properties. And no intelligence is necessary for simple interactions in accordance with physical properties. In fact, to act in contrast to the natural outcome of such interactions requires the ability to make decisions, which sets us on the path to intelligence.

This is the kind of crack you wedge yourself into when you attempt to insert imaginary concepts into reality. You have adequately demonstrated that God does not exist.

The predictive power of recognizing that things performing specified-complex actions can only come from agents capable of specified-complexity holds true. What one man thinks intelligence means may or not be true, but the only thing that validates what he thinks to be true is predictive power of how the universe actually behaves. I am saying that intelligence is consistent with the ability to perform specified complexity and is only possible with a mind to instill that intelligence, and is not mutually exclusive to other possible definitions of intelligence. But since the definition of intelligence I am using refers to the ability to perform specified complexity I am making the assertion that these are required by an intelligent mind because using this definition, intelligence can only come from intelligence because this has shown to be invariably true throughout the universe. Again, I'll use the Rosetta Stone example. We don't assume that this rock with elaborate translations was written through wind and erosion because the notion that an intelligent being created this work of specified-complexity is the superior explanation. The infinite regress problem becomes more convoluted by trying to explain everything from naturalistic means. If the universe has no prime reality, or something from which everything comes, we exist within infinity. But this would be impossible given that we have a temporal state of existence. Infinity -1 is still infinite and thus an infinite regress would need to occur to reach our present moment in time so the universe is not eternal. Something must come from nothing which ironically necessitates something that exists eternally with the nature existing intrinsically in itself. By accepting the definition of God, applying laws and constraints that an eternal being himself created is nonsensical.

The interaction of natural things governed by physical properties IS the nature of thing determined by their intrinsic information. Do you think that natural interactions determined by the nature of that thing do not have information governing their actions?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.

This is typical. For the past 11-years I have engaged in apologetics debate on almost a daily basis. I have had hundreds of theists tell me they have evidence for God. There are two common factors when theists make this claim; they never volunteer any evidence, and when pressed, they will always provide subjective interpretations, rather than objective evidence.

And that's because despite your desire to believe to the contrary, there is no objective evidence for God. But if you wish to insist that such evidence exists, then do demonstrate the personal integrity to provide that evidence. And when you find that you can't, admit that what you have is a subjective interpretation, fostered by dramatic levels of confirmation-bias... NOT objective evidence.

And one can have subjective interpretations leading to any wrongful conclusion. Do you think volcano worshipers didn't follow a subjective interpretation leading them to believe that the mountain was appeased through the offering of a virgin? Was that objective evidence that the mountain was sentient, in want of an object of lust, and appeased by that offering?

Be honest.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:20:05 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.

This is typical. For the past 11-years I have engaged in apologetics debate on almost a daily basis. I have had hundreds of theists tell me they have evidence for God. There are two common factors when theists make this claim; they never volunteer any evidence, and when pressed, they will always provide subjective interpretations, rather than objective evidence.

And that's because despite your desire to believe to the contrary, there is no objective evidence for God. But if you wish to insist that such evidence exists, then do demonstrate the personal integrity to provide that evidence. And when you find that you can't, admit that what you have is a subjective interpretation, fostered by dramatic levels of confirmation-bias... NOT objective evidence.

And one can have subjective interpretations leading to any wrongful conclusion. Do you think volcano worshipers didn't follow a subjective interpretation leading them to believe that the mountain was appeased through the offering of a virgin? Was that objective evidence that the mountain was sentient, in want of an object of lust, and appeased by that offering?

Be honest.

I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:05:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:09:49 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:37:56 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:33:17 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:21:26 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
But yes God exists lol.

Assertions devoid of supporting evidence are merely stories.

Which one? that God exists or doesn't exist lol.

Please excuse me. I assumed too much. In order to understand, one must first understand what evidence is, and what is required of one thing, in order to be evidence for another.

One must also first understand what God is before they can claim its existence or nonexistence.
Do you believe "NOW" exists? If you believe it does, where is the evidence?
Do you believe "LOVE" exists? If so, where is the evidence?

In every case, evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it serves as evidence. If there is no demonstrable link, then it's simply not evidence. Do you disagree?

Yes I disagree. It does not apply to every case. Your concept applies only to tangible objects not to intangible things like conscience, thoughts and emotions. You cannot put those intangible things under a microscope and disect or observe them. Do they still exist in spite of any tangible evidence?

With that held firmly in mind, is it possible to demonstrably link anything to that which has never existed? Certainly, before we can demonstrate a link to anything, that thing must exist. This is why all evidence necessarily indicates existence. The idea of evidence against existence is contradictive, and demonstrates pure ignorance regarding the nature of evidence, what causes it to be evidence, and what evidence means. This is why we can agree that unicorns, mermaids, Leprechauns, gremlins and fairies do not exist, but cannot produce evidence that they do not. It is never possible to provide evidence of non-existence, because evidence automatically indicates existence - it indicates a demonstrable link. And you can't demonstrate a link to anything which has never existed.

Try demonstrating a link to the time we label as "NOW"

Thusly, there is no evidence in regard to...
- Fairies
- Leprechauns
- Mermaids
- God
- Gremlins
- sentient pink feathered pickles
- anything you can name

"Evidence against existence" is self-contradictory. Evidence can only indicate existence. It can never indicate non-existence.

You can never have evidence of non-existence. To ask for that is like speaking of an "invisible sighting" or a "silent noise". Evidence indicates existence. Non-existence is indicated by a lack of evidence for existence. This is a basic premise you use through each minute of your life. You've likely used it numerous times already today. Have you driven in your car today? Did you encounter a stop sign? At that sign, did you wait until you had evidence for the non-existence of cross-traffic? Or did you recognize that it was safe to proceed, on the basis of the lack of evidence for cross-traffic?

The whole problem with lack of evidence is that many people presume that something does not exist due to not having any evidence for it. They equate lack of evidence with nonexistence. That kind of thinking is illogical.
Humans label the things which exist even if those things exist only in their thoughts and imaginations.
Humans dream up and create the things they want to exist. Humans are creators. We create our own fantasies and also our realities. Life is what we make it. ( referring to the part of life which is under our control not to the part which is out of our control.)

When you engage to walk through your living room, do you peer carefully into the room looking for evidence for the non-existence of a pride of lions? Or are you safe and secure in the lack of evidence for a pride of lions?

The lions may not exist in your living room but they do exist elsewhere in the world.
God exists in fantasy land and God ( depending on your definition of the word) also exists in reality.
Does Love exist? The bible says God IS LOVE. That is one definition of what God IS.
Do you walk around the world looking for LOVE? Can you recognize it when you see it? What does it look like if you ever find it?

When you reach into your pocket for your keys, have you ever pulled out evidence that the keys weren't there? Have you ever found a lack of evidence that your keys were there? And didn't you then search in alternate locations because you realized that the lack of evidence for the keys in your pocket, allowed for a valid conclusion that the keys were not there?

Not finding keys in your pocket means you did not find what you were looking for in the place you were looking. Smart people would look elsewhere. You will never find God in the tangible visible realm. Just as you will never find LOVE in the tangible visible realm. You will also never find the time called NOW no matter how hard you look for it, due to it coming and going at the very same time. It is something one needs to experience to understand and accept.

Theists operate upon this principle each minute of their waking lives. But when it comes to God, they want to invert the entire process and proclaim that the lack of evidence for God is not an indication that God does not exist. And yet, the very concept of God suggests the necessity of evidence beyond anything else known. And when it is pointed out that there is no evidence for God, they demand evidence for non-existence... i.e. the self-contradictory "silent noise".

Empty space is evidence of nonexistence. If you want to give someone evidence of nonexistence. Take an empty container and ask them what is in it. They will say "Nothing". Then you just say "There is your evidence of nonexistence"
If something existed in the box they would be able to label it and tell you what it is.

When you ask for evidence of non-existence, you're loudly proclaiming a vast ignorance regarding what evidence is, and what it means. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence. Non-existence is ALWAYS indicated by a lack of evidence for existence.

Being unable to see the evidence in front of you might make people decide there is nothing there. However, get back to the empty box. Does it contain anything at all? It contains space, does it not? Does space exist in spite of being so clear you can see right through it or does it not exist because it is intangible invisible and weighs nothing?
God is like the air. It is everywhere, in all and through all. You "live" or "abide" in "God" and "God abides" in you in the same way as you abide in space and space abides in you.

I do apologize, but my repetitious redundancy is a necessary device to point theists to an understanding of the contradiction they continually demand.

Life seems to be filled with contradictions but they balance each other out in the end and keep us amused with lifes paradoxes. Life is a cycle which keeps repeating itself. It always has and always will. It takes life to create life. God is LIFE.
You cannot take the life out of a living thing and observe that life under a microscope.
You can only observe living objects and determine they are alive while they are manifesting the evidence of life. Once that evidence of life leaves the body we determine them to be dead but no one knows where the life within them goes. What happened to the evidence of life? Did it just disappear? Does it (Life) exist once it leaves the body? Did it exist inside the body?

Breathe in the Spirit of Life when you are born and you live. Don't breathe it in and you won't live. Breathe it out for the last time and your body dies.
God IS the Spirit of Life. No man can live without it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.

What part of not just following with the herd and actually thinking things through for myself do you interpret as me not trusting myself?

Allow me also to point out that you claimed you had evidence for God, but when challenged you didn't even attempt to provide any. Again, this is typical. It wafts of your own awareness that your "evidence" is only the way you wish to interpret things subjectively, with the specific intent of being dishonest with yourself.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:31:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.

What part of not just following with the herd and actually thinking things through for myself do you interpret as me not trusting myself?

Allow me also to point out that you claimed you had evidence for God, but when challenged you didn't even attempt to provide any. Again, this is typical. It wafts of your own awareness that your "evidence" is only the way you wish to interpret things subjectively, with the specific intent of being dishonest with yourself.

Hi Beastt,
Do you believe you have a conscience?
If you do, can you provide anyone with evidence of your conscience or is the evidence just within yourself and cannot be shown to anyone outside of yourself ?
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:20:05 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.

This is typical. For the past 11-years I have engaged in apologetics debate on almost a daily basis. I have had hundreds of theists tell me they have evidence for God. There are two common factors when theists make this claim; they never volunteer any evidence, and when pressed, they will always provide subjective interpretations, rather than objective evidence.

And that's because despite your desire to believe to the contrary, there is no objective evidence for God. But if you wish to insist that such evidence exists, then do demonstrate the personal integrity to provide that evidence. And when you find that you can't, admit that what you have is a subjective interpretation, fostered by dramatic levels of confirmation-bias... NOT objective evidence.

And one can have subjective interpretations leading to any wrongful conclusion. Do you think volcano worshipers didn't follow a subjective interpretation leading them to believe that the mountain was appeased through the offering of a virgin? Was that objective evidence that the mountain was sentient, in want of an object of lust, and appeased by that offering?

Be honest.

I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.

I guess this is translated to "I don't have evidence, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T EXIST EITHER!!"
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:59:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.

What part of not just following with the herd and actually thinking things through for myself do you interpret as me not trusting myself?

Allow me also to point out that you claimed you had evidence for God, but when challenged you didn't even attempt to provide any. Again, this is typical. It wafts of your own awareness that your "evidence" is only the way you wish to interpret things subjectively, with the specific intent of being dishonest with yourself.

Never, just means it's not sufficient for you. My quote was that I have plenty of evidence (for me, validate my beliefs) to rebut your assertion, not make a claim.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:35:31 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:22:29 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:20:05 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/20/2014 4:12:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Nope, I have plenty of evidence, enough I need to believe in my God. Sorry, it's not compatible with your world view.

This is typical. For the past 11-years I have engaged in apologetics debate on almost a daily basis. I have had hundreds of theists tell me they have evidence for God. There are two common factors when theists make this claim; they never volunteer any evidence, and when pressed, they will always provide subjective interpretations, rather than objective evidence.

And that's because despite your desire to believe to the contrary, there is no objective evidence for God. But if you wish to insist that such evidence exists, then do demonstrate the personal integrity to provide that evidence. And when you find that you can't, admit that what you have is a subjective interpretation, fostered by dramatic levels of confirmation-bias... NOT objective evidence.

And one can have subjective interpretations leading to any wrongful conclusion. Do you think volcano worshipers didn't follow a subjective interpretation leading them to believe that the mountain was appeased through the offering of a virgin? Was that objective evidence that the mountain was sentient, in want of an object of lust, and appeased by that offering?

Be honest.

I am sorry that you don't trust yourself, it has nothing to do with me. Believe whatever you want my friend I'm not arguing, you are.

I guess this is translated to "I don't have evidence, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T EXIST EITHER!!"

No, it means he is welcome to believe what he likes. Also his psychiatry applies to his own doubts, not mine.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:39:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are there any rebuttal to my contentions that:

(1) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, only comes from prior intelligence

(2) the universe requires a cause that exists eternally
(2a) God is a better explanation that naturalistic means for (2)

(3) the nature of something is dependent on its intrinsic information.
(3a) the specified complexity of the information found in nature can only be the byproduct of intelligence.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:39:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Are there any rebuttal to my contentions that:

(1) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, only comes from prior intelligence

Define intelligence.

(2) the universe requires a cause that exists eternally
(2a) God is a better explanation that naturalistic means for (2)

Natural laws explain it better than God. Occam's Razor would make us choose the option with the least assumptions, and that is natural laws, not God.

(3) the nature of something is dependent on its intrinsic information.
(3a) the specified complexity of the information found in nature can only be the byproduct of intelligence.

Define information.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
...the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

One small point on this. If all true, that does not point to any certain god.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:17:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:48:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:39:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Are there any rebuttal to my contentions that:

(1) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, only comes from prior intelligence

Define intelligence.

(2) the universe requires a cause that exists eternally
(2a) God is a better explanation that naturalistic means for (2)

Natural laws explain it better than God. Occam's Razor would make us choose the option with the least assumptions, and that is natural laws, not God.

(3) the nature of something is dependent on its intrinsic information.
(3a) the specified complexity of the information found in nature can only be the byproduct of intelligence.

Define information.

(1) Lol I defined intelligence in my first sentence by saying "...defined as specified-complexity..."

(2) do you agree that natural laws, such as physics, thermodynamics, gravity, etc., laws that are universal, formulaic, super finely tuned and unchanging constants are better explained by spontaneous, chaotic, and random processes that created all of them, or better explained by a mind specifically for the purpose of governing the universe? Naturalistic causes of the universe necessarily rely on unguided, random, chaotic, purposeless actions.

Or, do you believe that these laws existed eternally? If so, do you believe that they pre-existed the Big Bang singularity in which all of space, time, and energy was created? Do the formulaic laws not contain any information in them?

Intrinsic information defined as a specific set of values coded to behave in a way indicating its nature.

You probably disagree with this definition because of my term "code" because that implies a programmer, but the coded information found in nature operates in the same way of specified complexity that a programmer would design code to operate a software program for. In fact, Bill Gates is quoted as saying that genetic code, or the information embedded in DNA is like a computer software program but far more advanced than anything humans have ever created.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:17:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 8:12:32 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
...the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

One small point on this. If all true, that does not point to any certain god.

I agree.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

Then if god's intelligent he requires an intelligent designer lol. The most perfect being needs one better than us.
Dude... Stop...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:28:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 8:17:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:48:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:39:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Are there any rebuttal to my contentions that:

(1) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, only comes from prior intelligence

Define intelligence.

(2) the universe requires a cause that exists eternally
(2a) God is a better explanation that naturalistic means for (2)

Natural laws explain it better than God. Occam's Razor would make us choose the option with the least assumptions, and that is natural laws, not God.

(3) the nature of something is dependent on its intrinsic information.
(3a) the specified complexity of the information found in nature can only be the byproduct of intelligence.

Define information.

(1) Lol I defined intelligence in my first sentence by saying "...defined as specified-complexity..."

Then I say no. An element is not intelligent, but a lot of atoms can come together to form a compound, to form chemicals. Under the right conditions these compounds and elements can form organic material, and possible even RNA, which in turn can help with the formation of DNA. DNA is not intelligent, it is an order of chemicals that work under natural laws to help guide the process of how a cell works, even many cells. These cells can make up complex beings, like us humans.

(2) do you agree that natural laws, such as physics, thermodynamics, gravity, etc., laws that are universal, formulaic, super finely tuned and unchanging constants are better explained by spontaneous, chaotic, and random processes that created all of them, or better explained by a mind specifically for the purpose of governing the universe? Naturalistic causes of the universe necessarily rely on unguided, random, chaotic, purposeless actions.

Why do these laws need to be finite? Why can't they be eternal like your idea of God? Even if they are not eternal, that means that the Laws of Logic aren't eternal either, making this conversation pointless because the cause of the universe could be cheesecake if there are no Laws of Logic.

Or, do you believe that these laws existed eternally? If so, do you believe that they pre-existed the Big Bang singularity in which all of space, time, and energy was created? Do the formulaic laws not contain any information in them?

Natural laws are not laws as our legal system has laws, they are just explanations of how things work. Did the laws themselves exist? Maybe, maybe not. Did the things they explain? Some quite easily could have. I also cannot say that they pre-existed the Big Bang since Normal Time came into existence at the Big Bang, meaning there was no before. Before the Big Bang there would be Imaginary Time (think of imaginary numbers compared to real numbers).

Intrinsic information defined as a specific set of values coded to behave in a way indicating its nature.

You probably disagree with this definition because of my term "code" because that implies a programmer, but the coded information found in nature operates in the same way of specified complexity that a programmer would design code to operate a software program for. In fact, Bill Gates is quoted as saying that genetic code, or the information embedded in DNA is like a computer software program but far more advanced than anything humans have ever created.

Define what the nature of something means then. Definitions are important here.

Also, DNA might seem to work like a computer software, but it is not a "code" or "information" in the sense that is being talked about.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 8:21:26 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

Then if god's intelligent he requires an intelligent designer lol. The most perfect being needs one better than us.

If you accept the definition of God, you would agree that something cannot be greater or more intelligent than that which is already the pinnacle of intelligence.

The universe necessitates something existing eternally. Do you agree?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:05:59 PM, Skyangel wrote:
One must also first understand what God is before they can claim its existence or nonexistence.
Do you believe "NOW" exists? If you believe it does, where is the evidence?
The temporal realm is necessary for every branch of physics. It is not a non-physical entity and is a required component of every physical phenomena. You cannot experience anything devoid of a temporal factor. Therefore, every experience you have, everything you see hear and sense, is evidence of "now".

Do you believe "LOVE" exists? If so, where is the evidence?
That's a tired, old and flawed argument. Love is evidenced first within the behaviors it provokes. However, for a more tangible look at love, we can trace neurotransmitter levels and perform fMRI brain scans to show the activity levels in the associated regions of the brain. Emotions are purely physical and can be tracked and observed by tracing their physical manifestations as well as their behavioral manifestations. You can experience love chemically, and chemicals can also suppress feelings of love. One of the standard treatments for bi-polar disorder is lithium because it chemically balances neurotransmitter levels, and therefore calms emotions.

Yes I disagree. It does not apply to every case. Your concept applies only to tangible objects not to intangible things like conscience, thoughts and emotions.
The world may consider it lucky that people who make such statements are not in the medical field. What good is a doctor who can't detect consciousness or the lack thereof? I was only an EMT and I can test for consciousness. (A vigorous sternum rub works wonders with people attempting to feign a lack of consciousness.) But we do have far more sure-fire methods, such as the aforementioned MRI scan. And yes, this also applies to thoughts and emotions. Are you working under the misconception that modern medical methods can't monitor brain functions? One must wonder at the level of intellectual isolation you present.

You cannot put those intangible things under a microscope and disect or observe them. Do they still exist in spite of any tangible evidence?
Sorry, but you absolutely can. Of course, a microscope might not be the proper tool for some supposedly "intangible things", but we do have methods which allow us to detect what you claim to be without evidence. We're so good at it that we can now perform brain scans on test subjects who are given a simple choice such as red/blue, yes/no, right/left; and the researchers can accurately determine the subject's choice, even before the subject is aware they have made the choice. The physical is what exist. That's simply the truth, like it or not.

Try demonstrating a link to the time we label as "NOW"
Try conveying any occurrence without demonstrating a link to "now". We can only experience within the "now". So any experience we have is evidence and confirmation of now.

Humans label the things which exist even if those things exist only in their thoughts and imaginations.
The existence of a thought is not the same as the subject of the thought. The thought is real (it's electro-chemical). The subject of the thought may reflect reality or non-reality such as God. One should worry when they begin to believe that whatever they imagine, becomes part of the real universe. It's a serious sign of the onset of a mental disorder.

Humans dream up and create the things they want to exist.
Which explains the belief in God. God doesn't exist, but some people without moral discernment, who wish their wrath to be exercised without personal risk, do wish that God existed. So they imagine him, but do not "create" him.

Humans are creators. We create our own fantasies and also our realities.
No, we process mental constructs, not actual reality. The mental processes are physical. The conceptual content is purely imaginary and may be based on reality, or be purely imaginary. It's important to be able to separate the two.

Life is what we make it.
We can direct our actions. We cannot cause the existence of anything which doesn't already exist. (First Law of Thermodynamics: matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed).

The lions may not exist in your living room but they do exist elsewhere in the world.
And? That seems to be an evasion of the point. People evade that which frightens them. Do you have evidence that the lions are not in your living room? Or do you only lack evidence that they are in your living room? And do you not feel completely secure in the lack of evidence for the lions in your living room? Then why dismiss the lack of evidence for God?

God exists in fantasy land and God ( depending on your definition of the word) also exists in reality.
No, God exists only in a fantasy realm. He does not exist in reality. Reality is physical " like it or not " there is no evidence, no reason, and no link to support the idea of reality beyond the physical.

Does Love exist? The bible says God IS LOVE. That is one definition of what God IS.
The Bible says many things which are pure trash. It's simply a collection of writings conveying the beliefs, wishes and ideas of rather primitive men, selected by a different group of primitive men (in the 4th century), in pursuing their own agendas. It holds no authority and destroys its credibility in the very first pages, as well as throughout. If you lack an understanding of the Bible's origins I'll be happy to walk you through. The fictional character of God in the Bible is anything but loving. He's wrathful, unforgiving, rude, abrupt, childish, insecure, over-bearing, contradictory, hateful and barbaric. Saying "Hitler is love" does not make is so. Writing it down does no better.

Do you walk around the world looking for LOVE? Can you recognize it when you see it? What does it look like if you ever find it?
How many times do I have to explain that love is physical, can be tracked, identified and even induced or quashed? It emerges from reactions to chemicals in the brain. Those chemicals and the related activity can be detected, monitored, and visualized. We have massive tangible evidence for love.

Not finding keys in your pocket means you did not find what you were looking for in the place you were looking. Smart people would look elsewhere.
Why would you look elsewhere if the lack of evidence for them is not a valid indicator of their absence? Do you even think about what you type? People have been searching for evidence of gods for as long as they have imagined them. And they will look anywhere and everywhere imaginable. Yet this "omni-present" God is found absolutely nowhere.

You will never find God in the tangible visible realm.
Nor will I (or anyone else), find fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns or gremlins, and for exactly the same reason - they don't exist, just as God doesn't exist. God can't exist. Not only is he absent of evidence, but he's a massive logical contradiction.

Just as you will never find LOVE in the tangible visible realm.
Wrong! Love has been found, confirmed, plotted, visualized, manipulated, suppressed and induced. Even chocolate contains traces of a chemical which can induce the manifestations which we call "love".

You will also never find the time called NOW no matter how hard you look for it, due to it coming and going at the very same time.
Now never comes and now never goes. It is omni-present. It is always now, and everything which occurs in the now, is evidence for now. What occurs aside from now cannot be experienced. "Now" is simply the temporal parallel for the spacial "here". You are always "here" and you are always "now".

Empty space is evidence of nonexistence.
There is no such thing as "empty space". Even space devoid of particles of mass contains energy and it contains space time.

(continued)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 8:29:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 8:21:26 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

Then if god's intelligent he requires an intelligent designer lol. The most perfect being needs one better than us.

If you accept the definition of God, you would agree that something cannot be greater or more intelligent than that which is already the pinnacle of intelligence.

That's a contradiction then...
The universe necessitates something existing eternally. Do you agree?

No.
Dude... Stop...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 8:35:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:17:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This might be hard to digest but bear with me.

Things in our universe naturally follow intrinsic instructions. Everything in our universe has these instructions to specify the nature of its behavior. Without information, these instructions cannot exist. If this is true, we know that information required for the specified-complexity that nature exhibits can only be the byproduct of intelligence. Intelligence has only shown to come from prior intelligence. For instance, we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion when we found it because we know it required intelligent beings. Thus, the thing from which all instructions originated requires an eternal, intelligent being.

We wouldn't even accept that the letters SOS written in the sand were anything but a message left by an intelligent being, let alone the Rosetta Stone. Intelligence comes from intelligence and life comes from life. Whatever created the first life and the first intelligence had to be something fantastic indeed. Just the idea of a single seed - something which lies there on a shelf, dead for years, but then which comes to life the moment that conditions are right - is enough to fill a person with wonder.