Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best reasons to believe that God exists

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:07:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties
Show cause.
2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.
Objective morality does not exist. Intrinsic human worth is just that.
3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.
So saith the puddle.
4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.
Says you. Evidence disagrees.
5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.
What has that do do with any god.
----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.
Infinite regress.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:50:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Bare assertion.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

Bare assertion.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

Bare assertion and nonsensical claim regarding probability.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Bare assertion.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

Non sequitur.

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

There are people working on creating life at this very moment. Argument for incredulity.

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

Because the best intelligences on Earth aren't some sort of ultimate metric for potential intelligence. Further argument from incredulity and bare assertion.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:03:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That seems like a bunch of words for a simpler reason. For me, the best reason God exists is because I exist and you exist. This is a good a reason as any.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.

That wasn't what I was saying. We are intelligent beings. We can't replicate the intricacy found in nature with modern technology and the smartest intelligent beings in the world. You are saying the randomness in nature randomly tends towards something that supersedes even the most intelligent beings on earth?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

You're ignoring the possibility that the Big Bang was caused by something natural and physical outside of the universe. Or that the Big Bang might be a natural physical reaction in itself. The Big Bang didn't necessarily mark the beginning of energy. The singularity that is believed to exist prior to the Big Bang may have contained all of the energy of the universe. What you're saying is basically an assertion that ignores other possibilities without giving a reason to discount those other possible explanations.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

How do you know they're "wrong indefinitely?" I can give you a few examples, even from the Bible, where they have not been seen as wrong. The slaughter of the Amalekites is the first one that comes to mind, and I can link you to arguments from theists that justify the murder of the Amalekite children and babies.

Also, you're switching between definitions of "objective" in your explanation. You go from objective as in "not subjective" to objective as in "goal." That doesn't do anything to explain how objective morality can only exist if our existence has a purpose.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.

That doesn't mean our universe is mathematically structured. It just means our math can be used to model the universe. Your explanation is like claiming that windmills create the wind.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

What is your justification for using that definition of intelligence? The only people I've seen use that kind of definition are creationists who use it to justify their argument for god. That's circular. Do you have a non-circular justification for that definition?

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

How do you know that love produces effects in the brain? All scientific observation indicates the reverse.

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.

That wasn't what I was saying. We are intelligent beings. We can't replicate the intricacy found in nature with modern technology and the smartest intelligent beings in the world. You are saying the randomness in nature randomly tends towards something that supersedes even the most intelligent beings on earth?

No, I'm challenging your claim. I'm not making a counter claim. Your argument still sounds like "we can't do it, so it must be god." It appears that you're asking "if we can't replicate it, then what other explanation is there other than god?" That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 2:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

This is not a reason; this is an assertion. You couldn't possibly begin to know what would be required for the BB. This shows an absolute ignorance regarding the details of the BBT. -- Invalid.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

Again, "Both exist" is an assertion. Stating that a moral is valid because "gawd" is no more valid than stating that a moral is valid based on "reason." Again, you are stating assertions, rather than reasons. You have no way of knowing that there is an "objective" morality. Further, believers in gawd violate morality at an alarmingly higher rate than non-believers, devaluing you assertion. -- Invalid.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

At this point, there is no reason to consider that you are providing "reasons," but making assertions. Period. While the band of life-permitting conditions is, indeed, narrow, do you understand that "impossibly improbable" is a grammatically incorrect and invalid description? I understand holding William Lane Craig as a hero. He is incredibly articulate, and well-prepared -- for debate. He is also, however, an extremely disingenuous abuser of scientific "factoids" and quotes. -- Invalid.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Only if the origin of intelligence happened at one shot. It is clear, with this statement, that you know absolutely nothing of the theory of evolution. This argument has been thoroughly refuted, ad nauseam, multiple times. It becomes obvious, reading your post, that you have faith. It is equally obvious that you don't have a shred of rational, reasoned argument of your own to provide. Sputtering out other people's arguments, making assertions based on them, and declaring something to be fact without a shred of support is, at best, presumptuous. -- Invalid.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

I, too, hold love as my highest ideal. However, the phrase "most important" presupposes a personality to whom it is important. Further, no indication is given for love of "whom," or love of "what." The condition of love is different, given different objects of love. I LOVE my wife. I LOVE computing. I LOVE animals. I LOVE springtime in Washington State. I LOVE electronics. I LOVE disproving theistic claims...
That you and I hold the same ideal in the same esteem does not give evidence of a creator. They are a simple agreement, on one simple point. Sorry, Ben -- Invalid.
----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

The term "obvious" is out of context, here. The fact that you can't understand how someone can derive a conclusion that differs from yours does not make your conclusion "obvious." It makes you "narrow." Those who give more thought to the concepts you have asserted (not reasoned) generally come to conclusions that differ from yours. The examples you list, here, also presuppose instantaneous arrival, not evolution. You're just flatly wrong, about everything you've stated.

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

They are not designs. Your "watchmaker" argument has been completely refuted, on multiple occasions, by far greater minds. Further, your use of the word "code," in that context, further demonstrates that you don't understand code.

Better luck, next time.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:10:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:28:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

You're ignoring the possibility that the Big Bang was caused by something natural and physical outside of the universe. Or that the Big Bang might be a natural physical reaction in itself. The Big Bang didn't necessarily mark the beginning of energy. The singularity that is believed to exist prior to the Big Bang may have contained all of the energy of the universe. What you're saying is basically an assertion that ignores other possibilities without giving a reason to discount those other possible explanations.


So you agree that something transcendent of physical properties must occur by saying something "natural outside of the universe" but that's basically an oxymoron. The singularity is what I am referring to. Nothing existed prior to that.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

How do you know they're "wrong indefinitely?" I can give you a few examples, even from the Bible, where they have not been seen as wrong. The slaughter of the Amalekites is the first one that comes to mind, and I can link you to arguments from theists that justify the murder of the Amalekite children and babies.

I haven't seen a case of murder without cause in the bible but even so, I wasn't referring to the biblical god. In my opening post I merely said some kind of being or mind responsible for our existence.

Also, you're switching between definitions of "objective" in your explanation. You go from objective as in "not subjective" to objective as in "goal." That doesn't do anything to explain how objective morality can only exist if our existence has a purpose.

Well what are objectives? Something objective is factual. Morality is purpose driven. Of there is a purpose driven fact then that moral is objective. For example, murder for no reason is a purpose driven action and it is a fact that it is morally wrong. How do we know? Because it is true regardless of culture, nationality, time period, or of any record in human existence to the contrary. Therefore these are moral facts.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.

That doesn't mean our universe is mathematically structured. It just means our math can be used to model the universe. Your explanation is like claiming that windmills create the wind.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

What is your justification for using that definition of intelligence? The only people I've seen use that kind of definition are creationists who use it to justify their argument for god. That's circular. Do you have a non-circular justification for that definition?

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

How do you know that love produces effects in the brain? All scientific observation indicates the reverse.

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.

That wasn't what I was saying. We are intelligent beings. We can't replicate the intricacy found in nature with modern technology and the smartest intelligent beings in the world. You are saying the randomness in nature randomly tends towards something that supersedes even the most intelligent beings on earth?

No, I'm challenging your claim. I'm not making a counter claim. Your argument still sounds like "we can't do it, so it must be god." It appears that you're asking "if we can't replicate it, then what other explanation is there other t
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:28:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

You're ignoring the possibility that the Big Bang was caused by something natural and physical outside of the universe. Or that the Big Bang might be a natural physical reaction in itself. The Big Bang didn't necessarily mark the beginning of energy. The singularity that is believed to exist prior to the Big Bang may have contained all of the energy of the universe. What you're saying is basically an assertion that ignores other possibilities without giving a reason to discount those other possible explanations.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

How do you know they're "wrong indefinitely?" I can give you a few examples, even from the Bible, where they have not been seen as wrong. The slaughter of the Amalekites is the first one that comes to mind, and I can link you to arguments from theists that justify the murder of the Amalekite children and babies.

Also, you're switching between definitions of "objective" in your explanation. You go from objective as in "not subjective" to objective as in "goal." That doesn't do anything to explain how objective morality can only exist if our existence has a purpose.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.

That doesn't mean our universe is mathematically structured. It just means our math can be used to model the universe. Your explanation is like claiming that windmills create the wind.

"Our math can be used" wouldn't be a coherent statement if mathematics didn't exist as a structure in our universe. I'm saying the mathematical modeling that even *possible* in our universe shows the inherent order and logical structure present in nature and in the universe.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

What is your justification for using that definition of intelligence? The only people I've seen use that kind of definition are creationists who use it to justify their argument for god. That's circular. Do you have a non-circular justification for that definition?

What is your definition of intelligence? I find that definition to be the most true because actions we take are defined by specific functions within a complex framework. Something like a rock would never be able to perform these functions because it lacks intelligent capacity.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

How do you know that love produces effects in the brain? All scientific observation indicates the reverse.

So what you're saying is that the effect is the cause. If I punch a wall my brain will recept pain. I don't recept pain to punch a wall.

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.

That wasn't what I was saying. We are intelligent beings. We can't replicate the intricacy found in nature with modern technology and the smartest intelligent beings in the world. You are saying the randomness in nature randomly tends towards something that supersedes even the most intelligent beings on earth?

No, I'm challenging your claim. I'm not making a counter claim. Your argument still sounds like "we can't do it, so it must be god." It appears that you're asking "if we can't replicate it, then what other explanation is there other than god?" That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

It's an argument from pattern recognition. We don't expect nature to randomly produce a nail clipper let alone
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A human central nervous system or brain.

Sorry about so many posts the char. limit kept deleting my responses.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

"We can't replicate it, so it must be god" is not a convincing argument for me. And it's basically an argument from ignorance.

That wasn't what I was saying. We are intelligent beings. We can't replicate the intricacy found in nature with modern technology and the smartest intelligent beings in the world. You are saying the randomness in nature randomly tends towards something that supersedes even the most intelligent beings on earth?

Oh, great... another neutered line of reason...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:38:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 2:57:08 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

This is not a reason; this is an assertion. You couldn't possibly begin to know what would be required for the BB. This shows an absolute ignorance regarding the details of the BBT. -- Invalid.

I know what couldn't have cause it. By knowing that it was nothing physical I can logically deduce that the remaining causes must be metaphysical. Simple.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

Again, "Both exist" is an assertion. Stating that a moral is valid because "gawd" is no more valid than stating that a moral is valid based on "reason." Again, you are stating assertions, rather than reasons. You have no way of knowing that there is an "objective" morality. Further, believers in gawd violate morality at an alarmingly higher rate than non-believers, devaluing you assertion. -- Invalid.

I sense anger and animosity towards your belief in anything other than naturalism. You should open your mind and accept even a *possibility* of something else other than your hard held beliefs. I'll ask you if murdering your mother for no reason or raping someone you love for no reason is wrong indefinitely. Do you think it is?

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

At this point, there is no reason to consider that you are providing "reasons," but making assertions. Period. While the band of life-permitting conditions is, indeed, narrow, do you understand that "impossibly improbable" is a grammatically incorrect and invalid description? I understand holding William Lane Craig as a hero. He is incredibly articulate, and well-prepared -- for debate. He is also, however, an extremely disingenuous abuser of scientific "factoids" and quotes. -- Invalid.

Inherent forces of order maintaining balance and allowing a narrow window for life shouldn't be questioned but rather should be attributed to chance occurrence? Look up the calculated possibility of life permitting conditions here on earth and tell me if it's something to dismiss.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Only if the origin of intelligence happened at one shot. It is clear, with this statement, that you know absolutely nothing of the theory of evolution. This argument has been thoroughly refuted, ad nauseam, multiple times. It becomes obvious, reading your post, that you have faith. It is equally obvious that you don't have a shred of rational, reasoned argument of your own to provide. Sputtering out other people's arguments, making assertions based on them, and declaring something to be fact without a shred of support is, at best, presumptuous. -- Invalid.

Name one intelligent thing that we've observed to occur by chance. I'll wait.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

I, too, hold love as my highest ideal. However, the phrase "most important" presupposes a personality to whom it is important. Further, no indication is given for love of "whom," or love of "what." The condition of love is different, given different objects of love. I LOVE my wife. I LOVE computing. I LOVE animals. I LOVE springtime in Washington State. I LOVE electronics. I LOVE disproving theistic claims...
That you and I hold the same ideal in the same esteem does not give evidence of a creator. They are a simple agreement, on one simple point. Sorry, Ben -- Invalid.

It's inherently true because love maximizes well-being universally. Under naturalism, love is a secondary process that helps us conceive. But people run into burning buildings to save a strangers life. Love is clearly more important and multifaceted than we give credit to. If we were made by God, love is a way to share our collective desire to be a part of him. This follows logically if "God is love" as it states in the bible. I'm not arguing for the biblical God but if a God exists, I find that perfect love must be an inherent trait of God if we follow a moral code of love and why we seek love in the first place. I can't even imagine life or a world existing without something such as vital as love. Can you?
----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

The term "obvious" is out of context, here. The fact that you can't understand how someone can derive a conclusion that differs from yours does not make your conclusion "obvious." It makes you "narrow." Those who give more thought to the concepts you have asserted (not reasoned) generally come to conclusions that differ from yours. The examples you list, here, also presuppose instantaneous arrival, not evolution. You're just flatly wrong, about everything you've stated.

It means I see intelligence and complexity exhibited by nature that supersedes my intelligent possibilities. If I am the most intelligent species on earth, why is it that nature randomly tends to create things that supersede myself if nature isn't guided by any inherent intelligence?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

They are not designs. Your "watchmaker" argument has been completely refuted, on multiple occasions, by far greater minds. Further, your use of the word "code," in that context, further demonstrates that you don't understand code.

Better luck, next time.

I ask you to open your mind. Have you never questioned the possibility that some being could be responsible for all that you see and experience? And for what reason do you discount the possibility? I haven't made a watchmaker argument but I don't see why that argument is invalid. If nature exhibits a complexity and intelligence FAR more complex that a Swiss watch, why would you dismiss that argument?

Please if even for a minute just think about the possibility that God may exist and open your mind. It might change your life.
dvande28
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:47:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties
Provide proof of this instead of assertions. You would then need to provide proof that this cause if God.

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.
Objective morality has absolutely nothing to do with God. If God exists and we get our morality from God, then morality is subjective based on God's opinion, instead of subjective based on our opinion. Furthermore you would need to provide proof that intrinsic human worth and objective morality exists.


3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.
Again provide proof.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.
The argument is going to lead to either an infinite regress of intelligent agents or require special pleading. Also provide proof.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.
Another baseless assertion. Provide proof. Furthermore, how does love have anything to do with the existence of God?

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.

Evolution has already provided the answer.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 4:50:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Trancendent = not contingent upon or without.

That being the case, let's accept that the Big Bang needs a non physical cause. Now show that cause is likely God.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:08:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 3:38:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'll ask you if murdering your mother for no reason or raping someone you love for no reason is wrong indefinitely. Do you think it is?

If someone's mother were a violent psychopath and trying to harm them, it would not necessarily be wrong. The second example is semantically invalid because of what 'love' describes; it is like asking if it's okay to be a married bachelor.

Name one intelligent thing that we've observed to occur by chance. I'll wait.

You are trying to use your conclusion as justification for concluding it.

It means I see intelligence and complexity exhibited by nature that supersedes my intelligent possibilities. If I am the most intelligent species on earth, why is it that nature randomly tends to create things that supersede myself if nature isn't guided by any inherent intelligence?

Because you're vastly over-estimating the intellectual capacity of individual humans and under-estimating the complexity and extent of nature.

Please if even for a minute just think about the possibility that God may exist and open your mind. It might change your life.

I love the fact that many theists seem to think this has never occurred to atheists. That it hasn't been tried. Well it has. We're still atheists.
Luke_Krog
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:29:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I choose to believe that God exists for a variety of reasons. First, there is no more likely reason for the existence of existence. Even with the Big Bang, simply put, something had to of existed to cause that bang. I believe that it is more believable that something supernatural existed before existence as opposed to something natural. I'm going to go even further and justify the Christian God too, just for kicks. If I am going to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being, I then have to find what or whom that being is. There is no true way to prove that any religion is true or that any particular God exists. However, there is some evidence (such as documents, miracles, appearances) that justify the Christian God (probably more than any other mainstream religion) and the Christian message is the purest and truest message of any religion. Love. Atheists and anti-Christians can point out all sort of strange and seemingly contradictory phrases in the Bible, but at the core of of Christianity is love. Bible phrases such as "God is love" and "Faith, hope, and love, but the greatest is love" demonstrate this. I also believe that religion isn't nearly as important as morality. If the Gods exist and they are just, they won't discriminate based on what particular deity you worship. And if they do, they aren't worth believing in.
Sorry if I rambled on a bit there, but I have been thinking about this for a while and just wanted to write it out.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-Marcus Aurelius
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 3:38:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

I know what couldn't have cause it. By knowing that it was nothing physical I can logically deduce that the remaining causes must be metaphysical. Simple.

Again, nothing more than an assertion -- and an incorrect one, at that. You appear to be using words you don't really even understand, to try to defend an untenable position. It is not simple, and you have no way of reducing something 13+ Billion years in the past to two possibilities (physical or metaphysical). You surmise that it can't be physical, you want to believe supernatural, and you assert "metaphysical." Abstraction never does anything to strengthen the absurd position of supernatural phenomenon. Again, you have no way of "knowing" anything about the BB. You merely assert, and convince yourself (and no other).

I sense anger and animosity towards your belief in anything other than naturalism. You should open your mind and accept even a *possibility* of something else other than your hard held beliefs. I'll ask you if murdering your mother for no reason or raping someone you love for no reason is wrong indefinitely. Do you think it is?

Wrong. You sense irritation at ignorance asserting knowledge where none is possible. I have stated, repeatedly, that I am not opposed to finding that there is a god (hence, agnostic). What I am opposed to doing is searching around for evidence, after one has already drawn a conclusion. You continue to regurgitate the "evidence" you've heard others spout, and never once produce a single shred of substantiation for the wild claims that you make. Yes, I believe the horribly inhuman acts that you mentioned are wrong. That doesn't make them "objective" morals. I don't believe it's wrong for two people of the same gender to find romantic love. Do you?

Inherent forces of order maintaining balance and allowing a narrow window for life shouldn't be questioned but rather should be attributed to chance occurrence? Look up the calculated possibility of life permitting conditions here on earth and tell me if it's something to dismiss.

Can you even define what you mean by "inherent forces of order? Or did it just "sound technical" enough to make an assertion, and try to tie it to a conclusion you made long before you performed your first google search? I have read about the calculated possibility of conditions for life to originate. Yes, your "conclusion" (read: your regurgitated diatribe) of other people's theft of scientific conclusions is definitely something that is dismissed, easily.

Name one intelligent thing that we've observed to occur by chance. I'll wait.

Name one act of gawd you've observed, and can prove god did it. I'll wait.

You see, the fact that someone doesn't have an answer to something, readily available, doesn't automatically make your baseless assertion correct. The best explanation we currently have is abiogenesis. The fact that you stated, "I'll wait," indicates that that you assume you'll be alive for a few billion more years. You and Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron just don't seem to get that a gradual increase takes more time than theists are willing to grant it. Your assumption is that it happened all at once and, with your gawd and your biblebabblewoowoo, that's the only way it could have happened. Your statement is highly indicative of the fact that you are even more narrow than you just accused me of being.

It's inherently true because love maximizes well-being universally. Under naturalism, love is a secondary process that helps us conceive. But people run into burning buildings to save a strangers life. Love is clearly more important and multifaceted than we give credit to. If we were made by God, love is a way to share our collective desire to be a part of him. This follows logically if "God is love" as it states in the bible. I'm not arguing for the biblical God but if a God exists, I find that perfect love must be an inherent trait of God if we follow a moral code of love and why we seek love in the first place. I can't even imagine life or a world existing without something such as vital as love. Can you?

How do you arrive at "inherently true?" And "maximizes well-being universally?" Love is an emotional response to external stimuli. Running into burning buildings is heroic. Love of human life is commendable. Your premise begins with "If we were made by gawd," derive a secondary conclusion, which you then use as a secondary premise for another assertion that doesn't necessarily follow. Your logic isn't just flawed, it's crippled. Please define "moral code of love." You are codifying morality based on one single emotion, and using zero substantiation. Yes, I can imagine a world without love. It's called the "Holy Roman Inquisition." It's called religion.

It means I see intelligence and complexity exhibited by nature that supersedes my intelligent possibilities. If I am the most intelligent species on earth, why is it that nature randomly tends to create things that supersede myself if nature isn't guided by any inherent intelligence?

That something supersedes your intelligent possibilities does not automatically mean 'gawd.' Did you not just read that you wrote '...most intelligent species on earth...?' How incredibly arrogant do you have to be to assume that this entire vast universe was created for a simpleton species that can barely touch its own moon? Galaxies number in the billions. How many livable planets are there, out there? And the answer to that question also has many 'forks.' When we, as a species, say "livable," we are talking about OUR life. Do you claim to know that carbon-based life is the only possibility? Do you claim to know that there is NO other type of life that can live under other conditions? You see, aside from the myriad of possibilities that I could list under the paradigm of "life" or "livable," you have yet to provide a single piece of corroborative substantiation for all of your assertions. You assume that all of your inductive "reasoning" is infallible, and you don't even know enough about what you assert to know why you've asserted it.
The rest of that prattle is completely incoherent.

How can these designs, if created randomly, naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.


I ask you to open your mind. Have you never questioned the possibility that some being could be responsible for all that you see and experience? And for what reason do you discount the possibility? I haven't made a watchmaker argument but I don't see why that argument is invalid. If nature exhibits a complexity and intelligence FAR more complex that a Swiss watch, why would you dismiss that argument?

You, you ask me to open my mind to your beliefs. As an agnostic, yes, I question all the time. I don't discount the possibility (as I have already stated), I simply dismiss your reasoning for asserting. You did not use the watchmaker argument explicitly, no. Almost all "complexity" arguments, however, are variants of it. I dismiss that argument because the logic is completely flawed, but there aren't enough characters left to explain it to you.

Please if even for a minute just think about the possibility that God may exist and open your mind. It might change your life.

ONE MORE TIME: I don't dismiss the possibility. I simply reject that I should believe, until there is actual evidence, for gawd. As yet, I have seen/heard/read NONE. I'm sure it would change my life -- for the worse.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 6:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 3:10:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 1:28:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're ignoring the possibility that the Big Bang was caused by something natural and physical outside of the universe. Or that the Big Bang might be a natural physical reaction in itself. The Big Bang didn't necessarily mark the beginning of energy. The singularity that is believed to exist prior to the Big Bang may have contained all of the energy of the universe. What you're saying is basically an assertion that ignores other possibilities without giving a reason to discount those other possible explanations.


So you agree that something transcendent of physical properties must occur by saying something "natural outside of the universe" but that's basically an oxymoron. The singularity is what I am referring to. Nothing existed prior to that.

Energy still has physical properties, even if there isn't matter for it to perform work on. How do you know that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang? There is no part of Big Bang theory that claims with any level of certainty that nothing existed prior to it. Rather, every astrophycist (at least that I've heard/read about) acknowledges that we currently have no way of knowing what existed prior to the Big Bang. So how do you know that nothing existed then?

How do you know they're "wrong indefinitely?" I can give you a few examples, even from the Bible, where they have not been seen as wrong. The slaughter of the Amalekites is the first one that comes to mind, and I can link you to arguments from theists that justify the murder of the Amalekite children and babies.

I haven't seen a case of murder without cause in the bible but even so, I wasn't referring to the biblical god. In my opening post I merely said some kind of being or mind responsible for our existence.

Also, you're switching between definitions of "objective" in your explanation. You go from objective as in "not subjective" to objective as in "goal." That doesn't do anything to explain how objective morality can only exist if our existence has a purpose.

Well what are objectives? Something objective is factual. Morality is purpose driven. Of there is a purpose driven fact then that moral is objective. For example, murder for no reason is a purpose driven action and it is a fact that it is morally wrong. How do we know? Because it is true regardless of culture, nationality, time period, or of any record in human existence to the contrary. Therefore these are moral facts.

I know you aren't talking about the Biblical god, I'm just pointing to an example. It doesn't matter, though. What makes morality objective is if it applies in a situation regardless of who plays what roles in that situation. For instance, persons A and B meet in an alley. Person A kills person B without provocation. An objective moral standard would indicate that the act is immoral regardless of who A and B are. If A is a man and B is a mother, how do you feel about the morality of the act? If A is a woman and B is a convicted rapist, how do you feel about the act? If you don't feel exactly the same regarding both, then your morality regarding murder is not objective.

That doesn't mean our universe is mathematically structured. It just means our math can be used to model the universe. Your explanation is like claiming that windmills create the wind.

"Our math can be used" wouldn't be a coherent statement if mathematics didn't exist as a structure in our universe. I'm saying the mathematical modeling that even *possible* in our universe shows the inherent order and logical structure present in nature and in the universe.

You're saying it, but not providing any explanation. Please elaborate.

What is your justification for using that definition of intelligence? The only people I've seen use that kind of definition are creationists who use it to justify their argument for god. That's circular. Do you have a non-circular justification for that definition?

What is your definition of intelligence? I find that definition to be the most true because actions we take are defined by specific functions within a complex framework. Something like a rock would never be able to perform these functions because it lacks intelligent capacity.

"Specific functions in a complex framework" is not the same as "specified complexity." Walking through a maze involves specific functions (choices of direction) within a complex framework (the maze). Yet just about any animal with a brain can be trained to do that. Would you describe all animals with brains as "intelligent?" I'm sorry, but I don't find your justification for the definition to be sufficient. Furthermore, your justification doesn't support your claim that it can't rise from non-intelligence.

How do you know that love produces effects in the brain? All scientific observation indicates the reverse.

So what you're saying is that the effect is the cause. If I punch a wall my brain will recept pain. I don't recept pain to punch a wall.

Love is the effect, not the cause. Your analogy is truer than you probably realized. The cause of the pain that you feel is the result of histamine from ruptured cells in your hand triggering your nervous system to send a pain sensation to your brain. And when you feel love, it is because something in seeing, touching, smelling, etc the individual that you feel it toward has caused a release of hormones and neurotransmitters in your brain. If your claim, that feelings cause the production of hormones, were true, then your feelings of pain would cause the release of histamine. Your claim is backwards from demonstrated reality.

No, I'm challenging your claim. I'm not making a counter claim. Your argument still sounds like "we can't do it, so it must be god." It appears that you're asking "if we can't replicate it, then what other explanation is there other than god?" That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

It's an argument from pattern recognition. We don't expect nature to randomly produce a nail clipper let alone a human central nervous system or brain.

You may not expect nature to produce a human nervous system and brain, but those who understand evolution certainly do. You're conflating something that shows obvious signs of design (clippers) with something that doesn't (a brain).
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 7:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties
No it doesn't. From where did you get the idea the cause for big-bang would have to transcend all physical properties? That doesn't even make sense. To cause big-bang would require physical properties. Big-bang was a physical phenomena!

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.
Neither objective morality, nor intrinsic human worth exist.

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.
Bunk. If I offered you a deck of 5-cards, could you pick one? The odds of picking any specific card, are 52 to 1. If I offered you a deck containing (648 * 10^21) cards, could you still pick a card? Not a specific card, just any card? It would be no more difficult than picking one from the deck of 52. And yet, the odds against picking any specific card would be (648 * 10^21) to 1.

If I present you a deck of 200 trillion unique cards, no matter which one you pick, the odds against you picking that card were 200 trillion to one. What is it you don't understand about large numbers? It's no less likely to pick one from a total of 200 trillion trillion, than to pick one from a total of three. No matter how many potential possibilities exist, the odds of one of those possibilities existing is 1 in 1.

And if you're still baffled by the ridiculous creationist rhetoric, just remember this; When all potential outcomes are highly improbable, an improbable outcome becomes a certainty.

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.
So... if you make up a ridiculous premise and pretend it's true, that makes it true? Explain what it is about the property of intelligence which restricts its origin only to other intelligent agents. Oh... that's right! No such premise actually exists.

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.
One can survive without love. One cannot survive without sustaining fluids, raw materials and gases. You're tossing out emotional subjective evaluations and proclaiming them as true objective standards. It's not different than saying "blue is the most important color".

----------

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials?
And yet humans are the most intelligent beings on the planet, and the most intelligent beings we can currently confirm to exist. Soooo... isn't that a pretty good argument that since we can't make humans, or even living cells (yet), that the living cells and intelligence which exists didn't come from intelligent beings?

How can these designs
They're "structures", not "designs"

if created randomly,
Who claimed they were created "randomly"? When you pour salt into water and stir, is it a random outcome that you get salt-water? Or is it anything BUT random? Won't you get salt-water each and every time? If so, then it seems to be anything but random. Chemical processes are NOT random. They're anything BUT random. "Random" is one of those words theists simply don't seem to comprehend.

naturally create something so immensely complex that even the best intelligent designers on earth can't replicate them? The answer must be that the designs of life weren't created randomly but coded by an intelligent designer.
First, the word "complex" tells us more about the observer, than what they are observing. When you look at something and say, "Wow! That's complex". What you're really telling us is that you find it difficult to understand. To a 6-year old (15/5=3) is pretty complex. To a theist the meaning of the word "random" is highly complex. But you probably don't seen anything complex about 15 / 5 = 3... do you?
What you perceive as complexity is commonly little more than repetitive patterns, combined with more repetitive patterns. Do you think water understands the complexity of the molecular interactions involved with dissolving salt crystals? Do you think water understands the complexity of a snowflake? There is nothing about any "complex" natural structure which renders it contrary to the expected results of blind natural interactions.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 7:12:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy.
Whoa, Ben! Whoa! No, no, no,no, NO. That's not what is suggested of big-bang AT ALL. If you're going to make assertions about big-bang, get yourself a science book on it. Big-bang didn't mark the beginning of time, it marked the beginning of "space-time" - the interweaving of time and space. It didn't mark the beginning of energy. In fact, one of the more promising versions of big-bang cosmology suggests that the universe existed prior to big-bang, but in a purely energy state. That wouldn't require any space.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely.
They're wrong... to HUMANS. Rocks don't care, plants don't care, the universe doesn't give two flea turds about "intrinsic human value" and "morality". In fact, different human cultures have different standards of morality, and if you apply one standard when you should be applying a different cultural standard, you'll find yourself in deep doo-doo.

As far as the rest of your fallacious list. I think you need to start individual threads for each. You need an education on every single point you implied, and if you start threads for each... you'll get it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To expand on the questions to atheists/agnostics:

1) There have to be a first uncaused cause that necessarily must exists. What in your view is that cause, material or not.

2) Do you support human rights? If so, what logical reason to you have to support that position?

3) Do you believe a huge amount of unlikely events are a simpler explanation than an intelligent agent?

4) Do you deny dualism or believe in physicalism? If so, then why?

5) Basically, what is your explanation for the hard problem of consciousness? Do you believe that brain and consciousness are the same thing and that it is possible to explain mental phenomena in third person? If not, then what is a materialistic explanation?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 9:43:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:09:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/15/2014 9:45:52 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Why does the cause of the Big Bang have to transcend all physical properties?

Because the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space, and energy. The only way a physical cause could've caused the big Big Bang is if it caused itself. A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist. Often people will point out "virtual particles" in quantum phenomena to show that something can pop into existence without any cause. The problem is that quantum mechanics are generally not very understood even by pioneers and the field and frankly we have no idea if they are uncaused just that they are seemingly so. Even if they are uncaused, the necessary precondition allowing their spontaneous existence is a pocket of space. Without this space, virtual particles cannot pop into existence. Since the Big Bang market the beginning of ALL physical properties of the universe, no preconditions could've existed. The only cause of the Big Bang therefore was transcendent of all physical properties.

Do you believe God is a physical being which has physical properties like a human?
IF "A cause cannot cause itself just like I can't cause myself to exist" what exactly caused God to exist?

2) Objective morality and intrinsic human worth can only exist if we have a purposeful existence. Both exist.

How do you know those things exist? Even if they do, why can they only exist if we have a purposeful existence?

Because murder and rape without just cause are wrong indefinitely. As obvious as that sounds, if morality was subjective it would be acceptable. They could only exist as an objective if our purpose was objective. If there's no reason to drive your car to the grocery store and get groceries, pick up a friend, or drive it off of a bridge then you don't do so purposefully. Morality determines actions of purpose.

Are murder and rape right and moral if you have just cause or a good reason to do these things?

3) Constants maintaining order and enabling livable conditions are impossibly improbable to occur by chance.

What constants? Are you talking about the constants that humans have placed into equations that model physical interactions? Those constants don't actually exist in the sense you're using them. They're basically a way to make an equation work that otherwise didn't accurately model the process in question.

Those equations couldn't even exist if the world wasn't mathematically structured. We derive our understanding from the ordered structure that was already in place. There's no ambiguity in the lawful order and natural operations in the universe. Something like the second law of thermodynamics isn't sometimes true, it is mathematically predictable and always true.


Is your God a constant which maintains order and enables livable conditions? Is he impossibly improbable to occur by chance? If he is, what caused him to exist?

4) The origin of intelligence can only come from an intelligent agent.

Why can't intelligence originate from non-intelligence?

Intelligence can be defined as specified-complexity. The word means just like it sounds. Just like we wouldn't assume the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion, we would never assume specified-complexity occurs naturally because we've never observed or have any reason to believe this can happen.

Is your God intelligent? If so, from what intelligent agent did his intelligence originate?

5) Love is the most important and essential part of life. Not any material purpose.

That might make for a cute line in a poem, but it doesn't do much as an unsupported assertion in a discussion. Also, love is a material process, despite your implications to the contrary. It is possible to induce or suppress feelings of love by influencing a person's oxytocin production.

Love is multi-faceted, I'm not talking just about romantic love but love for a child, for parents, for brothers, etc. also. Oxytocin produces feelings of trust and calm but nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone. Love produces effects in the brain but love doesn't occur because of effects produced in the brain .

If nothing exists that can produce love or take it away from anyone, does that mean your God does not exist or does it mean he is incapable of producing love in a human or taking it away? IF God is capable of producing love in a human why does he not produce a love for God in all humans? Why do so many not even believe in a God let alone love one?

That being said, I think the evidence of God is just obvious given the natural complexity and intelligence exhibited in the universe. Could you imagine even the best intelligent beings trying to design a human being from natural materials? A rat? An ant? Even a cell?

It does not take intelligence to reproduce a plant. Plants have no intelligence yet they continue to reproduce plants. Not all humans are intelligent either yet the ignorant manage to produce more humans which they don't even want. If they were intelligent they would not produce unwanted babies. Neither would they claim that intelligence comes from intelligence and then be incapable of answering the question as to where God got his so called intelligence.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:47:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:48:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
To expand on the questions to atheists/agnostics:

1) There have to be a first uncaused cause that necessarily must exists. What in your view is that cause, material or not.

We are quite comfortable stating that we don't know... yet. We are equally comfortable knowing that we may never know. I can't speak for other agnostics or any atheists, but I am quite comfortable stating that it wasn't William Lane Craig's (or any other previously worshiped) god. Not having an answer does not automatically make your assertion valid. Almost everything else your book's writers have asserted has turned out to be bu!!5hit. This likely is, also.

2) Do you support human rights? If so, what logical reason to you have to support that position?

Each and every individual is only entitled to those rights they recognize for others. It's call the "Ethic of Reciprocity," and it was around centuries before the jeebus uttered the "Golden Rule."

3) Do you believe a huge amount of unlikely events are a simpler explanation than an intelligent agent?

Yes. Your "intelligent agent comes with too much baggage, dogma, unnecessary ceremony and doctrine. Besides... who told you they were unlikely? William Lane Craig is nowhere near an authority, despite loving to hear himself speak as though he is.

4) Do you deny dualism or believe in physicalism? If so, then why?

Sensory perception is the way we, as humans, acquire data. Physicalism? That's not even a word. And I assume that, by "dualism," you mean two parts: one physical one spiritual. Since the spiritual has no evidence to support it (and likelihood continues to dwindle), I see no reason to continue promulgating such nonsense. Please find a better term than "physicalism." Perhaps "naturalism?"

5) Basically, what is your explanation for the hard problem of consciousness? Do you believe that brain and consciousness are the same thing and that it is possible to explain mental phenomena in third person? If not, then what is a materialistic explanation?

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is a function of the mind. Only spiritbabblewoowoo idiots like Deepak Chopra continue to maintain absurd notions of the consciousness being "beyond" the reach of explanation. The more science discovers, the more evasive the arguments from the religious have to become.

Let's just face facts. You have the desire to worship something. We do not. Quit trying to convince us that your woowooprattle is real. Above all, stop trying to make us live in accordance with "objective" moralities that you cannot define, cannot codify, and do not follow, yourselves.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 7:17:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:47:38 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:48:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
To expand on the questions to atheists/agnostics:

1) There have to be a first uncaused cause that necessarily must exists. What in your view is that cause, material or not.

We are quite comfortable stating that we don't know... yet. We are equally comfortable knowing that we may never know. I can't speak for other agnostics or any atheists, but I am quite comfortable stating that it wasn't William Lane Craig's (or any other previously worshiped) god. Not having an answer does not automatically make your assertion valid. Almost everything else your book's writers have asserted has turned out to be bu!!5hit. This likely is, also.

If we took a similar position to other fields, we would be intellectually crippled.
Your philosophy is self-refuting as it assumes that humans know enough about reality to proclaim what is impossible to learn about reality.

2) Do you support human rights? If so, what logical reason to you have to support that position?

Each and every individual is only entitled to those rights they recognize for others. It's call the "Ethic of Reciprocity," and it was around centuries before the jeebus uttered the "Golden Rule."

Can you tell me any reason for following the golden rule other than social pressure and avoiding repercussion, or as a result of evolution? If these are the only two reasons, then what makes the golden rule any better or worse than third reich morality? To simplify the dilemma, here are two scenarios:
1) Lets say there is something of extreme value, and there is a 0% chance to be caught stealing it, can you tell me any logical reason not to?
2) So you are a soldier with your squad, and a conquered island of a hostile nation. A large amount of your squad went to rape a woman and invited you in. Would you oppose them? If not, then why wouldn't you join?

3) Do you believe a huge amount of unlikely events are a simpler explanation than an intelligent agent?

Yes. Your "intelligent agent comes with too much baggage, dogma, unnecessary ceremony and doctrine. Besides... who told you they were unlikely? William Lane Craig is nowhere near an authority, despite loving to hear himself speak as though he is.

I don't humor Red herring. Avoid mixing irrelevant statements with answers.
Do you believe that gaining the current image of the universe or life in earth is almost certain then?

4) Do you deny dualism or believe in physicalism? If so, then why?

Sensory perception is the way we, as humans, acquire data. Physicalism? That's not even a word. And I assume that, by "dualism," you mean two parts: one physical one spiritual. Since the spiritual has no evidence to support it (and likelihood continues to dwindle), I see no reason to continue promulgating such nonsense. Please find a better term than "physicalism." Perhaps "naturalism?"

Incorrect, these refer to branches to the philosophy of mind. Physicalism means the consciousness/mind is the same thing as the brain. Dualism means that consciousness/mind is separate than the brain, a good analogy would be a driver/car relationship, the car needs to be driven, but the driver can't drive if the car is too damaged.

5) Basically, what is your explanation for the hard problem of consciousness? Do you believe that brain and consciousness are the same thing and that it is possible to explain mental phenomena in third person? If not, then what is a materialistic explanation?

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is a function of the mind. Only spiritbabblewoowoo idiots like Deepak Chopra continue to maintain absurd notions of the consciousness being "beyond" the reach of explanation. The more science discovers, the more evasive the arguments from the religious have to become.

Let's just face facts. You have the desire to worship something. We do not. Quit trying to convince us that your woowooprattle is real. Above all, stop trying to make us live in accordance with "objective" moralities that you cannot define, cannot codify, and do not follow, yourselves.

So you are using materialism of the gaps? "I assume materialism is definitely true, but we have no idea about the relation between consciousness and matter, or how consciousness come from matter (I am sure you believe computers will gain consciousness), or even how we can explain it scientifically and objectively. However, I am also sure science will somehow explain it at some point".

If you examine the scientific method or the philosophy of science, you will find that subjective conscious experiences are outside of the scope of the scientific enterprise. Science is restricted to only that which can be observed, and subjective conscious states cannot be observed. Neuroscience can find a correlation without an explanation that something is happening, but it cannot explain why subjective experience exists or describe what it is like to have that experience without experiencing a similar experience first.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 8:26:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:47:38 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:48:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
To expand on the questions to atheists/agnostics:

1) There have to be a first uncaused cause that necessarily must exists. What in your view is that cause, material or not.

We are quite comfortable stating that we don't know... yet. We are equally comfortable knowing that we may never know. I can't speak for other agnostics or any atheists, but I am quite comfortable stating that it wasn't William Lane Craig's (or any other previously worshiped) god. Not having an answer does not automatically make your assertion valid. Almost everything else your book's writers have asserted has turned out to be bu!!5hit. This likely is, also.

2) Do you support human rights? If so, what logical reason to you have to support that position?

Each and every individual is only entitled to those rights they recognize for others. It's call the "Ethic of Reciprocity," and it was around centuries before the jeebus uttered the "Golden Rule."

3) Do you believe a huge amount of unlikely events are a simpler explanation than an intelligent agent?

Yes. Your "intelligent agent comes with too much baggage, dogma, unnecessary ceremony and doctrine. Besides... who told you they were unlikely? William Lane Craig is nowhere near an authority, despite loving to hear himself speak as though he is.

4) Do you deny dualism or believe in physicalism? If so, then why?

Sensory perception is the way we, as humans, acquire data. Physicalism? That's not even a word.

You were saying?

http://plato.stanford.edu...

And I assume that, by "dualism," you mean two parts: one physical one spiritual.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Since the spiritual has no evidence to support it (and likelihood continues to dwindle),

5) Basically, what is your explanation for the hard problem of consciousness? Do you believe that brain and consciousness are the same thing and that it is possible to explain mental phenomena in third person? If not, then what is a materialistic explanation?

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is a function of the mind. Only spiritbabblewoowoo idiots like Deepak Chopra continue to maintain absurd notions of the consciousness being "beyond" the reach of explanation. The more science discovers, the more evasive the arguments from the religious have to become.


Please read up on things before you speak about them.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Let's just face facts. You have the desire to worship something. We do not. Quit trying to convince us that your woowooprattle is real. Above all, stop trying to make us live in accordance with "objective" moralities that you cannot define, cannot codify, and do not follow, yourselves.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:32:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:50:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Bare assertion.

It's not bare assertion. The universe (all of space) did not exist at the point it was caused to exist. Therefore the cause has to be non-physical.

Did you flunk out of high school?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:32:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 6/15/2014 11:50:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:59:53 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" meaning some being responsible for universal existence.

1) the Big Bang requires a cause transcendent of all physical properties

Bare assertion.

It's not bare assertion. The universe (all of space) did not exist at the point it was caused to exist. Therefore the cause has to be non-physical.

Did you flunk out of high school?

It is currently impossible for us to know what existed prior to the Big Bang. Many astrophysicists acknowledge that we may never know. So to claim that the event requires a non-physical cause is something that cannot be supported by scientific evidence.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 4:09:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:26:30 AM, popculturepooka wrote:

You were saying?

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I stand corrected. While familiar with the line of thought, I have always heard it referred to as realism. Nevertheless, I was wrong, in that statement.

And I assume that, by "dualism," you mean two parts: one physical one spiritual.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Yes. The response to your original question, then, would be that I lean more toward physicalism. While I have not given this question a great deal of in-depth thought (philosophically), I have a very difficult time with people like Deepak Chopra, who try to create a whole new realm that is ambiguous and "ethereal."

Since the spiritual has no evidence to support it (and likelihood continues to dwindle),

5) Basically, what is your explanation for the hard problem of consciousness? Do you believe that brain and consciousness are the same thing and that it is possible to explain mental phenomena in third person? If not, then what is a materialistic explanation?

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is a function of the mind. Only spiritbabblewoowoo idiots like Deepak Chopra continue to maintain absurd notions of the consciousness being "beyond" the reach of explanation. The more science discovers, the more evasive the arguments from the religious have to become.


Please read up on things before you speak about them.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

That you are able to regurgitate a term you've heard others use does not make that regurgitation any more relevant. Being able to post a link also does very little to establish a relevant argument, for something. I have done some reading on this, as well as some lecture and debate listening. Atheists and agnostics are harshly criticized for being "arrogant" about things, but it's OK when you do it, right? Research has shown that damage to the brain results, directly, in damage to the mind. Damaging specific parts of the brain also tends to damage specific functions correlative to the mind. A tremendous amount of research and "mapping" have been done, in order to corroborate these statements. Since I am not a neurosurgeon, and I suspect you are not, either, I don't have micro-detail understanding of the topic. However, you seem to want to push this question into the realm of philosophy, and it does not necessarily belong there. If, indeed, the mind is a function of the brain (as the most advanced neurosurgeons on the planet currently surmise), the philosophers really have nothing to say on the matter. Regurgitating the "hard problem" song does nothing to reinforce the dwindling stage on which philosophers want to play their role in defining mind, existence, and "duality" of the human being. If it is a question of deliberation between a philosopher that believes it is their realm to explain (and create a "problem" for themselves, in order to "solve" it with philosophical pseudo-intellectualism) and the science of neurological study, I will place my fealty on the side of science, as it has yielded the most useful results for humanity, to date. Once again, I am neither neurological scientist nor psychologist. Thus, I have to rely on valid information from those that actually have some expertise in that field. You seem to yield the explanation to philosophers, and they are the ones that have among the least valid information to offer, when discussing functions of the brain. While a great deal of "work" can be put into philosophical endeavor, the primary purpose of philosophy, as a career, is publication. The publish or perish modus operandi of the "profession" of philosophy means that a lot of words can be thrown at obfuscating something that doesn't need to be as complex as philosophers like to make out. I will continue to place my trust in those that endeavor in the tangible aspects. Philosphers are never so prevalent or prolific in their words as when something is unexplained. Once the explanation has been obtained, they become effluvia, and are generally very bitter about it.

Let's just face facts. You have the desire to worship something. We do not. Quit trying to convince us that your woowooprattle is real. Above all, stop trying to make us live in accordance with "objective" moralities that you cannot define, cannot codify, and do not follow, yourselves.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 5:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 7:17:02 AM, Dragonfang wrote:


If we took a similar position to other fields, we would be intellectually crippled.
Your philosophy is self-refuting as it assumes that humans know enough about reality to proclaim what is impossible to learn about reality.

This is a completely inept evaluation of what I stated. The above, first off, is not my "philosophy." Further, the statement is in regard to the honest assessment that we have to be comfortable with not having an answer, before actually having evidence for such. Your presumption that a first "uncaused cause" is necessary, implying the intent of intelligent consciousness, is incongruent with what can, at this juncture, be known. The difference between science and religion is that of faith; as in the absence or presence of it. Faith is never a source of knowledge. Belief is not knowledge. Things can be known, in fact and in reality. What religion proposes about our universe cannot.


Can you tell me any reason for following the golden rule other than social pressure and avoiding repercussion, or as a result of evolution? If these are the only two reasons, then what makes the golden rule any better or worse than third reich morality? To simplify the dilemma, here are two scenarios:

Yes, I can give you a reason: reason. I have reasoned for (and by) myself that it is the morally right thing to do. It is based upon that which I value. I have rationally concluded that I am entitled ONLY to those rights that I recognize and observe, in practice, for others. This is balance, and this is justice. It is, therefore, moral. You can try to vilify this, if you wish. Good luck.

1) Lets say there is something of extreme value, and there is a 0% chance to be caught stealing it, can you tell me any logical reason not to?
Yes. Because if I did, I would not have the right to be offended by the same action, in reverse.

2) So you are a soldier with your squad, and a conquered island of a hostile nation. A large amount of your squad went to rape a woman and invited you in. Would you oppose them? If not, then why wouldn't you join?

Yes, I would oppose them. I would not fight with those that did not respect such fundamental human rights. The right of one person to swing their fist (or other appendage) ends where the nose of another begins, if unprovoked. Again, if I don't recognize the right for others, I am not deserving of having that right recognized, for myself. Both of these scenarios, however, require integrity to morality, as such.

I don't humor Red herring. Avoid mixing irrelevant statements with answers.
Do you believe that gaining the current image of the universe or life in earth is almost certain then?

Don't purport to lecture me on Red herrings, Mr. "third reich morality." I'll respond as I deem appropriate, and will not be lectured by you. As to your actual question, I'm not certain what you mean by it. Are you asking if I believe we will one day have all the answers to our current questions? I have no way of knowing that. Will be ever be able to trace the entire series of events from the BB to the first "life" on this planet, to current state? Probably not. Am I willing to simply accept the stupidity of biblical fairy tale in its place? Definitely not.

Incorrect, these refer to branches to the philosophy of mind. Physicalism means the consciousness/mind is the same thing as the brain. Dualism means that consciousness/mind is separate than the brain, a good analogy would be a driver/car relationship, the car needs to be driven, but the driver can't drive if the car is too damaged.

Yes, I was corrected on this, by Popculturepooka. I stood corrected then, I stand corrected now. Yes, I incline toward the mind being a function of the brain, not a separate entity (so to speak). I am more inclined to accept science over philosophy, in that area. You can read my responses to pcp, for further elucidation.

So you are using materialism of the gaps? "I assume materialism is definitely true, but we have no idea about the relation between consciousness and matter, or how consciousness come from matter (I am sure you believe computers will gain consciousness), or even how we can explain it scientifically and objectively. However, I am also sure science will somehow explain it at some point".

That's a nice little strawman you built, there. Too bad you failed to actually knock it down. Moreover, I have a great deal more confidence in science of the future than I do religion of today or the past...

If you examine the scientific method or the philosophy of science, you will find that subjective conscious experiences are outside of the scope of the scientific enterprise. Science is restricted to only that which can be observed, and subjective conscious states cannot be observed. Neuroscience can find a correlation without an explanation that something is happening, but it cannot explain why subjective experience exists or describe what it is like to have that experience without experiencing a similar experience first.

No, they are currently ASSUMED to be outside the scope of scientific endeavor. That these answers have not yet been found does not automatically mean that you get the default nod. I love how the double-standard works, with you guys... If science can't explain something, right now, it is to be scoffed. If we scoff at something in religion that has already been disproved, we are being "disrespectful and mean." Again, I have far more confidence and trust in the scientific mind than in the religious emotion. Always will.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.