Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Hypocrisy among atheist beliefs

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:12:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*facepalm*

Another theist, that strawmans and doesn't know what he is talking about, makes another thread that helps make other, more reasonable theists look bad.

Why did I ever choose to have faith in humanity...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:17:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence

Answer this : is your God all by himself and is from nothing. Just look at your own theist belief. Hahahahaa
the position of science is not that everything is from nothingness. When science says from nothing; it does not mean nothingness.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 8:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence

First off, these are essentially just strawmen, and certainly don't show hipocrisy, even if held true. But I am curious, what do the letters at the beggining of each sentence stand for.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 8:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence

----- Abiogenesis, macro evolution, i

well i dont agree with many stuff they claiming but why you got problem with this one and why its absurd?
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 8:20:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 8:17:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence

----- Abiogenesis, macro evolution, i

well i dont agree with many stuff they claiming but why you got problem with this one and why its absurd?

atheist joking around -_-
Never fart near dog
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 11:26:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Because your education sucks.


Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).


I have, and I know it is not. But when one looks past the news headlines to the science involved it because ever so evident that biological chemicals and arrangement to form a living system are only achievable through intelligent manipulation and not random or natural events. The stock material for the most basic cell functions are created in controlled laboratory experiments of catalyst exposure and filtering.

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).


I have. And chaos is not what the layman would take it for. Chaos theory and such is more understandably known as randomness and large numbers. Good example is 30 flips of coin some string of heads or tails may seem chaotic. but taken as a whole say of 100 flips, a pattern of a 50/50 emerges.

There are entropic paths of least resistance that governs the formation of natural patterns. Fractals such as in ice crystals and snail shells are REPEATING patterns. A few repeating patterns can come together to make rather complex shapes. There is no fractal, repeating, established pattern in the information carrying parts of a cell. Implying the information was encoded NOT by natural processes.

Learn about big-bang.


I have. Have you. You know it was nothing but darkness for 380,000 years before .. well "let there be light"

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

For a me a compounding of circumstantial scientific evidence, personal experience and what not, make it likely.

For instance. Where did all the iron in the earth come from? Keep the universe is said to be 13.7 billion years old. and our solar system around 5.

I think it amazing how quickly life has sprung up on this rock. That means it was not a large number of attempts and bound to happen. Means it was an early attempt and it did happen.


Seriously Ben, answer that.

I will.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:24:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Q: Who created God?

C: Something existed eternally before the Big Bang.

Or

S: The first law of thermodynamics shows God impossible

C: Something came from nothing to begin the BB.

...

S: Only look at what the scientific evidence proves

C: Abiogenesis, macro evolution, intelligence arose from non-intelligence

S: The God (X) is immoral

C: objective morality doesn't exist

S: the odds of life arising by chance are infinitesimally small

C: it was bound to happen

S: I can't sensorally perceive God so he doesn't exist

C: follow logic to ground scientific inquiry

S: human beings have no intrinsic worth

C: we just act as if we do

S: evolution explains the need for love and morality

C: cheating on your significant other is wrong

S: order and laws in the universe are natural

C: nature is the result of spontaneous chaos

S: human beings don't have a mind

C: the brain dictates our actions impulsively

S: evolution led to intelligent human beings

C: nature isn't guided by any intelligence

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the hypocrisy of atheist beliefs.

But the hypocrisy of false Christianity is probably worse.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.

Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence. Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized? Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:09:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.

Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence.

What does a universe and process that isn't indicative of natural intelligence look like? Because to make the claim the something indicates a god, naturally you must know what something looks like when it doesn't indicate a god. So, what would a universe look like that didn't indicate some supernatural intelligence having created it? What does a process look like, when not created by an all powerful being?

Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized?

Personally, I have to say it isn't about what the universe looks like, it's about what it actually is. But, more broadly speaking, the universe isn't random according to what I, and most other atheists, believe. In fact, it is the very lack of randomness that allows us to discern natural processes. I'm not saying nothing in this universe is random, because that would be stupid. What I am saying, is that there are laws, for lack of a better term, that guide, for lack of a better term, the universe. The universe works in very specific ways, and as such is far from random, or at least this is my understanding of it.

Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

I do have to point out that there is no dichotomy between naturalism and god. There can be other supernatural forces than god, though I personally don't hold belief in any. But, regardless, I'd like to know what you believe qualifies something to be indicative of a god. What qualities does something have to hold for it to indicate a god, and why do those qualities indicate such a conclusion?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:09:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.

Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence.

What does a universe and process that isn't indicative of natural intelligence look like? Because to make the claim the something indicates a god, naturally you must know what something looks like when it doesn't indicate a god. So, what would a universe look like that didn't indicate some supernatural intelligence having created it? What does a process look like, when not created by an all powerful being?


Arbitrary, error-ridden, spontaneous. Does that sound like any of the natural laws that govern our universe? Intelligence allows the causal power of doing things for a specific reason. If God created these natural laws it makes sense why they aren't arbitrary, error-ridden, or spontaneously changing.

Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized?

Personally, I have to say it isn't about what the universe looks like, it's about what it actually is. But, more broadly speaking, the universe isn't random according to what I, and most other atheists, believe. In fact, it is the very lack of randomness that allows us to discern natural processes. I'm not saying nothing in this universe is random, because that would be stupid. What I am saying, is that there are laws, for lack of a better term, that guide, for lack of a better term, the universe. The universe works in very specific ways, and as such is far from random, or at least this is my understanding of it.

That indicates that nature itself is held by inherent order. You can also say that nature is guided by intelligence. Nature continues to evolve into higher intelligence right?

Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

I do have to point out that there is no dichotomy between naturalism and god. There can be other supernatural forces than god, though I personally don't hold belief in any. But, regardless, I'd like to know what you believe qualifies something to be indicative of a god. What qualities does something have to hold for it to indicate a god, and why do those qualities indicate such a conclusion?

Either God exists or he doesn't. God is defined as a being. We could even describe an alien or anything that had a conscious, deliberate cause for our existence and name that cause as "God". So, by recognizing that consciousness is either responsible for our existence or not, there actually is a dichotomy between God and naturalism. Anything indicative of a conscious intelligence as the originator of our universe rather than spontaneous, unconscious processes is better evidence of God.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:43:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:21:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:09:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.

Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence.

What does a universe and process that isn't indicative of natural intelligence look like? Because to make the claim the something indicates a god, naturally you must know what something looks like when it doesn't indicate a god. So, what would a universe look like that didn't indicate some supernatural intelligence having created it? What does a process look like, when not created by an all powerful being?


Arbitrary, error-ridden, spontaneous. Does that sound like any of the natural laws that govern our universe? Intelligence allows the causal power of doing things for a specific reason. If God created these natural laws it makes sense why they aren't arbitrary, error-ridden, or spontaneously changing.


Why is it that you believe these qualities denote such a universe or process? I mean, we have intelligence, but we do tons of things that are error-ridden, spontaneous, and arbitrary. So why is it that you believe that a natural universe, devoid of an intelligent creator, would act in such a way?

Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized?

Personally, I have to say it isn't about what the universe looks like, it's about what it actually is. But, more broadly speaking, the universe isn't random according to what I, and most other atheists, believe. In fact, it is the very lack of randomness that allows us to discern natural processes. I'm not saying nothing in this universe is random, because that would be stupid. What I am saying, is that there are laws, for lack of a better term, that guide, for lack of a better term, the universe. The universe works in very specific ways, and as such is far from random, or at least this is my understanding of it.

That indicates that nature itself is held by inherent order. You can also say that nature is guided by intelligence. Nature continues to evolve into higher intelligence right?


What? No, why are you trying to shove the word intelligence in there? You've just made a leap from order, to intelligence, which I can see no good reason for.

Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

I do have to point out that there is no dichotomy between naturalism and god. There can be other supernatural forces than god, though I personally don't hold belief in any. But, regardless, I'd like to know what you believe qualifies something to be indicative of a god. What qualities does something have to hold for it to indicate a god, and why do those qualities indicate such a conclusion?

Either God exists or he doesn't. God is defined as a being. We could even describe an alien or anything that had a conscious, deliberate cause for our existence and name that cause as "God". So, by recognizing that consciousness is either responsible for our existence or not, there actually is a dichotomy between God and naturalism. Anything indicative of a conscious intelligence as the originator of our universe rather than spontaneous, unconscious processes is better evidence of God.

It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:43:32 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:21:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:09:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:48:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/21/2014 3:13:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How many more times should we have to explain the same things to you?

Learn about abiogenesis (it's not a stagnant zone of research).

Learn about chaos theory (it explains patterns emerging from chaos).

Learn about big-bang.

Why is it more likely that an all-powerful, yet unevidenced, intelligent omnipotence just always existed, than for the base components of matter/energy to have always existed?

Seriously Ben, answer that.

Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence.

What does a universe and process that isn't indicative of natural intelligence look like? Because to make the claim the something indicates a god, naturally you must know what something looks like when it doesn't indicate a god. So, what would a universe look like that didn't indicate some supernatural intelligence having created it? What does a process look like, when not created by an all powerful being?


Arbitrary, error-ridden, spontaneous. Does that sound like any of the natural laws that govern our universe? Intelligence allows the causal power of doing things for a specific reason. If God created these natural laws it makes sense why they aren't arbitrary, error-ridden, or spontaneously changing.


Why is it that you believe these qualities denote such a universe or process? I mean, we have intelligence, but we do tons of things that are error-ridden, spontaneous, and arbitrary. So why is it that you believe that a natural universe, devoid of an intelligent creator, would act in such a way?

Well how does something intelligent act vs something non-intelligent? Existence wouldn't even be possible without specific, orderly, universal, constant forces acting in unison. By believing these natural laws are the result of non-intelligence, you attribute these ideal conditions to random, arbitrary, error-ridden chance. If I want to grab a cup of coffee I don't blindly bump into the walls until I reach the coffee pot; I have a distinct route guided by my own cause. Natural forces in nature are so fragile that if they were changed by a zillionth of a degree, nothing would exist. Calculations have even been done on this. How could chance be responsible for this inherent, continuous, infinitesimally small window allowing life-permitting conditions?

Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized?

Personally, I have to say it isn't about what the universe looks like, it's about what it actually is. But, more broadly speaking, the universe isn't random according to what I, and most other atheists, believe. In fact, it is the very lack of randomness that allows us to discern natural processes. I'm not saying nothing in this universe is random, because that would be stupid. What I am saying, is that there are laws, for lack of a better term, that guide, for lack of a better term, the universe. The universe works in very specific ways, and as such is far from random, or at least this is my understanding of it.

That indicates that nature itself is held by inherent order. You can also say that nature is guided by intelligence. Nature continues to evolve into higher intelligence right?


What? No, why are you trying to shove the word intelligence in there? You've just made a leap from order, to intelligence, which I can see no good reason for.

Human beings are the byproduct of unguided natural processes acting over billions of years right? So by saying that nature evolves into higher intelligence is a true statement, correct? If this is true, how could nature not be guided by any inherent intelligence?

Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

I do have to point out that there is no dichotomy between naturalism and god. There can be other supernatural forces than god, though I personally don't hold belief in any. But, regardless, I'd like to know what you believe qualifies something to be indicative of a god. What qualities does something have to hold for it to indicate a god, and why do those qualities indicate such a conclusion?

Either God exists or he doesn't. God is defined as a being. We could even describe an alien or anything that had a conscious, deliberate cause for our existence and name that cause as "God". So, by recognizing that consciousness is either responsible for our existence or not, there actually is a dichotomy between God and naturalism. Anything indicative of a conscious intelligence as the originator of our universe rather than spontaneous, unconscious processes is better evidence of God.

It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.

Naturalism necessitates a non-conscious cause. God is necessitated as a conscious cause. True or false?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 5:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Arbitrary, error-ridden, spontaneous. Does that sound like any of the natural laws that govern our universe? Intelligence allows the causal power of doing things for a specific reason. If God created these natural laws it makes sense why they aren't arbitrary, error-ridden, or spontaneously changing.


Why is it that you believe these qualities denote such a universe or process? I mean, we have intelligence, but we do tons of things that are error-ridden, spontaneous, and arbitrary. So why is it that you believe that a natural universe, devoid of an intelligent creator, would act in such a way?

Well how does something intelligent act vs something non-intelligent?

Couldn't tell ya for sure.

Existence wouldn't even be possible without specific, orderly, universal, constant forces acting in unison.

I don't like the wording you used, but essentially I agree with this. Though I disagree that the forces need to be constant.

By believing these natural laws are the result of non-intelligence, you attribute these ideal conditions to random, arbitrary, error-ridden chance.

I disagree. I attribute them to simply being. There is no chance, things simply are what they are. Not to say that I know that they aren't the result of chance, I simply see no reason to believe they are. Also, what do you mean by ideal? Ideal for what?

If I want to grab a cup of coffee I don't blindly bump into the walls until I reach the coffee pot; I have a distinct route guided by my own cause. Natural forces in nature are so fragile that if they were changed by a zillionth of a degree, nothing would exist. Calculations have even been done on this. How could chance be responsible for this inherent, continuous, infinitesimally small window allowing life-permitting conditions?

My god, people are still making this argument? Ok, so, let's look at this rationally. The odds are greatly against our specific universe from existing, on this we can agree. But you're looking at the odds incorrectly. Consider this; in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he posits that "if the rate of expansion 1 second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached it's present size", this is one of the more quoted examples by people making the same argument you just made. So, when you look at that, you probably consider to yourself "such odds against are tremendous, how lucky we would have to be for that to happen by chance". Want to know what I think? I think that the odds against us are exactly the same as they are against any other specific universe existing. If the odds against our specific universe existing are 1 in a zillion, then those are the same odds against any other universe existing. But if we really want to get all sciency on it, we can get into multi-verse theories, where the question of odds are meaningless, because every possible universe will eventual exist, if they don't already. Though I'd prefer if we didn't, because I'm by and large uninformed on the subject.
That indicates that nature itself is held by inherent order. You can also say that nature is guided by intelligence. Nature continues to evolve into higher intelligence right?


What? No, why are you trying to shove the word intelligence in there? You've just made a leap from order, to intelligence, which I can see no good reason for.

Human beings are the byproduct of unguided natural processes acting over billions of years right? So by saying that nature evolves into higher intelligence is a true statement, correct? If this is true, how could nature not be guided by any inherent intelligence?

OK, so you're referring to humans as nature here? I still find your statement misleading. Nature doesn't evolve into anything specific. I believe intelligence is a byproduct of evolution by natural selection, but I don't agree to using the statement you used. There is no specific goal or end point with evolution. It is simply the way things work. Yes, there is a general direction, that of the best way to survive, and yes this led our specific species to higher intelligence. But nature is not evolving into higher intelligence, it's simply moving down the path of the greatest rate of survival, when talking in respect to life. But even if what you said was true, how does this lead you to nature being guided by intelligence?


It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.

Naturalism necessitates a non-conscious cause. God is necessitated as a conscious cause. True or false?

Well, false, naturalism necessitates that there are no supernatural forces, nothing more, nothing less. And god doesn't necessarily have to be conscious, or a cause, though those are probably the two most common things attributed to a god, and for some people that's actually pretty much their entire definition.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence. Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized? Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

If I showed you a picture of a man and asked you whether you though his outfit looks more like an outfit from the year 2050 or 2060 what would you say? Hopefully, you would say that you have no idea since you have never seen either. So if I told you it looks more like it's from 2050 would you take me seriously?

I'm sure you wouldn't, because you would recognize that I have obviously never seen either as well and thus I have no basis for comparison. You would conclude this because you would realize that the way we go about determining whether something is indicative of one thing vs. another is by comparing and contrasting it with other things we already know. So why don't you realize this same exact principle when looking at the universe? Because you make up special rules to suite your cherished beliefs.

You only have one universe. You do not have an example of a designed or undersigned universe to compare this one too. This universe is the outfit in the picture. And you're the guy saying that you know its from 2050 because it looks just like it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:40:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 8:47:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence. Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized? Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

If I showed you a picture of a man and asked you whether you though his outfit looks more like an outfit from the year 2050 or 2060 what would you say? Hopefully, you would say that you have no idea since you have never seen either. So if I told you it looks more like it's from 2050 would you take me seriously?

I'm sure you wouldn't, because you would recognize that I have obviously never seen either as well and thus I have no basis for comparison. You would conclude this because you would realize that the way we go about determining whether something is indicative of one thing vs. another is by comparing and contrasting it with other things we already know. So why don't you realize this same exact principle when looking at the universe? Because you make up special rules to suite your cherished beliefs.

You only have one universe. You do not have an example of a designed or undersigned universe to compare this one too. This universe is the outfit in the picture. And you're the guy saying that you know its from 2050 because it looks just like it.

We don't need to have a comparable set of universes to recognize that ours exudes intelligence and order. If we identify random, unguided processes as the causal mechanism behind our universe we know what randomness tends to produce: errors, arbitrariness, disorder, etc., but do we have errors, arbitrariness, and disorder in our universe? The natural laws and processes that maintain existence are the product of randomness? If natural laws and processes in nature had qualities of randomness we wouldn't even be able to exist. Even at the cellular level a cell functions better than we could ever program it to. Bill Gates is quoted as saying that a cell runs like a software more advanced than anything we've ever created. Yet this is the product of unguided randomness? Nature has a spontaneous, natural tendency to produce things of higher complexity and increasing intelligence yet it's an unguided, mindless, spontaneous process leading to this advancement? I'm not buying it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:32:43 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Arbitrary, error-ridden, spontaneous. Does that sound like any of the natural laws that govern our universe? Intelligence allows the causal power of doing things for a specific reason. If God created these natural laws it makes sense why they aren't arbitrary, error-ridden, or spontaneously changing.


Why is it that you believe these qualities denote such a universe or process? I mean, we have intelligence, but we do tons of things that are error-ridden, spontaneous, and arbitrary. So why is it that you believe that a natural universe, devoid of an intelligent creator, would act in such a way?

Well how does something intelligent act vs something non-intelligent?

Couldn't tell ya for sure.

Something intelligent is specified-complex. The only way I can convey this message to you is by sequencing alphabetical letters in a specific way out of the 26 possible letters. The specified-complexity inherent in nature always has an outcome permitting and sustaining order. If it were any different, just as if these letters were out of sequence, there wouldn't be any possibility of conveying this message.

Existence wouldn't even be possible without specific, orderly, universal, constant forces acting in unison.

I don't like the wording you used, but essentially I agree with this. Though I disagree that the forces need to be constant.

Which forces could be tinkered with?

By believing these natural laws are the result of non-intelligence, you attribute these ideal conditions to random, arbitrary, error-ridden chance.

I disagree. I attribute them to simply being. There is no chance, things simply are what they are. Not to say that I know that they aren't the result of chance, I simply see no reason to believe they are. Also, what do you mean by ideal? Ideal for what?

Ideal for allowing and sustaining life-permitting conditions. The forces in nature show specified-complexity for this purpose.

If I want to grab a cup of coffee I don't blindly bump into the walls until I reach the coffee pot; I have a distinct route guided by my own cause. Natural forces in nature are so fragile that if they were changed by a zillionth of a degree, nothing would exist. Calculations have even been done on this. How could chance be responsible for this inherent, continuous, infinitesimally small window allowing life-permitting conditions?

My god, people are still making this argument? Ok, so, let's look at this rationally. The odds are greatly against our specific universe from existing, on this we can agree. But you're looking at the odds incorrectly. Consider this; in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he posits that "if the rate of expansion 1 second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached it's present size", this is one of the more quoted examples by people making the same argument you just made. So, when you look at that, you probably consider to yourself "such odds against are tremendous, how lucky we would have to be for that to happen by chance". Want to know what I think? I think that the odds against us are exactly the same as they are against any other specific universe existing. If the odds against our specific universe existing are 1 in a zillion, then those are the same odds against any other universe existing. But if we really want to get all sciency on it, we can get into multi-verse theories, where the question of odds are meaningless, because every possible universe will eventual exist, if they don't already.
Though I'd prefer if we didn't, because I'm by and large uninformed on the subject.

The odds against existence itself is an indication that it didn't arise by chance. At what point do the odds become an absurdity? Would you still consider 10^9000000000000 a probable chance just because one might exist? The odds of the universe coming into existence is compounded by reliance on other delicate forces of nature for life permitting conditions.

That indicates that nature itself is held by inherent order. You can also say that nature is guided by intelligence. Nature continues to evolve into higher intelligence right?


What? No, why are you trying to shove the word intelligence in there? You've just made a leap from order, to intelligence, which I can see no good reason for.

Human beings are the byproduct of unguided natural processes acting over billions of years right? So by saying that nature evolves into higher intelligence is a true statement, correct? If this is true, how could nature not be guided by any inherent intelligence?

OK, so you're referring to humans as nature here? I still find your statement misleading. Nature doesn't evolve into anything specific. I believe intelligence is a byproduct of evolution by natural selection, but I don't agree to using the statement you used. There is no specific goal or end point with evolution. It is simply the way things work. Yes, there is a general direction, that of the best way to survive, and yes this led our specific species to higher intelligence. But nature is not evolving into higher intelligence, it's simply moving down the path of the greatest rate of survival, when talking in respect to life. But even if what you said was true, how does this lead you to nature being guided by intelligence?

How could humans not be a part of nature if that's where we derived from? I didn't say that nature had any goals or end point, just an objective observation that if all life arose from non-living material then it is tending toward increasing complexity and intelligence. .

It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.

Naturalism necessitates a non-conscious cause. God is necessitated as a conscious cause. True or false?

Well, false, naturalism necessitates that there are no supernatural forces, nothing more, nothing less. And god doesn't necessarily have to be conscious, or a cause, though those are probably the two most common things attributed to a god, and for some people that's actually pretty much their entire definition.

I haven't heard God ever be defined as a non-conscious concept (in the conventional definition anyway) as God always relates to some concept of consciousness. I've also never heard of the possibility of physical things having inherent consciousness. The important distinction or dichotomy I was trying to make is a conscious vs. non-conscious cause for existence.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:49:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well how does something intelligent act vs something non-intelligent?

Couldn't tell ya for sure.

Something intelligent is specified-complex.

How do you know this?

The only way I can convey this message to you is by sequencing alphabetical letters in a specific way out of the 26 possible letters. The specified-complexity inherent in nature always has an outcome permitting and sustaining order. If it were any different, just as if these letters were out of sequence, there wouldn't be any possibility of conveying this message.


http://www.foxnews.com...

Existence wouldn't even be possible without specific, orderly, universal, constant forces acting in unison.

I don't like the wording you used, but essentially I agree with this. Though I disagree that the forces need to be constant.

Which forces could be tinkered with?

I don't know.


By believing these natural laws are the result of non-intelligence, you attribute these ideal conditions to random, arbitrary, error-ridden chance.

I disagree. I attribute them to simply being. There is no chance, things simply are what they are. Not to say that I know that they aren't the result of chance, I simply see no reason to believe they are. Also, what do you mean by ideal? Ideal for what?

Ideal for allowing and sustaining life-permitting conditions. The forces in nature show specified-complexity for this purpose.

Yes, this is why people die, stuck in the wilderness. This is why the only places we are aware of in this universe that we could survive is either man made, or on this either. This universe is hardly ideal for life.


If I want to grab a cup of coffee I don't blindly bump into the walls until I reach the coffee pot; I have a distinct route guided by my own cause. Natural forces in nature are so fragile that if they were changed by a zillionth of a degree, nothing would exist. Calculations have even been done on this. How could chance be responsible for this inherent, continuous, infinitesimally small window allowing life-permitting conditions?

My god, people are still making this argument? Ok, so, let's look at this rationally. The odds are greatly against our specific universe from existing, on this we can agree. But you're looking at the odds incorrectly. Consider this; in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he posits that "if the rate of expansion 1 second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached it's present size", this is one of the more quoted examples by people making the same argument you just made. So, when you look at that, you probably consider to yourself "such odds against are tremendous, how lucky we would have to be for that to happen by chance". Want to know what I think? I think that the odds against us are exactly the same as they are against any other specific universe existing. If the odds against our specific universe existing are 1 in a zillion, then those are the same odds against any other universe existing. But if we really want to get all sciency on it, we can get into multi-verse theories, where the question of odds are meaningless, because every possible universe will eventual exist, if they don't already.
Though I'd prefer if we didn't, because I'm by and large uninformed on the subject.

The odds against existence itself is an indication that it didn't arise by chance. At what point do the odds become an absurdity? Would you still consider 10^9000000000000 a probable chance just because one might exist? The odds of the universe coming into existence is compounded by reliance on other delicate forces of nature for life permitting conditions.

OK, so, we have to go through this again. What are the odds of any other specific universe with non life permiting conditions being here instead? In fact, how do you know there are any odds? How is it that you know any of these forces could be different?


Human beings are the byproduct of unguided natural processes acting over billions of years right? So by saying that nature evolves into higher intelligence is a true statement, correct? If this is true, how could nature not be guided by any inherent intelligence?

OK, so you're referring to humans as nature here? I still find your statement misleading. Nature doesn't evolve into anything specific. I believe intelligence is a byproduct of evolution by natural selection, but I don't agree to using the statement you used. There is no specific goal or end point with evolution. It is simply the way things work. Yes, there is a general direction, that of the best way to survive, and yes this led our specific species to higher intelligence. But nature is not evolving into higher intelligence, it's simply moving down the path of the greatest rate of survival, when talking in respect to life. But even if what you said was true, how does this lead you to nature being guided by intelligence?

How could humans not be a part of nature if that's where we derived from? I didn't say that nature had any goals or end point, just an objective observation that if all life arose from non-living material then it is tending toward increasing complexity and intelligence. .


It doesn't tend towards anything except that which increases survival rates, and increases in the probability of genetic transfer.

It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.

Naturalism necessitates a non-conscious cause. God is necessitated as a conscious cause. True or false?

Well, false, naturalism necessitates that there are no supernatural forces, nothing more, nothing less. And god doesn't necessarily have to be conscious, or a cause, though those are probably the two most common things attributed to a god, and for some people that's actually pretty much their entire definition.

I haven't heard God ever be defined as a non-conscious concept (in the conventional definition anyway) as God always relates to some concept of consciousness. I've also never heard of the possibility of physical things having inherent consciousness. The important distinction or dichotomy I was trying to make is a conscious vs. non-conscious cause for existence.

Well then, you've never heard of pantheism. So, why is it you feel the need to make that distinction?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 8:13:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:40:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/22/2014 8:47:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/22/2014 1:53:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because our universe and the processes within our universe are indicative of natural intelligence. Do you really believe that the universe we currently observe screams randomized? Do you really believe that each point I've raised isn't more indicative of God rather than naturalism?

If I showed you a picture of a man and asked you whether you though his outfit looks more like an outfit from the year 2050 or 2060 what would you say? Hopefully, you would say that you have no idea since you have never seen either. So if I told you it looks more like it's from 2050 would you take me seriously?

I'm sure you wouldn't, because you would recognize that I have obviously never seen either as well and thus I have no basis for comparison. You would conclude this because you would realize that the way we go about determining whether something is indicative of one thing vs. another is by comparing and contrasting it with other things we already know. So why don't you realize this same exact principle when looking at the universe? Because you make up special rules to suite your cherished beliefs.

You only have one universe. You do not have an example of a designed or undersigned universe to compare this one too. This universe is the outfit in the picture. And you're the guy saying that you know its from 2050 because it looks just like it.

We don't need to have a comparable set of universes to recognize that ours exudes intelligence and order. If we identify random, unguided processes as the causal mechanism behind our universe we know what randomness tends to produce: errors, arbitrariness, disorder, etc.

You are actually correct. Randomness does tend to lead to errors, disorder, etc... And do you know where randomness comes from? Intelligence. Pick up a rock 1,000 times and drop it 1,000 times. How many times will it hit the floor? 1,000. Tell 1,000 intelligent beings to look both ways before crossing the street and see how many of them do it. Hint: it will be less than 1,000.

The term "random" is used in many different ways, and the fallacy of your argument is the way you are using it. Random is most often used to indicate that we don't know what the result of a given phenomenon will be. That however doesn't mean that the rules governing how the result is determined changes, it means that we don't know, and the reason we don't know is because we simply haven't learned all of the factors. I can create a formula in MS Excel that will give you a random number, however all that needs to happen for the number to no longer be considered random is for someone to figure out how the formula works and use it to predict the next number.

Everything you claim to be random is not random at all. If you actually take the time to learn how the processes within our universe work you will understand how things came to be. Randomness as you are using it came after intelligence. The question is still what (if anything) came before the processes of the universe. You claim it is an intelligence, and I am still wondering how you got there.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 2:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:49:44 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well how does something intelligent act vs something non-intelligent?

Couldn't tell ya for sure.

Something intelligent is specified-complex.

How do you know this?

Because it holds true. Would you assume even a "hello" written in the sand was caused by waves? Or that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion? Nature is replete with specified-complexity. My favorite example is a cell.

The only way I can convey this message to you is by sequencing alphabetical letters in a specific way out of the 26 possible letters. The specified-complexity inherent in nature always has an outcome permitting and sustaining order. If it were any different, just as if these letters were out of sequence, there wouldn't be any possibility of conveying this message.


http://www.foxnews.com...

This might work if nature had the interpretive powers that our brain has. If nature is mindless, it must read the words exactly as they're presented.

Existence wouldn't even be possible without specific, orderly, universal, constant forces acting in unison.

I don't like the wording you used, but essentially I agree with this. Though I disagree that the forces need to be constant.

Which forces could be tinkered with?

I don't know.

Me neither. So why disagree that the forces don't need to be constant?

By believing these natural laws are the result of non-intelligence, you attribute these ideal conditions to random, arbitrary, error-ridden chance.

I disagree. I attribute them to simply being. There is no chance, things simply are what they are. Not to say that I know that they aren't the result of chance, I simply see no reason to believe they are. Also, what do you mean by ideal? Ideal for what?

Ideal for allowing and sustaining life-permitting conditions. The forces in nature show specified-complexity for this purpose.

Yes, this is why people die, stuck in the wilderness. This is why the only places we are aware of in this universe that we could survive is either man made, or on this either. This universe is hardly ideal for life.

It's much more fundamental than that. Conditions allowing life at all is a miracle according to the odds of life allowing conditions.

If I want to grab a cup of coffee I don't blindly bump into the walls until I reach the coffee pot; I have a distinct route guided by my own cause. Natural forces in nature are so fragile that if they were changed by a zillionth of a degree, nothing would exist. Calculations have even been done on this. How could chance be responsible for this inherent, continuous, infinitesimally small window allowing life-permitting conditions?

My god, people are still making this argument? Ok, so, let's look at this rationally. The odds are greatly against our specific universe from existing, on this we can agree. But you're looking at the odds incorrectly. Consider this; in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he posits that "if the rate of expansion 1 second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached it's present size", this is one of the more quoted examples by people making the same argument you just made. So, when you look at that, you probably consider to yourself "such odds against are tremendous, how lucky we would have to be for that to happen by chance". Want to know what I think? I think that the odds against us are exactly the same as they are against any other specific universe existing. If the odds against our specific universe existing are 1 in a zillion, then those are the same odds against any other universe existing. But if we really want to get all sciency on it, we can get into multi-verse theories, where the question of odds are meaningless, because every possible universe will eventual exist, if they don't already.
Though I'd prefer if we didn't, because I'm by and large uninformed on the subject.

The odds against existence itself is an indication that it didn't arise by chance. At what point do the odds become an absurdity? Would you still consider 10^9000000000000 a probable chance just because one might exist? The odds of the universe coming into existence is compounded by reliance on other delicate forces of nature for life permitting conditions.

OK, so, we have to go through this again. What are the odds of any other specific universe with non life permiting conditions being here instead? In fact, how do you know there are any odds? How is it that you know any of these forces could be different?

We know what the odds allowing life couldn't have been in this universe. That's all we need to make a logical assumptions and calculations for the odds of existence.





How could humans not be a part of nature if that's where we derived from? I didn't say that nature had any goals or end point, just an objective observation that if all life arose from non-living material then it is tending toward increasing complexity and intelligence. .


It doesn't tend towards anything except that which increases survival rates, and increases in the probability of genetic transfer.

Is this statement incorrect: "life has tended to produce increasingly intelligent and upwardly complex processes"

It seems to me that you define naturalism as 'our creation was not due to a consciousness'. But that isn't a definition I have ever heard of, not can i find it anywhere. Naturalism is the belief that all things that occur are natural, that is, of this universe. So, if anything supernatural were to exist in this universe, then naturalism is inherently a flawed belief system, as it doesn't follow reality. And since there are many more supernatural things than just god, to say that there is a dichotomy between naturalism and god is just absurd. You've essentially said that no other supernatural thing can exist except god, which i would be happy to see you attempt to prove, but I don't think you intended to say that.

Naturalism necessitates a non-conscious cause. God is necessitated as a conscious cause. True or false?

Well, false, naturalism necessitates that there are no supernatural forces, nothing more, nothing less. And god doesn't necessarily have to be conscious, or a cause, though those are probably the two most common things attributed to a god, and for some people that's actually pretty much their entire definition.

I haven't heard God ever be defined as a non-conscious concept (in the conventional definition anyway) as God always relates to some concept of consciousness. I've also never heard of the possibility of physical things having inherent consciousness. The important distinction or dichotomy I was trying to make is a conscious vs. non-conscious cause for existence.

Well then, you've never heard of pantheism.

I don't see how any meaningful distinction other than we have a conscious or non-conscious cause of our existence.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 6:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 2:51:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because it holds true. Would you assume even a "hello" written in the sand was caused by waves? Or that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion? Nature is replete with specified-complexity. My favorite example is a cell.

I'll just assume that you plan on responding to my last post later.

BTW, the reason we can easily tell that "hello" written in the sand is from a person and not nature is because we have observed how nature behaves and we have observed how humans behave. "Hello" in the sand is consistent with human behavior. Complexity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 6:58:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 6:55:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/24/2014 2:51:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because it holds true. Would you assume even a "hello" written in the sand was caused by waves? Or that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion? Nature is replete with specified-complexity. My favorite example is a cell.

I'll just assume that you plan on responding to my last post later.

BTW, the reason we can easily tell that "hello" written in the sand is from a person and not nature is because we have observed how nature behaves and we have observed how humans behave. "Hello" in the sand is consistent with human behavior. Complexity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's exactly the same reason that specified-complexity is a good argument. We have experience with specified-complex things being the result of intelligence so specified-complexity in nature must inductively be the result of intelligence as well.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 7:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

How do you know this?

Because it holds true.

I disagree.

Would you assume even a "hello" written in the sand was caused by waves?

No, I would assume that a person would have written it, because I know that hello is a word used by humans to convey greetings. And I know it is unlikely for waves to form words in sand, because they do not happen in a way conducive to such a phenomenon.

Or that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion?

Essentially the same answer is above.

Nature is replete with specified-complexity. My favorite example is a cell.

Give me an example of something you would not define as specified-complexity.



http://www.foxnews.com...

This might work if nature had the interpretive powers that our brain has. If nature is mindless, it must read the words exactly as they're presented.

No, if natural is mindless, it doesn't read....



I don't know.

Me neither. So why disagree that the forces don't need to be constant?

Because, as I already said, I see no reason to believe they need to be.


Yes, this is why people die, stuck in the wilderness. This is why the only places we are aware of in this universe that we could survive is either man made, or on this either. This universe is hardly ideal for life.

It's much more fundamental than that. Conditions allowing life at all is a miracle according to the odds of life allowing conditions.

What are the odds for and against life allowing conditions?


OK, so, we have to go through this again. What are the odds of any other specific universe with non life permiting conditions being here instead? In fact, how do you know there are any odds? How is it that you know any of these forces could be different?

We know what the odds allowing life couldn't have been in this universe. That's all we need to make a logical assumptions and calculations for the odds of existence.

You really need to get a proof reader, or at the very least start proof reading your own stuff. Because you have to many sentences that just make no sense.


It doesn't tend towards anything except that which increases survival rates, and increases in the probability of genetic transfer.

Is this statement incorrect: "life has tended to produce increasingly intelligent and upwardly complex processes"

Are you trying to trap me into saying evolution tends towards intelligence and complexity? Do I have to restate myself? Evolution tends towards high survival rates, and increases in the probability of genetic transfer. If intelligence and complexity increase those, then you will see lots of intelligence and complexity in a well developed evolutionary chain.


I haven't heard God ever be defined as a non-conscious concept (in the conventional definition anyway) as God always relates to some concept of consciousness. I've also never heard of the possibility of physical things having inherent consciousness. The important distinction or dichotomy I was trying to make is a conscious vs. non-conscious cause for existence.

Well then, you've never heard of pantheism.

I don't see how any meaningful distinction other than we have a conscious or non-conscious cause of our existence.

This sentence doesn't make sense. It seems like either the how isn't supposed to be there, or you missed something at the end.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 7:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 6:58:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/24/2014 6:55:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/24/2014 2:51:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because it holds true. Would you assume even a "hello" written in the sand was caused by waves? Or that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion? Nature is replete with specified-complexity. My favorite example is a cell.

I'll just assume that you plan on responding to my last post later.

BTW, the reason we can easily tell that "hello" written in the sand is from a person and not nature is because we have observed how nature behaves and we have observed how humans behave. "Hello" in the sand is consistent with human behavior. Complexity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's exactly the same reason that specified-complexity is a good argument. We have experience with specified-complex things being the result of intelligence so specified-complexity in nature must inductively be the result of intelligence as well.

You didn't listen to a word just I said.

Specified complexity is not a good argument because it has absolutely nothing to do with how we distinguish between intelligence and nature. Nothing. We tell the difference by recognizing what we know to be the result of intelligence and contrasting it with nature. "Hello" written in the sand comes from intelligence. How do we know? Because every time we have observed it happening it was the result of intelligence, we have zero examples of it happening naturally. That's all there is to it. Complexity once again, has nothing to do with it.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to see the fallacy in your argument. Your argument is essentially that it is impossible for nature to produce such complexity because such complexity can only come from intelligence, therefore there must be an intelligence behind nature. It is nothing but one big case of question begging. Your premise that it is impossible for nature to produce such complexity is the very thing we are debating, and the thing you have provided zero support for.