Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

God vs Martian Manhunter

BrownChickenBrownCow
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists? I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

Any serious insight would be helpful.
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:58:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The difference between extraterrestrials and God is that aliens are not metaphysical, under our current understanding of physics and biology they can exist without any problem. We do not have any direct evidence of aliens, but probability leads us to believe that the possibilit yis certainly there. The concept of Gods does not rely on any probability, and has to be proven either logically or through direct evidence, or until our understanding of physics changes to where his existence would be undeniable.

The Big Bang is also not a theory behind WHAT created the universe, but HOW it first started. Most atheists admit that they have no clue what started the universe, but believe that simply saying "God did it" is not a sufficient answer to that question. There are multiple metaphysical theories that contain just as much evidence as deism, and thus would be just a plausible.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists?

Microbacteria in meteors helps with the extraterrestrial argument.

We know there is at least one planet with life, we do not know if there is a single god.

We know there are other planets and moons that have the potential of having life, we have no evidence that the universe has a single god.

I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

It is mathematically likely that there is life out there (drake equation is just one example). It is not mathematically like that there is a single god.

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

The big bang is causeless, which can be found by logical deduction. The argument that is made by many theists is that anything complex has a creator, which is false, but it then makes it so that god is complex as well, therefore needs a creator.

Any serious insight would be helpful.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:19:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:58:23 PM, Morality wrote:
The difference between extraterrestrials and God is that aliens are not metaphysical, under our current understanding of physics and biology they can exist without any problem. We do not have any direct evidence of aliens, but probability leads us to believe that the possibilit yis certainly there. The concept of Gods does not rely on any probability, and has to be proven either logically or through direct evidence, or until our understanding of physics changes to where his existence would be undeniable.

The process by which you determine whether things can exist or not is a metaphysical process that exists: it's called logic. I would also disagree with you that God has not been necessitated logically. There are many sound, logical arguments for God's existence. One such argument, the argument from change, states that every physical thing requires pre-existence of another physical thing in order to begin to exist. If no physical thing existed eternally to be the thing from every other physical thing came from, every physical thing came from nothing - which is an illogical conclusion. To believe that something physical existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came from (1) has no objective evidence (2) the Big Bang shows that every physical thing that makes up our universe was contained in an infinitely small point and expanded, leaving us to logically conclude that this was the instance in which every physical thing began, and (3) something physical existing eternally means that if it had changed from its prior state, it has a sequential change from one state to another, meaning time existed at this time also. This is logically impossible though. Something eternally existing in time cannot be bridged to a finite, sequential event like an instance where this physical thing underwent a transformation to a different physical thing. Do you believe that something endless ends? Do you believe that half of eternity is a shorter duration than eternity? It's not logically possible. In addition, atheist and scientist stephen hawking argues that time had a beginning and was not eternal as well.

What we are left with that is not logically impossible is this: every physical thing began by metaphysical means. This essentially proves that "God" is logically necessitated although the term God could have a broad, general meaning in this case as a metaphysical cause.

The Big Bang is also not a theory behind WHAT created the universe, .but HOW it first started. Most atheists admit that they have no clue what started the universe, but believe that simply saying "God did it" is not a sufficient answer to that question. There are multiple metaphysical theories that contain just as much evidence as deism, and thus would be just a plausible.

God isn't inferred based on what we *don't know* he is necessitated (as a metaphysical causal mechanism) based on what we *do know*. This isn't a case of "well, I don't know, therefore God." It's a conclusion that is reached through sound reasoning and inductive logic based on what we know to be impossible.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:08:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists?

Microbacteria in meteors helps with the extraterrestrial argument.

We know there is at least one planet with life, we do not know if there is a single god.

We know there are other planets and moons that have the potential of having life, we have no evidence that the universe has a single god.

I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

It is mathematically likely that there is life out there (drake equation is just one example). It is not mathematically like that there is a single god.

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

The big bang is causeless, which can be found by logical deduction. The argument that is made by many theists is that anything complex has a creator, which is false, but it then makes it so that god is complex as well, therefore needs a creator.

Any serious insight would be helpful.

And you still pretend to be a theist? You're SNP1. I've called it months ago. I don't understand why you try to fool other people into believing your're a theist but argue against theism every chance you get. You've also said "the argument is made by many theists..." Alluding to a position that isn't held yourself. In addition, your name is a parody of "lifemeansgodisgood" and must've created your account with prior knowledge of a user and his/her position in order to make a parody of it. The first post you made was a 10 page RFD in favor of SNP1 on the debate I had with you, while being so biased and impartial towards SNP1 that even somebody biased but independently analyzing the debate would never say. Like I said, arguing that there are biblical discrepancies, arguing against possibilities of God, disagreeing with theists every chance you get, and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses all shows that you intend to act as a member of the theist camp in order to discredit their views while holding a fake, absurd straw-man view on what God(s) exist are all just ploys to assert your atheistic beliefs. I know, you know, and I'm sure several other users know that you're not what you say you are. Feel free to make any justification like I said when I first pointed it out to you, but I am 100% certain that you're SNP1.
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:19:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

The process by which you determine whether things can exist or not is a metaphysical process that exists: it's called logic.
Except the evidence towards proving aliens isn't metaphysical, they can be deduced with our current understanding of physics. The existence of aliens does not transcend the physical, as God would.
I would also disagree with you that God has not been necessitated logically. There are many sound, logical arguments for God's existence.
Not that I have seen, not more necessitated than, say, brain theory.
One such argument, the argument from change, states that every physical thing requires pre-existence of another physical thing in order to begin to exist. If no physical thing existed eternally to be the thing from every other physical thing came from, every physical thing came from nothing - which is an illogical conclusion.
No it's not, because the creation of the universe transcends physics as we understand them. Before the universe began, it may very well have been possible that something can come from nothing. It's not illogical, since such a state of affairs would be so beyond human comprehension it would be near impossible to understand. Even if this were true, God would need a creator as well.

To believe that something physical existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came from (1) has no objective evidence
Neither does God, thus why we need to logically prove it.
(2) the Big Bang shows that every physical thing that makes up our universe was contained in an infinitely small point and expanded,
We have no idea why that existed in the first place, how expansive it was, or what scientific laws it even followed.
leaving us to logically conclude that this was the instance in which every physical thing began, and
Every physical thing that currently exists.
(3) something physical existing eternally means that if it had changed from its prior state, it has a sequential change from one state to another, meaning time existed at this time also. This is logically impossible though. Something eternally existing in time cannot be bridged to a finite, sequential event like an instance where this physical thing underwent a transformation to a different physical thing.
That's the problem with your reasoning. The laws of logic, physics, and everything we understand, could very well have simply not existed before the Big Bang, or if they did, be wildly different. Physicists have flat out admitted they have no clue what the inside of black holes are like beyond a certain description, because out math simply stops working. Before the Big Bang, 2+2 could have equaled 3, or 2 could simply have not existed. Time and physics as we understand them was create during the Big Bang.
Do you believe that something endless ends? Do you believe that half of eternity is a shorter duration than eternity? It's not logically possible. In addition, atheist and scientist stephen hawking argues that time had a beginning and was not eternal as well.
Time wasn't eternal, it started after the Big Bang.

What we are left with that is not logically impossible is this: every physical thing began by metaphysical means. This essentially proves that "God" is logically necessitated although the term God could have a broad, general meaning in this case as a metaphysical cause.
It is metaphysical, but my point behind the metaphysical and physical distinction is that while aliens are completely within our concept of physics with no problems, God is not. Brain theory, for instance, assumes there is no God, but is still metaphysical. God is not necessitated.


God isn't inferred based on what we *don't know* he is necessitated (as a metaphysical causal mechanism) based on what we *do know*.
I don't really understand the point here, I never said otherwise.
This isn't a case of "well, I don't know, therefore God." It's a conclusion that is reached through sound reasoning and inductive logic based on what we know to be impossible.
It's not sound or logical. Metaphysical /=/ God. If God does not follow the same physics and logic we do, than neither did the universe behind the Big Bang.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:49:18 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:19:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

The process by which you determine whether things can exist or not is a metaphysical process that exists: it's called logic.
Except the evidence towards proving aliens isn't metaphysical, they can be deduced with our current understanding of physics. The existence of aliens does not transcend the physical, as God would.
I would also disagree with you that God has not been necessitated logically. There are many sound, logical arguments for God's existence.
Not that I have seen, not more necessitated than, say, brain theory.
One such argument, the argument from change, states that every physical thing requires pre-existence of another physical thing in order to begin to exist. If no physical thing existed eternally to be the thing from every other physical thing came from, every physical thing came from nothing - which is an illogical conclusion.
No it's not, because the creation of the universe transcends physics as we understand them. Before the universe began, it may very well have been possible that something can come from nothing. It's not illogical, since such a state of affairs would be so beyond human comprehension it would be near impossible to understand. Even if this were true, God would need a creator as well.

To believe that something physical existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came from (1) has no objective evidence
Neither does God, thus why we need to logically prove it.
(2) the Big Bang shows that every physical thing that makes up our universe was contained in an infinitely small point and expanded,
We have no idea why that existed in the first place, how expansive it was, or what scientific laws it even followed.
leaving us to logically conclude that this was the instance in which every physical thing began, and
Every physical thing that currently exists.
(3) something physical existing eternally means that if it had changed from its prior state, it has a sequential change from one state to another, meaning time existed at this time also. This is logically impossible though. Something eternally existing in time cannot be bridged to a finite, sequential event like an instance where this physical thing underwent a transformation to a different physical thing.
That's the problem with your reasoning. The laws of logic, physics, and everything we understand, could very well have simply not existed before the Big Bang, or if they did, be wildly different. Physicists have flat out admitted they have no clue what the inside of black holes are like beyond a certain description, because out math simply stops working. Before the Big Bang, 2+2 could have equaled 3, or 2 could simply have not existed. Time and physics as we understand them was create during the Big Bang.
Do you believe that something endless ends? Do you believe that half of eternity is a shorter duration than eternity? It's not logically possible. In addition, atheist and scientist stephen hawking argues that time had a beginning and was not eternal as well.
Time wasn't eternal, it started after the Big Bang.

What we are left with that is not logically impossible is this: every physical thing began by metaphysical means. This essentially proves that "God" is logically necessitated although the term God could have a broad, general meaning in this case as a metaphysical cause.
It is metaphysical, but my point behind the metaphysical and physical distinction is that while aliens are completely within our concept of physics with no problems, God is not. Brain theory, for instance, assumes there is no God, but is still metaphysical. God is not necessitated.


God isn't inferred based on what we *don't know* he is necessitated (as a metaphysical causal mechanism) based on what we *do know*.
I don't really understand the point here, I never said otherwise.
This isn't a case of "well, I don't know, therefore God." It's a conclusion that is reached through sound reasoning and inductive logic based on what we know to be impossible.
It's not sound or logical. Metaphysical /=/ God. If God does not follow the same physics and logic we do, than neither did the universe behind the Big Bang.

Why do you adhere to a theory that requires discarding logic? What reason is there to believe an atypical mathematical nature pre-existed the Big Bang at all? At this point you are discarding all rational faculties. We should have a very good reason to discard logic before we arrive at a conclusion that necessitates discarding logic. Like I said, the only logical remaining possibility is the creation of the universe by metaphysical means. Given that the universe that exhibits extraordinary order and intelligence, I'd say a conscious, intelligent creator is strongly inferred as the metaphysical means by which we were created.
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 5:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 3:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Why do you adhere to a theory that requires discarding logic?
I don't, nothing I said goes against the logic everyone uses(or should use). Admitting that logic may not have existed before the universe existed, is in itself a logical thing to say.
What reason is there to believe an atypical mathematical nature pre-existed the Big Bang at all?
Because the current theory cannot explain where the singularity came from. It could have existed forever, it could have been created, or it could defy our notion of time an physics. Regardless, we do not understand how the universe came to be, and most atheists and scientists do not pretend to know.
At this point you are discarding all rational faculties. We should have a very good reason to discard logic before we arrive at a conclusion that necessitates discarding logic.
No, we can use logic right now to explain that before the universe's creation that physics would not have worked, just as they would not work on God.
Like I said, the only logical remaining possibility is the creation of the universe by metaphysical means.
Correct, but metaphysical does not mean a God created the universe, it simply means something that transcends physics.
Given that the universe that exhibits extraordinary order and intelligence,
It doesn't, actually, it is incredibly chaotic and will only get more so. That is entropy.
I'd say a conscious, intelligent creator is strongly inferred as the metaphysical means by which we were created.
You have absolutely no reason to believe this other than personal preference. Why is it any more likely than Brain theory?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 6:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 5:16:35 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/13/2014 3:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Why do you adhere to a theory that requires discarding logic?
I don't, nothing I said goes against the logic everyone uses(or should use). Admitting that logic may not have existed before the universe existed, is in itself a logical thing to say.
What reason is there to believe an atypical mathematical nature pre-existed the Big Bang at all?
Because the current theory cannot explain where the singularity came from. It could have existed forever, it could have been created, or it could defy our notion of time an physics. Regardless, we do not understand how the universe came to be, and most atheists and scientists do not pretend to know.
At this point you are discarding all rational faculties. We should have a very good reason to discard logic before we arrive at a conclusion that necessitates discarding logic.
No, we can use logic right now to explain that before the universe's creation that physics would not have worked, just as they would not work on God.
Like I said, the only logical remaining possibility is the creation of the universe by metaphysical means.
Correct, but metaphysical does not mean a God created the universe, it simply means something that transcends physics.
Given that the universe that exhibits extraordinary order and intelligence,
It doesn't, actually, it is incredibly chaotic and will only get more so. That is entropy.
I'd say a conscious, intelligent creator is strongly inferred as the metaphysical means by which we were created.
You have absolutely no reason to believe this other than personal preference. Why is it any more likely than Brain Theory

The problem is that we have no good reason to believe that logic-defying laws can or have existed. It's logical to say that these atypical laws could be one possible cause, but the conclusion that these laws may exist defies how we know the universe to behave - whether directly observed or theoretically - which is the basis of logic itself. A metaphysical cause does not.

The universe doesn't exhibit order and intelligence? If atheism is true, our existence as intelligent beings is evidence of intelligence exhibited in the universe and order is the tendency for all things to reach equilibrium governed by natural laws in the universe. Can you succinctly explain what brain theory is and why it seems valid?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 6:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists? I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

Any serious insight would be helpful.

Nothing about the concept of aliens in any way challenges the fact that life forms are physical beings. Yahweh originally was claimed as a flesh-and-blood God but that makes it harder to explain why no one has ever seen him. So eventually, he was changed to a metaphysical (non-physical) entity. But life itself is a chemical process which requires that life forms be physical. Nothing about aliens challenges this idea. But a disembodied life and a disembodied intelligence pretty much defies any applicable definition for either one.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 7:45:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 6:32:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


The problem is that we have no good reason to believe that logic-defying laws can or have existed.
Except the very existence of God, if he exists, would be logic defying.
It's logical to say that these atypical laws could be one possible cause, but the conclusion that these laws may exist defies how we know the universe to behave - whether directly observed or theoretically - which is the basis of logic itself. A metaphysical cause does not.
It defines how we know the universe that we inhabit. Our current physics cannot explain how the original singularity was created, thus until there is a discovery in physics a metaphysical answer is most likely. This, however, does not necessitate the existence of God. Our laws work for our universe, but not outside it.

The universe doesn't exhibit order and intelligence? If atheism is true, our existence as intelligent beings is evidence of intelligence exhibited in the universe and order is the tendency for all things to reach equilibrium governed by natural laws in the universe. Can you succinctly explain what brain theory is and why it seems valid?

The universe itself does not exhibit any special order or intelligence, nothing is "planned", it simply is. Things reach equilibrium because that is simply how the universe works, not because it is ordered or planned.

I would look up brain theory yourself, since I don't feel like explaining. Needless to say I don't believe in it, but it is as valid as saying God did it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 7:58:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 7:45:37 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/13/2014 6:32:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


The problem is that we have no good reason to believe that logic-defying laws can or have existed.
Except the very existence of God, if he exists, would be logic defying.
It's logical to say that these atypical laws could be one possible cause, but the conclusion that these laws may exist defies how we know the universe to behave - whether directly observed or theoretically - which is the basis of logic itself. A metaphysical cause does not.
It defines how we know the universe that we inhabit. Our current physics cannot explain how the original singularity was created, thus until there is a discovery in physics a metaphysical answer is most likely. This, however, does not necessitate the existence of God. Our laws work for our universe, but not outside it.

The universe doesn't exhibit order and intelligence? If atheism is true, our existence as intelligent beings is evidence of intelligence exhibited in the universe and order is the tendency for all things to reach equilibrium governed by natural laws in the universe. Can you succinctly explain what brain theory is and why it seems valid?

The universe itself does not exhibit any special order or intelligence, nothing is "planned", it simply is. Things reach equilibrium because that is simply how the universe works, not because it is ordered or planned.

I would look up brain theory yourself, since I don't feel like explaining. Needless to say I don't believe in it, but it is as valid as saying God did it.

God, as an intelligent causal agent of the universe, and something that existed eternally to be the thing from which everything else came from, is the only position that is within the realm of logical possibility. Either (1) everything came from absolute nothing or (2) everything came from something eternally existent. Given that (1) isn't supported by any means and (2) is impossible for physical things, and also taking into account the order and intelligence exhibited throughout the universe, God, as an intelligent causal agent, is the most logical conclusion. I'll explain more below about why intelligence and order are present in the universe.

Order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method" all natural laws, the process of life, and the mathematical structure of the universe operate orderly. Is that sentence true or false? If nature doesn't exhibit intelligence, are we not intelligent beings as a product of nature. Is that sentence true or false?

I looked up brain theory myself and I found it to be very conceptually abstract and not rooted in much of anything. I also couldn't find a brief summary of what it is and that's why I asked.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists? I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

Any serious insight would be helpful.

The same can be said the other way. How can someone believe in God but not aliens?
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:08:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 7:58:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

God, as an intelligent causal agent of the universe, and something that existed eternally to be the thing from which everything else came from, is the only position that is within the realm of logical possibility.
No, it's not, there are atheist theories that have the same validity.
Either (1) everything came from absolute nothing
Which very well could have happened.
or (2) everything came from something eternally existent.
And the universe could have been eternally existent.
Given that (1) isn't supported by any means
Except God would have to come from nothing as well.
and (2) is impossible for physical things,
And the universe pre-Big Bang would have been metaphysical.
and also taking into account the order and intelligence exhibited throughout the universe,
Which does not exist.
God, as an intelligent causal agent, is the most logical conclusion. I'll explain more below about why intelligence and order are present in the universe.
You keep repeating this as i you believe doing so will validate it.

Order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method" all natural laws, the process of life, and the mathematical structure of the universe operate orderly. Is that sentence true or false? If nature doesn't exhibit intelligence, are we not intelligent beings as a product of nature. Is that sentence true or false?
Even if it exhibited order, it does not exhibit intelligence. And if you believe everything that follows a pattern is orderly, everything in existence is orderly, and I challenge to provide a scenario in which it ceases to exist. .

I looked up brain theory myself and I found it to be very conceptually abstract and not rooted in much of anything. I also couldn't find a brief summary of what it is and that's why I asked.
Brain theory is essentially saying the universe is created when two giant objects, called brains, collide with each other, and the universe is the resulting radiation distributed from the collision. These brains would defy physics as we know them, and thus would be just like God.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:15:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 8:08:37 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/13/2014 7:58:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

God, as an intelligent causal agent of the universe, and something that existed eternally to be the thing from which everything else came from, is the only position that is within the realm of logical possibility.
No, it's not, there are atheist theories that have the same validity.
Either (1) everything came from absolute nothing
Which very well could have happened.
or (2) everything came from something eternally existent.
And the universe could have been eternally existent.
Given that (1) isn't supported by any means
Except God would have to come from nothing as well.
and (2) is impossible for physical things,
And the universe pre-Big Bang would have been metaphysical.
and also taking into account the order and intelligence exhibited throughout the universe,
Which does not exist.
God, as an intelligent causal agent, is the most logical conclusion. I'll explain more below about why intelligence and order are present in the universe.
You keep repeating this as i you believe doing so will validate it.

Order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method" all natural laws, the process of life, and the mathematical structure of the universe operate orderly. Is that sentence true or false? If nature doesn't exhibit intelligence, are we not intelligent beings as a product of nature. Is that sentence true or false?
Even if it exhibited order, it does not exhibit intelligence. And if you believe everything that follows a pattern is orderly, everything in existence is orderly, and I challenge to provide a scenario in which it ceases to exist. .

I looked up brain theory myself and I found it to be very conceptually abstract and not rooted in much of anything. I also couldn't find a brief summary of what it is and that's why I asked.
Brain theory is essentially saying the universe is created when two giant objects, called brains, collide with each other, and the universe is the resulting radiation distributed from the collision. These brains would defy physics as we know them, and thus would be just like God.

Are we intelligent beings and did we come from from nature? If so, how does the universe not exhibit intelligence?

You say that existence could very well have arisen from "absolute nothing" but you have no logical evidence for that. Inductively, something has never came from absolute nothing. We don't have things poofing out of thin air from nothing.

I still hold that the universe is indicative of an intelligent designer because it exhibits intelligence and order as I've explained and necessitates metaphysical origin.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 11:27:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:33:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:08:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists?

Microbacteria in meteors helps with the extraterrestrial argument.

We know there is at least one planet with life, we do not know if there is a single god.

We know there are other planets and moons that have the potential of having life, we have no evidence that the universe has a single god.

I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

It is mathematically likely that there is life out there (drake equation is just one example). It is not mathematically like that there is a single god.

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

The big bang is causeless, which can be found by logical deduction. The argument that is made by many theists is that anything complex has a creator, which is false, but it then makes it so that god is complex as well, therefore needs a creator.

Any serious insight would be helpful.

And you still pretend to be a theist? You're SNP1. I've called it months ago. I don't understand why you try to fool other people into believing your're a theist but argue against theism every chance you get. You've also said "the argument is made by many theists..." Alluding to a position that isn't held yourself. In addition, your name is a parody of "lifemeansgodisgood" and must've created your account with prior knowledge of a user and his/her position in order to make a parody of it. The first post you made was a 10 page RFD in favor of SNP1 on the debate I had with you, while being so biased and impartial towards SNP1 that even somebody biased but independently analyzing the debate would never say. Like I said, arguing that there are biblical discrepancies, arguing against possibilities of God, disagreeing with theists every chance you get, and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses all shows that you intend to act as a member of the theist camp in order to discredit their views while holding a fake, absurd straw-man view on what God(s) exist are all just ploys to assert your atheistic beliefs. I know, you know, and I'm sure several other users know that you're not what you say you are. Feel free to make any justification like I said when I first pointed it out to you, but I am 100% certain that you're SNP1.

I am an agnostic theist. I don't pretend to know there is a god, but I do believe in some. You say I disagree with theists, but that is not what I am doing. I am refuting stupidity. I don't care if it is or is not a theist, if they act stupid enough for me to care, I will confront them. I have even had a small argument with Beastt about anecdotal evidence.

I said many theists because it is the truth. Want me to sugarcoat my position? Want me to lie about my position?

"arguing that there are biblical discrepancies"

But there are.

"arguing against possibilities of God"

I don't argue against the possibilities, I argue against stupid claims. I also like playing devils advocate. In my mind, if you cannot play devils advocate for a position, then you don't know enough about the position to even make a claim.

"disagreeing with theists every chance you get"

I do not. It just seems that many theists on this site don't understand the basics of logic, science, philosophy, etc.

"and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses"

Agnostic theism can do that.

Also, if you are 100% certain, then where is your evidence? You said 100%, so it must be some pretty damn good evidence. Oh, right, it is all circumstantial evidence plus me being an agnostic theist that argues against certain other theists. VERY convincing...

Oh, are you also saying that me saying that the Big Bang being causeless is an atheistic position? You forget, or have ignored, that my religion has the goddesses creating the MULTIVERSE. They didn't have to create every single minuscule universe.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 11:54:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 11:27:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:33:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:08:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists?

Microbacteria in meteors helps with the extraterrestrial argument.

We know there is at least one planet with life, we do not know if there is a single god.

We know there are other planets and moons that have the potential of having life, we have no evidence that the universe has a single god.

I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

It is mathematically likely that there is life out there (drake equation is just one example). It is not mathematically like that there is a single god.

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

The big bang is causeless, which can be found by logical deduction. The argument that is made by many theists is that anything complex has a creator, which is false, but it then makes it so that god is complex as well, therefore needs a creator.

Any serious insight would be helpful.

And you still pretend to be a theist? You're SNP1. I've called it months ago. I don't understand why you try to fool other people into believing your're a theist but argue against theism every chance you get. You've also said "the argument is made by many theists..." Alluding to a position that isn't held yourself. In addition, your name is a parody of "lifemeansgodisgood" and must've created your account with prior knowledge of a user and his/her position in order to make a parody of it. The first post you made was a 10 page RFD in favor of SNP1 on the debate I had with you, while being so biased and impartial towards SNP1 that even somebody biased but independently analyzing the debate would never say. Like I said, arguing that there are biblical discrepancies, arguing against possibilities of God, disagreeing with theists every chance you get, and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses all shows that you intend to act as a member of the theist camp in order to discredit their views while holding a fake, absurd straw-man view on what God(s) exist are all just ploys to assert your atheistic beliefs. I know, you know, and I'm sure several other users know that you're not what you say you are. Feel free to make any justification like I said when I first pointed it out to you, but I am 100% certain that you're SNP1.

I am an agnostic theist. I don't pretend to know there is a god, but I do believe in some. You say I disagree with theists, but that is not what I am doing. I am refuting stupidity. I don't care if it is or is not a theist, if they act stupid enough for me to care, I will confront them. I have even had a small argument with Beastt about anecdotal evidence.

I said many theists because it is the truth. Want me to sugarcoat my position? Want me to lie about my position?

"arguing that there are biblical discrepancies"

But there are.

"arguing against possibilities of God"

I don't argue against the possibilities, I argue against stupid claims. I also like playing devils advocate. In my mind, if you cannot play devils advocate for a position, then you don't know enough about the position to even make a claim.

"disagreeing with theists every chance you get"

I do not. It just seems that many theists on this site don't understand the basics of logic, science, philosophy, etc.

"and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses"

Agnostic theism can do that.

Also, if you are 100% certain, then where is your evidence? You said 100%, so it must be some pretty damn good evidence. Oh, right, it is all circumstantial evidence plus me being an agnostic theist that argues against certain other theists. VERY convincing...

Oh, are you also saying that me saying that the Big Bang being causeless is an atheistic position? You forget, or have ignored, that my religion has the goddesses creating the MULTIVERSE. They didn't have to create every single minuscule universe.

"I also like playing devils advocate. In my mind, if you cannot play devils advocate for a position, then you don't know enough about the position to even make a claim."

That pretty much sums it up right there. And as far as circumstantial evidence, it's like walking into a room with a man holding a bloody knife over a stabbed dead body. So yes I'm 100% certain it's you. I find it really strange that you consistently deny it though. The evidence is already too strong no matter what you say but it ultimately doesn't matter. Continue on.
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 8:21:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 8:15:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Are we intelligent beings and did we come from from nature? If so, how does the universe not exhibit intelligence?
<sigh>

Not in the way things exist. We have intelligence, but it doesn't exist in a way that things were planned, and we don't use out intelligence to to carry through some kind of plan the universe has.

You say that existence could very well have arisen from "absolute nothing" but you have no logical evidence for that. Inductively, something has never came from absolute nothing. We don't have things poofing out of thin air from nothing.
I have told you before and I will tell you again. Just like God, the universe before the Big Bang would have not followed the same physics that we follow. Under whatever rules it was following, something very well could have come from nothing, or just existed forever.

I still hold that the universe is indicative of an intelligent designer because it exhibits intelligence and order as I've explained and necessitates metaphysical origin.
And you have failed to present how this is the case, because you claim god exists beyond physics, but are completely unwilling to believe that the same could apply to the universe pre-Big Bang.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 9:47:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 8:21:00 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/13/2014 8:15:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Are we intelligent beings and did we come from from nature? If so, how does the universe not exhibit intelligence?
<sigh>

Not in the way things exist. We have intelligence, but it doesn't exist in a way that things were planned, and we don't use out intelligence to to carry through some kind of plan the universe has.

You say that existence could very well have arisen from "absolute nothing" but you have no logical evidence for that. Inductively, something has never came from absolute nothing. We don't have things poofing out of thin air from nothing.
I have told you before and I will tell you again. Just like God, the universe before the Big Bang would have not followed the same physics that we follow. Under whatever rules it was following, something very well could have come from nothing, or just existed forever.

I still hold that the universe is indicative of an intelligent designer because it exhibits intelligence and order as I've explained and necessitates metaphysical origin.
And you have failed to present how this is the case, because you claim god exists beyond physics, but are completely unwilling to believe that the same could apply to the universe pre-Big Bang.

So you accept that intelligence and order is exhibited in the universe? It doesn't matter if it wasn't planned or not. How have I failed to present the case that order and intelligence is exhibited in the universe? You basically admitted that there was.
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 10:59:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 9:47:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


So you accept that intelligence and order is exhibited in the universe?
I accept that some order exists, in the sense of laws, but I do not believe there is intelligence.
It doesn't matter if it wasn't planned or not. How have I failed to present the case that order and intelligence is exhibited in the universe? You basically admitted that there was.
I'll admit I was using a usage of the word order that doesn't work well here, so I will admit order exists.

But intelligence does not. Intelligence is not simply the actual existence of rational thinking. It is the planned occurrence of events, that there is something that transcends reality. Intelligence is not simply animals developing consciousness.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 11:28:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 11:54:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/14/2014 11:27:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:33:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:08:15 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/13/2014 1:44:02 PM, BrownChickenBrownCow wrote:
How can someone believe in extraterrestials without solid evidence, but not believe that there is a possibility that God exists?

Microbacteria in meteors helps with the extraterrestrial argument.

We know there is at least one planet with life, we do not know if there is a single god.

We know there are other planets and moons that have the potential of having life, we have no evidence that the universe has a single god.

I ask this because I have talked to atheists that dismiss God because they don't have proof or evidence that God exists, but if you start on the subject of science, space, and what could possibly be out there they don't dismiss intelligent life on other planets without having this same proof?

It is mathematically likely that there is life out there (drake equation is just one example). It is not mathematically like that there is a single god.

I have another question along these same lines. What is the difference between something causing the universe to exist (Big Bang or any other theory out there) and something that could have caused God to exist? One, the other, or even both would have had to happen, right?

The big bang is causeless, which can be found by logical deduction. The argument that is made by many theists is that anything complex has a creator, which is false, but it then makes it so that god is complex as well, therefore needs a creator.

Any serious insight would be helpful.

And you still pretend to be a theist? You're SNP1. I've called it months ago. I don't understand why you try to fool other people into believing your're a theist but argue against theism every chance you get. You've also said "the argument is made by many theists..." Alluding to a position that isn't held yourself. In addition, your name is a parody of "lifemeansgodisgood" and must've created your account with prior knowledge of a user and his/her position in order to make a parody of it. The first post you made was a 10 page RFD in favor of SNP1 on the debate I had with you, while being so biased and impartial towards SNP1 that even somebody biased but independently analyzing the debate would never say. Like I said, arguing that there are biblical discrepancies, arguing against possibilities of God, disagreeing with theists every chance you get, and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses all shows that you intend to act as a member of the theist camp in order to discredit their views while holding a fake, absurd straw-man view on what God(s) exist are all just ploys to assert your atheistic beliefs. I know, you know, and I'm sure several other users know that you're not what you say you are. Feel free to make any justification like I said when I first pointed it out to you, but I am 100% certain that you're SNP1.

I am an agnostic theist. I don't pretend to know there is a god, but I do believe in some. You say I disagree with theists, but that is not what I am doing. I am refuting stupidity. I don't care if it is or is not a theist, if they act stupid enough for me to care, I will confront them. I have even had a small argument with Beastt about anecdotal evidence.

I said many theists because it is the truth. Want me to sugarcoat my position? Want me to lie about my position?

"arguing that there are biblical discrepancies"

But there are.

"arguing against possibilities of God"

I don't argue against the possibilities, I argue against stupid claims. I also like playing devils advocate. In my mind, if you cannot play devils advocate for a position, then you don't know enough about the position to even make a claim.

"disagreeing with theists every chance you get"

I do not. It just seems that many theists on this site don't understand the basics of logic, science, philosophy, etc.

"and holding an obscure position on gods/goddesses"

Agnostic theism can do that.

Also, if you are 100% certain, then where is your evidence? You said 100%, so it must be some pretty damn good evidence. Oh, right, it is all circumstantial evidence plus me being an agnostic theist that argues against certain other theists. VERY convincing...

Oh, are you also saying that me saying that the Big Bang being causeless is an atheistic position? You forget, or have ignored, that my religion has the goddesses creating the MULTIVERSE. They didn't have to create every single minuscule universe.

"I also like playing devils advocate. In my mind, if you cannot play devils advocate for a position, then you don't know enough about the position to even make a claim."

That pretty much sums it up right there. And as far as circumstantial evidence, it's like walking into a room with a man holding a bloody knife over a stabbed dead body. So yes I'm 100% certain it's you. I find it really strange that you consistently deny it though. The evidence is already too strong no matter what you say but it ultimately doesn't matter. Continue on.

Yawn... Can you actually provide any REAL evidence? Any that I have not already explained? And can you do it within the next few days? My college semester is starting soon.