Total Posts:344|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"God is just like believing in Santa Claus"

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:25:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a common misconception.

Belief in God is based on a set of logically necessary conditions.

(1) Something must be the thing from which everything else came.

Everything originated from a metaphysical and eternal something or from absolutely nothing. It may be possible that something came from absolute nothingness, but this option is essentially ruled out based on empirical evidence. The expansion of all physical phenomena occurred during the Big Bang and mainstream scientific consensus is that this was the absolute beginning of the universe (of space-time and energy). The cause of the Big Bang must be transcendent of every physical thing, including time in order to begin time. Thus, it must be metaphysical and eternal.

(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.

(3) Objective purpose

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues. A moral standard against raping infants, for instance. If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either. Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong, our purpose can't be entirely subjective. If don't have an entirely subjective purpose, we must have some objective purpose given the dichotomy between subjective and objective. If objective purpose is determined for the human race, it must be by an external source consciousness. Only conscious beings are capable of assigning purpose and in order for some purpose to be objective it must exist independently of human consensus.

These reasons logically lead to a metaphysical, eternal, and intelligent consciousness to be the cause of our existence. Thus, belief in God is based on empirical evidence and logic. Belief in God is not like belief in fairytale creatures.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:56:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:25:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is a common misconception.

Belief in God is based on a set of logically necessary conditions.

(1) Something must be the thing from which everything else came.

Everything originated from a metaphysical and eternal something or from absolutely nothing. It may be possible that something came from absolute nothingness, but this option is essentially ruled out based on empirical evidence. The expansion of all physical phenomena occurred during the Big Bang and mainstream scientific consensus is that this was the absolute beginning of the universe (of space-time and energy). The cause of the Big Bang must be transcendent of every physical thing, including time in order to begin time. Thus, it must be metaphysical and eternal.

What empirical evidence are you using to show something can't come from nothing, because if you actually researched this, you will know that the empircal evidence actually shows just the opposite; the best predictions of physics are the ones based on just this occuring.

Secondly, if you did some research you would understand that the big bang is concerning the very, very early universe, but has no description or explanation of the beggining.

Thirdly, you then jump into wild speculation by asserting that it must be transccendant and therefore metaphysical? Why?

(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.

Firstly, science shows that chaos and spontaneity CAN be shown to bring about the "appearance" of design. I don't know if you are just inventing things to make your point look better, but most of what you are saying here with regards to what can and can't happen is opposed by what we actually understand about the world around us.

This is a classic argument from incredulity "I can't understand how this complexity can come about through natural processes so therefore it can not have."

(3) Objective purpose

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues. A moral standard against raping infants, for instance. If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either. Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong, our purpose can't be entirely subjective. If don't have an entirely subjective purpose, we must have some objective purpose given the dichotomy between subjective and objective. If objective purpose is determined for the human race, it must be by an external source consciousness. Only conscious beings are capable of assigning purpose and in order for some purpose to be objective it must exist independently of human consensus.

Humans have generally common morals. And there are good reasons for this outside of God.

This is not the same as having objective morals, or purpose. You have just asserted that it's true.

Considering that humans approach to rape, torture, slavery, murder, death and suffering has changed considerably throughout time; and in fact when genocide, rape, murder, and slavery are all accepted by the bible in various different ways, it is pretty clear that social human morality is an evolving and changing concept that is in no way objective.

Does that make raping infants "right"? No. Because we judge things by the moral stands we have now, which are subjective in the universal sense, but objective to us.

These reasons logically lead to a metaphysical, eternal, and intelligent consciousness to be the cause of our existence. Thus, belief in God is based on empirical evidence and logic. Belief in God is not like belief in fairytale creatures.

These reasons are all wrong. None of it is empirical; you have no evidence for any of the items you have posted here.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:49:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:56:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:25:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is a common misconception.

Belief in God is based on a set of logically necessary conditions.

(1) Something must be the thing from which everything else came.

Everything originated from a metaphysical and eternal something or from absolutely nothing. It may be possible that something came from absolute nothingness, but this option is essentially ruled out based on empirical evidence. The expansion of all physical phenomena occurred during the Big Bang and mainstream scientific consensus is that this was the absolute beginning of the universe (of space-time and energy). The cause of the Big Bang must be transcendent of every physical thing, including time in order to begin time. Thus, it must be metaphysical and eternal.

What empirical evidence are you using to show something can't come from nothing, because if you actually researched this, you will know that the empircal evidence actually shows just the opposite; the best predictions of physics are the ones based on just this occuring.

What comes from absolutely nothing?

Secondly, if you did some research you would understand that the big bang is concerning the very, very early universe, but has no description or explanation of the beggining.

I didn't claim that it did. I merely said most scientists agree that the Big Bang was the beginning because that's what the evidence of the zero-point expansion of all space-time and energy leads us to believe.

Thirdly, you then jump into wild speculation by asserting that it must be transccendant and therefore metaphysical? Why?

Because a cause can't sufficiently cause itself into existence. Anything non-physical is metaphysical. Agree?

(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.

Firstly, science shows that chaos and spontaneity CAN be shown to bring about the "appearance" of design. I don't know if you are just inventing things to make your point look better, but most of what you are saying here with regards to what can and can't happen is opposed by what we actually understand about the world around us.

This is a classic argument from incredulity "I can't understand how this complexity can come about through natural processes so therefore it can not have."

It's an inference of design based on specified-complexity. Would we assume the Rosetta Stone was written through sand and erosion? No. The specified-complexity of cellular DNA is actually much more specified and complex than something we would only conclude an intelligence produced.

(3) Objective purpose

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues. A moral standard against raping infants, for instance. If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either. Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong, our purpose can't be entirely subjective. If don't have an entirely subjective purpose, we must have some objective purpose given the dichotomy between subjective and objective. If objective purpose is determined for the human race, it must be by an external source consciousness. Only conscious beings are capable of assigning purpose and in order for some purpose to be objective it must exist independently of human consensus.

Humans have generally common morals. And there are good reasons for this outside of God.

What reason do we have for common morality if existence is entirely subjective?

This is not the same as having objective morals, or purpose. You have just asserted that it's true.

Is all morality evidently subjective if all societies have held to a moral standard that raping infants is wrong?

Considering that humans approach to rape, torture, slavery, murder, death and suffering has changed considerably throughout time; and in fact when genocide, rape, murder, and slavery are all accepted by the bible in various different ways, it is pretty clear that social human morality is an evolving and changing concept that is in no way objective.

Basically what you're saying here is that subjective morality exists so therefore objective morality doesn't. The two can coexist. In fact, that's what the evidence shows is true by looking at the evidence of universal, constant moral standards.

Does that make raping infants "right"? No. Because we judge things by the moral stands we have now, which are subjective in the universal sense, but objective to us.

These reasons logically lead to a metaphysical, eternal, and intelligent consciousness to be the cause of our existence. Thus, belief in God is based on empirical evidence and logic. Belief in God is not like belief in fairytale creatures.

These reasons are all wrong. None of it is empirical; you have no evidence for any of the items you have posted here.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:54:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

The reason for positing that the two are dissimilar is that belief in God is supported empirically and logically. If the claim was that God isn't sensorially perceived like other fairytale creatures then that would be true. That's the distinction I'm making.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:09:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:54:43 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The reason for positing that the two are dissimilar is that belief in God is supported empirically and logically. If the claim was that God isn't sensorially perceived like other fairytale creatures then that would be true. That's the distinction I'm making.

That's fine, you can make that distinction if you can actually back up the assertion that belief in God is supported empirically and logically (which I would say you certainly cannot), but then you have not done anything to address the analogies and comparisons that atheists use Santa Clause to make (which seemed like the point of this thread).
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:24:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:49:12 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What empirical evidence are you using to show something can't come from nothing, because if you actually researched this, you will know that the empircal evidence actually shows just the opposite; the best predictions of physics are the ones based on just this occuring.

What comes from absolutely nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Secondly, if you did some research you would understand that the big bang is concerning the very, very early universe, but has no description or explanation of the beggining.

I didn't claim that it did. I merely said most scientists agree that the Big Bang was the beginning because that's what the evidence of the zero-point expansion of all space-time and energy leads us to believe.

They don't. Scientists involved in the big bang all understand that the big bang is the evolution of the very, very, very early universe and makes no statements about the very beggining, contrary to what you are saying. Hence why I suggested you actually do some research before making absurd claims.

Thirdly, you then jump into wild speculation by asserting that it must be transccendant and therefore metaphysical? Why?

Because a cause can't sufficiently cause itself into existence. Anything non-physical is metaphysical. Agree?

Agree with the last, but not the first. Almost all quantumn effects it is possible to observe occur for no mechanical deterministic cause.


(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.

Firstly, science shows that chaos and spontaneity CAN be shown to bring about the "appearance" of design. I don't know if you are just inventing things to make your point look better, but most of what you are saying here with regards to what can and can't happen is opposed by what we actually understand about the world around us.

This is a classic argument from incredulity "I can't understand how this complexity can come about through natural processes so therefore it can not have."

It's an inference of design based on specified-complexity. Would we assume the Rosetta Stone was written through sand and erosion? No. The specified-complexity of cellular DNA is actually much more specified and complex than something we would only conclude an intelligence produced.

The rosetta stone doesn't have children, the children it does not have are not imperfect copies of it, and those non existent children are not selected for in terms of the vallidity of greek and egyptian translations; and so therefore your analogy breaks down as in comparing the rosetta stone and DNA, you are removing the one aspect of DNA that allows specified complexity to arise naturally.

Trial and error, with selection where the natural environment means the propogation of functional and useful DNA sequences are more likely to reproduce than others is what drives specified complexity with no intelligence required.


(3) Objective purpose

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues. A moral standard against raping infants, for instance. If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either. Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong, our purpose can't be entirely subjective. If don't have an entirely subjective purpose, we must have some objective purpose given the dichotomy between subjective and objective. If objective purpose is determined for the human race, it must be by an external source consciousness. Only conscious beings are capable of assigning purpose and in order for some purpose to be objective it must exist independently of human consensus.

Humans have generally common morals. And there are good reasons for this outside of God.

What reason do we have for common morality if existence is entirely subjective?

Subjective *for humans*; rather than some externally imposed morality. And the answer is simple.

In terms of evolution; any trait that is beneficial is more likely to pass on than one that is not. In a social creature, survival is partially dependant on the society. Any traits that go against the survival of the society is less likely to be passed on, and any traits that help the survival of the society is more likely to be passed on.

In that regard, rape, murder and socially disruptive behaviour is negative, and any trait that mediates the willingness of that creature to engage in such behaviour is beneficial. Hence morality is an evolutionary imperitive in social creatures; and you see some form of it in all social animals.

This is not the same as having objective morals, or purpose. You have just asserted that it's true.

Is all morality evidently subjective if all societies have held to a moral standard that raping infants is wrong?

Not in the way you mean. I am saying that humans hold some objective morality for good reason. This is not the same as saying that this morality is externally imposed by some entity outside of humanity, which what you are asserting.

Considering that humans approach to rape, torture, slavery, murder, death and suffering has changed considerably throughout time; and in fact when genocide, rape, murder, and slavery are all accepted by the bible in various different ways, it is pretty clear that social human morality is an evolving and changing concept that is in no way objective.

Basically what you're saying here is that subjective morality exists so therefore objective morality doesn't. The two can coexist. In fact, that's what the evidence shows is true by looking at the evidence of universal, constant moral standards.

As I elaborated; some objective and mostly subjective morality exists within humans; the changes in our attitudes toward morality concerning rape, torture, slavery etc over the years demosntrates that morality is not externally imposed as if it was, it would not be changing as much as it is; and the person who imposed such objective morality would not assert that it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, or to send Bears to maul children for calling one of your friends bald.

You are confusing "Objective for all humans", with "Externally imposed", you need the latter to show God, and the evidence shows otherwise; however you are only trying to demonstrate the former.

Does that make raping infants "right"? No. Because we judge things by the moral stands we have now, which are subjective in the universal sense, but objective to us.

^^^ this.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:55:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not different, because in both cases, you make a statement that is unjustifiable with evidence.

It may be more likely that a deistic god exists, but if you don't have evidence for it, you are making the exact same statement. Santa claus might exist on the north pole, but he simply doesn't turn out presents. Or he is an invisible santa claus that only give presents to say... 1 person a year, and this present is actually a metaphor for happiness on christmas or whatever.

You see, the reason it is the same, is because you haven't demonstrated evidence, you have drawn a conclusion and nitpicked facts that are compatible with your proposition and that can be done with santa claus too.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:11:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 10:24:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:49:12 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
What empirical evidence are you using to show something can't come from nothing, because if you actually researched this, you will know that the empircal evidence actually shows just the opposite; the best predictions of physics are the ones based on just this occuring.

What comes from absolutely nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

(1) virtual particles exist with prerequisite space so they are NOT from absolutely nothing and (2) virtual particles are energy field disturbances and not really "particles" in the first place.

"A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. "
http://profmattstrassler.com...


Secondly, if you did some research you would understand that the big bang is concerning the very, very early universe, but has no description or explanation of the beggining.


They don't. Scientists involved in the big bang all understand that the big bang is the evolution of the very, very, very early universe and makes no statements about the very beggining, contrary to what you are saying. Hence why I suggested you actually do some research before making absurd claims.

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Thirdly, you then jump into wild speculation by asserting that it must be transccendant and therefore metaphysical? Why?

Because a cause can't sufficiently cause itself into existence. Anything non-physical is metaphysical. Agree?

Agree with the last, but not the first. Almost all quantumn effects it is possible to observe occur for no mechanical deterministic cause.

Such as? Give me a source.


(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.


It's an inference of design based on specified-complexity. Would we assume the Rosetta Stone was written through sand and erosion? No. The specified-complexity of cellular DNA is actually much more specified and complex than something we would only conclude an intelligence produced.

The rosetta stone doesn't have children, the children it does not have are not imperfect copies of it, and those non existent children are not selected for in terms of the vallidity of greek and egyptian translations; and so therefore your analogy breaks down as in comparing the rosetta stone and DNA, you are removing the one aspect of DNA that allows specified complexity to arise naturally.

Trial and error, with selection where the natural environment means the propogation of functional and useful DNA sequences are more likely to reproduce than others is what drives specified complexity with no intelligence required.

Whether it arose naturally or not doesn't exclude an intelligent designer. The argument is valid as an analogous example of something that exhibits specified-complexity for inferring intelligent design. Everything that we observe to be caused by an intelligence, from newspapers columns, the Rosetta Stone, an instruction manual, etc. are all included. Nature exhibits superior specified-complexity. Without presupposition, nature is evidently intelligently designed by a superior intellect.


(3) Objective purpose



Subjective *for humans*; rather than some externally imposed morality. And the answer is simple.

In terms of evolution; any trait that is beneficial is more likely to pass on than one that is not. In a social creature, survival is partially dependant on the society. Any traits that go against the survival of the society is less likely to be passed on, and any traits that help the survival of the society is more likely to be passed on.

Is survival an objective purpose? Do natural processes tell us what we "ought" to do? If not, how is survival the basis for any moral "ought" behavior?

In that regard, rape, murder and socially disruptive behaviour is negative, and any trait that mediates the willingness of that creature to engage in such behaviour is beneficial. Hence morality is an evolutionary imperitive in social creatures; and you see some form of it in all social animals.


This is not the same as having objective morals, or purpose. You have just asserted that it's true.

Is all morality evidently subjective if all societies have held to a moral standard that raping infants is wrong?

Not in the way you mean. I am saying that humans hold some objective morality for good reason. This is not the same as saying that this morality is externally imposed by some entity outside of humanity, which what you are asserting.

*Objective* morality necessitates an externally imposed consciousness. This would mean that things that're objectively immoral are immoral regardless of human consensus.

Considering that humans approach to rape, torture, slavery, murder, death and suffering has changed considerably throughout time; and in fact when genocide, rape, murder, and slavery are all accepted by the bible in various different ways, it is pretty clear that social human morality is an evolving and changing concept that is in no way objective.

Basically what you're saying here is that subjective morality exists so therefore objective morality doesn't. The two can coexist. In fact, that's what the evidence shows is true by looking at the evidence of universal, constant moral standards.

As I elaborated; some objective and mostly subjective morality exists within humans; the changes in our attitudes toward morality concerning rape, torture, slavery etc over the years demosntrates that morality is not externally imposed as if it was, it would not be changing as much as it is; and the person who imposed such objective morality would not assert that it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, or to send Bears to maul children for calling one of your friends bald.

Just as gravity has always existed, a correct theorem on gravity did not. The only reason we would be able to assert moral changes for "the better" is if some underlying objective moral standards existed to measure superior moral progress.

You are confusing "Objective for all humans", with "Externally imposed", you need the latter to show God, and the evidence shows otherwise; however you are only trying to demonstrate the former.

Any objective purpose or objective morality for all humans must be imposed by an external consciousness. That conclusion is logically airtight. I can argue it with you if you wish.

Does that make raping infants "right"? No. [judging from our current moral perspective].

No society has ever tolerated raping infants. It's a universal, constant moral standard. How can any universal, constant moral standard exist if all morality is supposedly subjective?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:30:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 10:55:12 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
It's not different, because in both cases, you make a statement that is unjustifiable with evidence.

It may be more likely that a deistic god exists, but if you don't have evidence for it, you are making the exact same statement. Santa claus might exist on the north pole, but he simply doesn't turn out presents. Or he is an invisible santa claus that only give presents to say... 1 person a year, and this present is actually a metaphor for happiness on christmas or whatever.

You see, the reason it is the same, is because you haven't demonstrated evidence, you have drawn a conclusion and nitpicked facts that are compatible with your proposition and that can be done with santa claus too.

Without presupposition, empirical evidence and logic favors the existence of God. I've explained why in my arguments. I didn't make a claim as to who God is, only that God isn't analogous to fictional characters because they don't have the same empirical evidence or logical arguments based on necessary conditions of our existence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:36:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:25:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is a common misconception.

Belief in God is based on a set of logically necessary conditions.
No it isn't. You've been making the same claim here for months and ignoring the fact that every single time, it fails. If God were necessary, then there would be a scientific "God theory". There isn't. There is no evidence for God, and no necessity for God. Everything can be explained without God but you purposefully ignore this.

(1) Something must be the thing from which everything else came.
Nothing "came from" anything else. You've been told this repeatedly. Ignoring this reality, will not change that reality.

Everything originated from a metaphysical and eternal something or from absolutely nothing.
Or it simply always existed. And since matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, that is really the only option left.

It may be possible that something came from absolute nothingness, but this option is essentially ruled out based on empirical evidence.
Nothing "came from" anything, Ben. Nothing came from anything. Things don't "come from" other things. Get that idea out of your head. Do you see things "coming from" other things? When a chicken lays an egg, does it create that egg out of nothing? Does it create that egg out of some unseen metaphysical source? No! Every atom now in the universe, has been a continual part of the universe, whether in the form of matter, or the form of energy. No thing, "comes from" anything else. You're creating a non-existent problem, and then trying to fix that problem by proposing God.

The expansion of all physical phenomena occurred during the Big Bang and mainstream scientific consensus is that this was the absolute beginning of the universe (of space-time and energy). The cause of the Big Bang must be transcendent of every physical thing, including time in order to begin time. Thus, it must be metaphysical and eternal.
That's not even an error, Ben. That's just a lie. And it's a lie because you've been corrected on this over, and over, and over. It was the beginning of the universe "AS WE KNOW IT"! Imagine (if you can), nothing but energy. How would you detect it without using matter? Could you? It would appear to be nothing. And yet, from that apparent nothing, can arise all of the matter of the universe. Matter = Energy. Energy = Mattter. E = M C^2! You're trying to remove everything in existence, so that you can propose what doesn't exist, and then claim it as the source for all that does exist. But nothing "comes from" anything else, Ben. That proposal is "empirically busted"!

(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe
That's a pure fallacy, Ben. And we've been through this, and through this, and through this. Do you think Belusov's chemicals are intelligent? Do you think water molecules are intelligent? Or do you think your grand missing disembodied intelligence sits around all day designing snowflakes, fractal patterns and sand dunes.

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs.
And you have been shown that the structures you claim to be "intelligent designs" are nothing of the sort. Do you really think you're more intelligent than the top scientists, biologists and physicists in the world? Several of the top proponents of "Intelligent Design" and several "real scientists" testified in court in 2007. The various examples and explanations went on for days. And when the dust cleared, it was clear that "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a new name for creationism. Every single example offered as an "intelligent design" was clearly and conclusively shown to be the result of natural non-intelligent processes. . . EVERY one of them!

Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this.
Yes it has! It has been shown to accomplish this over, and over, and over. The ONLY problem is that some people can't seem to let go of old, out-dated, superstitious misconceptions. The "problems" you present have been shown not to be problems, and this has been done time, and time again.

The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision.
And when all is said and done, all that says is "the universe is precisely how it is, and not unlike the way it is". And that comment can be applied to anything, and everything that exists.

The universe is mathematically structured and ordered.
Not in the least. Show me the mathematical structure for a circle. Is it PI? Show me PI... ALL OF IT! You can't! PI goes on forever. Why? Because it's not based on mathematics. We use mathematics - a human devised tool - to create models which approximate, but often cannot replicate - reality. And yet, the mathematics of chaos theory are precise enough, to demonstrate the very properties you have insisted it cannot produce.

All living things are interdependent on each other.
So if any species die, they all die? Things which co-exist, affect one another. And I'm not sure how to help you with that other than to say "DUH!". Of course they do! But species become extinct every day! And new species are being discovered continually. So no, not all things are "interdependent on each other" but they do co-exist, and compete for the same resources. And this competition is how they affect one another, either directly, or indirectly. This would not be the case if things came from other things.

Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system.
And once you recognize that matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed, what other outcome can you propose?

Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system.
Not true at all. In fact, we have a very good understanding of these things. But there is a sizable gap between understanding and constructing. I can certainly "fathom" how an internal combustion engine works and I'm fairly certain you can as well. Does that mean you can build a working model?

The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.
At this point, Ben; this is nothing but a lie. You KNOW this isn't true. There are no "intelligent designs" anywhere in the universe, except those constructed by biological organisms. Again, you're calling on an assumption that nearly every scientist, physicist, and biologist in the world is less intelligent than you are, and missing things you profess to see.

(3) Objective purpose
Is another fallacy and this has been demonstrated repeatedly as well.

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues.
Which no more makes morality an objective standard, than the world-wide preference for certain colors. The most common favorite color is blue. That doesn't mean that every person prefers blue. It's not an objective standard. It's still subjective. And yet, world-wide, it would be the favorite color of humans.
Humans naturally prefer the taste of fat, sweet and salt. So is flavor an objective standard? Do you like all of the same foods I like? Is this universal? Again, this has been offered to you in the past. But in true "creation science" methodology, you simply ignore what doesn't work with your desired beliefs.

A moral standard against raping infants, for instance.
Which stems from a common mammalian instinct to protect our young, not from any objective morality.

If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either.
Nor is it! You have to remember that if you're dealing with humans, you're dealing with a human PERSPECTIVE. That perspective makes the standard SUBJECTIVE, not objective. Objective standards don't rely on perspective.

Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong...
It only "follows" your fallacious claim.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:49:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:56:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

This is a classic argument from incredulity "I can't understand how this complexity can come about through natural processes so therefore it can not have."

This is the nut-shell. You've nailed it. Benshapiro has been presenting this same argument in various forms and multiple threads for months now. And no matter how often his claims are refuted, he simply reproduces them in a new thread. As you say - it all boils down to his incredulity. Because he can't fathom how chaos theory explains what he wants to believe is "intelligently designed", he makes the demonstrably fallacious claim that it can't.

His argument is fundamentally no different than saying, "Because I can't understand how a 500-ton aircraft could "float" on air, such an aircraft cannot fly." Ignorance is perpetual and thoroughly forgivable. We're all more ignorant than we are knowledgeable. But purposefully sustained and perpetuated ignorance for the sake of affection for a failed idea, is not forgivable. It's an affront to human intellect, for the sake of emotion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:34:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.

Only in your own mind.

Let me know when you have a response to what I actually said.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:25:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is a common misconception.

Belief in God is based on a set of logically necessary conditions.

(1) Something must be the thing from which everything else came.

Everything originated from a metaphysical and eternal something or from absolutely nothing. It may be possible that something came from absolute nothingness, but this option is essentially ruled out based on empirical evidence. The expansion of all physical phenomena occurred during the Big Bang and mainstream scientific consensus is that this was the absolute beginning of the universe (of space-time and energy). The cause of the Big Bang must be transcendent of every physical thing, including time in order to begin time. Thus, it must be metaphysical and eternal.

Everything did not originate from something, for something would already be part of the everything and would thus have to create itself, which is self refuting. If you take everything, nothing is left to create it. And nothing can not create anything, as nothing can not even exist.
Thus, only something can create something and only something, not everything. It follows, that the existence of something is indeed eternal, but it does not necessitate that a specific thing is eternal. Nor does it necessitate, that that specific thing is metaphysical. For if metaphysical is that which is not physical, how can it crate that which is physical? Does it not have to be physical itself, to create and interact with that which is physical?

For something to be eternal, it must not have a beginning nor an end. But to create it must be changing, for without change there is no creation. And if it is changing, how can you be certain that it is without an end ?
And what is change, if not being in two different states at two different points in time. So without time, what is change? How does something change from state A to state B if both already are, if there is no time do separate them?


(2) Intelligence and order exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent beings have shown to be capable of produce intelligent designs. Chaos and spontaneity has never been shown to accomplish this. The universe itself is upheld with incomprehensible precision. The universe is mathematically structured and ordered. All living things are interdependent on each other. Natural laws allow recycling and sustaining the system. Our best scientists couldn't fathom making an artificial human brain or nervous system. The universe appears intelligently designed rather than to have occurred by random chance.

There are a few laws that shaped the Universe. But these are not laws in the sense that they say how things should be. They are simply the underlying structure upon everything else is build. That is why everything fits these laws and thus appears structured and ordered.
If I throw a bunch of confetti on the ground, one could mathematically describe where which piece lays, but that doesn't necessitate that any intelligent being ordered those pieces in any specific way. Math is a system that was created specifically to describe the things around us. That is why it fits so well.
Saying the universe was intelligently created, because we can describe it using math, is like saying all round objects are intelligently created, because we can describe them as a sphere. Whereas, in reality, sphere is simply the word we assigned to round objects.
The objects weren't created with a certain description or definition in mind. The objects were already there and then we just created ways to describe them. We defined them as such, and thus they will always fit the definition.

And evolution shows us how intelligence can arise without intelligent design. Further, intelligence has to be possible to exist without and intelligent designer, otherwise an intelligent designer could not exist, for it would always require an intelligent designer.

(3) Objective purpose

All societies share the same moral standards on some issues. A moral standard against raping infants, for instance. If we have no objective purpose, no purpose-driven behavior can be objectively wrong either. Since it follows that some purpose-behavior is evidently objectively wrong, our purpose can't be entirely subjective. If don't have an entirely subjective purpose, we must have some objective purpose given the dichotomy between subjective and objective. If objective purpose is determined for the human race, it must be by an external source consciousness. Only conscious beings are capable of assigning purpose and in order for some purpose to be objective it must exist independently of human consensus.

A society in which raping infants is tolerated or even promoted can not sustain itself, as such behavior drastically decreases the amount of healthy children. And without healthy children, the society will die.
But it is also instinct driven behavior, to not rape an infant, because the same aspect that applies to a society, applies to the species as a whole. If infants are raped, or otherwise attacked on a large scale, there will not be enough healthy offspring to sustain the species, unless the same species has a way to replace those infants.
(E.g. male lions killing the cup of other males, so that the female will be ready to mate again and bear new offspring)

However, there are people who have no problem with committing such acts, which raises the question, how those people can be unaffected by a supposedly objective morality.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:34:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.

Only in your own mind.

Let me know when you have a response to what I actually said.

Nothing ... as usual.

Feel free to explain what atheists referring to Santa REALLY mean at any point.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:37:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:34:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.

Only in your own mind.

Let me know when you have a response to what I actually said.

Nothing ... as usual.

Feel free to explain what atheists referring to Santa REALLY mean at any point.

I did. Feel free to read the thread you are responding too.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:48:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:37:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:34:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.

Only in your own mind.

Let me know when you have a response to what I actually said.

Nothing ... as usual.

Feel free to explain what atheists referring to Santa REALLY mean at any point.

I did. Feel free to read the thread you are responding too.

Well, lets review that.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

And our subsequent points are ... right .. nonexistent.

Really, this belief in atheism that no one understand you might better be explained by the fact that you aren't actually saying anything to be understood.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:57:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beastt I tried to reply to your post but I had 0 characters and had to delete massive quantities of your post. Tell me if you agree with these points.

There isn't a scientific theory regarding God's existence.

Nothing begins to exist

Energy has always existed

Intelligence and order are not exhibited throughout the universe

Intelligent design is re-skinned creationism.

Natural processes aren't guided by any intelligence.

Chaos and spontaneity can produce intelligent designs.

The universe is just how it is and not like it isn't. There's nothing spectacular about the odds of life permitting conditions on earth.

The universe is not mathematically structured and ordered.

We have a very good understanding of how to artificially replicate a human brain and nervous system.

Biological organisms don't infer intelligent design,

The moral standard against raping infants is a tended preference like preference for favorite colors and salty/fatty foods.

The moral standard against raping infants is instinctual and not an objective moral standard.

Objective morality can't be decidedly objective from our human perspective.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:08:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:49:12 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because a cause can't sufficiently cause itself into existence. Anything non-physical is metaphysical. Agree?

The term for this is "jumping to conclusions". Not only that, you're jumping to an invented conclusion. Can you provide an confirmed reality for the metaphysical? This is really no different than saying, "I don't know how it happened, so it was magic". You've simply used the term "metaphysical" instead of "magic" because it sounds more science-acceptable. But is it? It's accepted philosophically - as is pretty much anything else. But as far as real-world credibility goes, the form of metaphysical applied here is roughly equal to magical fairies.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 11:11:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...


(1) virtual particles exist with prerequisite space so they are NOT from absolutely nothing and (2) virtual particles are energy field disturbances and not really "particles" in the first place.

"A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. "
http://profmattstrassler.com...

From my original quote:
"The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix."

And from your own source:

"A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air"

Discounting virtual particles in this way; while keeping the same happy definition of particle is not valid. If you want to think of virtual particles as wave disturbances, you have to also reinterpret how you think of particles; and in this way what they both are CAN come into and out of existance by it's nature either way.

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Thirdly, you then jump into wild speculation by asserting that it must be transccendant and therefore metaphysical? Why?

Because a cause can't sufficiently cause itself into existence. Anything non-physical is metaphysical. Agree?

Agree with the last, but not the first. Almost all quantumn effects it is possible to observe occur for no mechanical deterministic cause.

Such as? Give me a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Trial and error, with selection where the natural environment means the propogation of functional and useful DNA sequences are more likely to reproduce than others is what drives specified complexity with no intelligence required.

Whether it arose naturally or not doesn't exclude an intelligent designer. The argument is valid as an analogous example of something that exhibits specified-complexity for inferring intelligent design. Everything that we observe to be caused by an intelligence, from newspapers columns, the Rosetta Stone, an instruction manual, etc. are all included. Nature exhibits superior specified-complexity. Without presupposition, nature is evidently intelligently designed by a superior intellect.

Of course it excludes an intelligent designer; if it can be shown to have arisen without design; there is no designer.

You cannot use specified complexity to infer design because it is the only thing that can cause such complexity when that specified complexity can indeed come about by natural processes. The analogies you use ALL fail because those things do not have the properties to arise via trial and error naturally.

In terms of evolution; any trait that is beneficial is more likely to pass on than one that is not. In a social creature, survival is partially dependant on the society. Any traits that go against the survival of the society is less likely to be passed on, and any traits that help the survival of the society is more likely to be passed on.

Is survival an objective purpose? Do natural processes tell us what we "ought" to do? If not, how is survival the basis for any moral "ought" behavior?

Survival isn't an objective purpose. Natural processes do not tell us what we "ought to do".

However the natural processes would lead to the evolution of creatures who feel compelled to survive necessarily; and in the context of social creatures lead to the evolution of creatures who compell themselves and each other to act a particular way necessarily.

You keep confusing humans having morals with that morality being imposed externally; you simply cannot show the latter.

Not in the way you mean. I am saying that humans hold some objective morality for good reason. This is not the same as saying that this morality is externally imposed by some entity outside of humanity, which what you are asserting.

*Objective* morality necessitates an externally imposed consciousness. This would mean that things that're objectively immoral are immoral regardless of human consensus.

No it doesn't. All humans sharing generally the same morality does not necessitate or require an imposed conciousness any more than all humans mostly having two legs necessitates an imposed conciousness either.

You need to show that such a morality exists externally to human beings and human interpretations of things that it is somehow seperate and distinct from the human beings that hold it. You can't. And more importantly, the examples I cited in my previous post all stand opposed to it.

As I elaborated; some objective and mostly subjective morality exists within humans; the changes in our attitudes toward morality concerning rape, torture, slavery etc over the years demosntrates that morality is not externally imposed as if it was, it would not be changing as much as it is; and the person who imposed such objective morality would not assert that it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, or to send Bears to maul children for calling one of your friends bald.

Just as gravity has always existed, a correct theorem on gravity did not. The only reason we would be able to assert moral changes for "the better" is if some underlying objective moral standards existed to measure superior moral progress.

The ONLY reason?

Why? Because you say so?

I would quite easily contend it is most definitely not the only reason; for example larger and more interconnected societies, dissemination of information through various forms of media, the empowerment of individuals, and the fact that we spend less time focusing on our immediate survival through work all serve to allow morality to change.


You are confusing "Objective for all humans", with "Externally imposed", you need the latter to show God, and the evidence shows otherwise; however you are only trying to demonstrate the former.

Any objective purpose or objective morality for all humans must be imposed by an external consciousness. That conclusion is logically airtight. I can argue it with you if you wish.

Humans sharing morality, DOES NOT need to come from an external conciousness; you are simply using arbitrary definitions. By objective morality you mean morality that applies outside of humans; but you are arguing that objective morality exists because humans share morality. None of these are the same thing, and you are simply misusing your terms to suit your argument.

Does that make raping infants "right"? No. [judging from our current moral perspective].

No society has ever tolerated raping infants. It's a universal, constant moral standard. How can any universal, constant moral standard exist if all morality is supposedly subjective?

Again, humans sharing morality, and that morality applying outside of humanity are two different and distinct things. Just because no society tolerates raping infants does not mean that the judgement that it is wrong exists outside of humanity; or it is imposed exteranly. You are continually confusing your terminology.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:23:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 11:30:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

Without presupposition, empirical evidence and logic favors the existence of God. I've explained why in my arguments. I didn't make a claim as to who God is, only that God isn't analogous to fictional characters because they don't have the same empirical evidence or logical arguments based on necessary conditions of our existence.

No. The empirical evidence of the universe is compatible with some form of deistic god. Not the god of christianity or islam. Being compatible =/= true. Many things are compatible. It is compatible that aliens visit us every once in a while, but we just can't see them, doesn't make it true, or likely. The condition for our existance has no demonstrable necessity for supernatural powers. That is something christians who don't know anything about physics or biology claim and not a scientific fact. And even if we recognised that there was a massive gap on some issues, claiming that there is a god making sure this is true, is just god of the gaps. Which is not a good argument.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:23:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:57:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Beastt I tried to reply to your post but I had 0 characters and had to delete massive quantities of your post. Tell me if you agree with these points.

There isn't a scientific theory regarding God's existence.
Correct

Nothing begins to exist
Correct

Energy has always existed
This is the most likely hypothesis, yes.

Intelligence and order are not exhibited throughout the universe
Correct. What we see is fully explained via non-intelligent natural processes.

Intelligent design is re-skinned creationism.
As has been concluded by both science, and the judiciary.

Natural processes aren't guided by any intelligence.
Correct. This has been shown.

Chaos and spontaneity can produce intelligent designs.
No. The designs aren't "intelligent", because they're not intelligently produced. And many of them display the "design" understanding of a pure idiot.

The universe is just how it is and not like it isn't. There's nothing spectacular about the odds of life permitting conditions on earth.
Correct. It falls under the premise that when every possible outcome is highly unlikely, a highly unlikely outcome becomes a certainty. If one accepts the proposed 10^121 possible sets of properties for the universe, then any one you pick is just as unlikely as any other you might pick.

The universe is not mathematically structured and ordered.
Correct. Mathematics is a human invention, not a natural one. It's conceived to attempt to model reality, but does so only approximately.

We have a very good understanding of how to artificially replicate a human brain and nervous system.
That's the opposite of what I stated. We have a good understanding of the basic operation of these systems. But attempting to replicate one is a far different story than understanding its basic operation.

Biological organisms don't infer intelligent design,
Purchase a camera with the circuitry for the sensor on top of the sensor - where the light from the image is focused - and tell me how intelligent that design is. Biological organisms exhibit natural processes, driven by natural selection, not intelligence.

The moral standard against raping infants is a tended preference like preference for favorite colors and salty/fatty foods.
It's an evolutionary instinct, not an objective standard. Show a non-human species with a standard against raping human infants. If you don't see this from a human perspective, the standards change. Objective standards don't change with perspective.

The moral standard against raping infants is instinctual and not an objective moral standard.
Correct. It tends to be common to the vast majority of humans, because humans utilize a human perspective. Remove the human perspective and it's simply forced mating with a young living organism. And no, you don't get to rule out all other species simply because doing so offers the bias you wish to hold.

Objective morality can't be decidedly objective from our human perspective.
Nothing can be objectively assessed from only a given perspective. That's what "objective means - not subject to change based on perspective. (Objective: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts")
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 3:06:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:56:55 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:48:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:37:56 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:34:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:07:22 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:50:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!

God is like clouds! Obviously real!

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Now perhaps when your panties are untied you can read again and actually address what I just said.

That you have no evidence in support of your claim ... again? I gotcha RR.

Only in your own mind.

Let me know when you have a response to what I actually said.

Nothing ... as usual.

Feel free to explain what atheists referring to Santa REALLY mean at any point.

I did. Feel free to read the thread you are responding too.

Well, lets review that.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

And our subsequent points are ... right .. nonexistent.

Really, this belief in atheism that no one understand you might better be explained by the fact that you aren't actually saying anything to be understood.

Neutral, you are clearly trolling. No one smart enough to use a keyboard can be that stupid. The point I made above was:

What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 3:47:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The OP has established that there is logical support for god existing, that he created the universe, life on earth, and abhors infant rape.

Let this thread be a warning to you, infant rapists! Your creator is not happy with you! Everyone else, go on about your usual business (especially you scientists-- ignore this thread, please... Oh, right-- you already are!)...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 4:19:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.
It's not association, Neutral. It's commonality. There is a HUGE difference in saying that someone is guilty because they associate with guilty people, and pointing out that they're guilty because they act identically to guilty people. If you can't understand explanations for fallacies (and you clearly can't), then don't try to classify what people state as being fallacies.

God is like Santa! Obviously fake!
God is like Santa - completely lacking in evidence, credibility, and known to have emerged from the minds of men.

God is like clouds! Obviously real!
Then produce the objective evidence for God.

In either case, what you are essentially saying is, "Its so blindingly obvious that you have to be an idiot to disagree with me!"
Your words, not his.

Rather than actually back that up with something other than a shouted opinion though? That rarely happens, and when it is examined, it rapidly becomes clear that it's not nearly as obvious as the deliberate insult of comparing someone's faith to Santa.
Sorry, but YOU are the one who takes it as an insult. The fact is, you can't demonstrate that the difference you wish to suggest, actually exists. You want to be hurt because the statement is true. And because you choose to be hurt instead of recognizing the validity of the statement, you dismiss the statement as an insult.

When theists say that, "You atheists would deny gravity too!," I am pretty sure yo are not stopping and saying ...,"Well, I wish you would pay attention to what the theist was ACTUALLY doing." I am fairly certain atheists know when they are being insulted too.
It's too bad that theists jump to feeling insulted whenever reality is put in their face.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 4:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 3:06:02 PM, Double_R wrote:


Neutral, you are clearly trolling. No one smart enough to use a keyboard can be that stupid. The point I made above was:

What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

So, asked to explain your position, you leave out your last comment entirely.

Not too mention that, but there you are - without evidence - accusing other people of not having any evidence or reason to believe in God ... just like Santa Clause - which can be justified by faith ...

Well, so an atheism - on we theists take responsibility for what we say, and don't say fallacious things and then pretend we are being trolled when someone calls us out on it.

Eiter you have a position to explain and support RR, or you don't. Given our past, we already know the answer to that question.

It would behoove YOU to follow the evidence.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 4:23:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 4:19:07 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/4/2014 10:32:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:56:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when an atheist talks about your beloved God in the same sentence as a children's fantasy, but if you can just get past the emotional distraction and pay attention to what the atheist is actually doing this would be a lot easier.

When atheists refer to Santa Clause they do so for very specific reasons. People claim for example that belief in God requires faith. The atheist then responds that he can say the same thing about Santa Clause. Notice what actually happened here. The atheist is not saying that God and Santa Clause are the same, in fact the entire point is that they are not. What the atheist just did is responded to a very specific point by showing that if we remove the concept of God and replace it with a different concept, then the discussion now becomes focused not on God, but rather on the nonsense method of reasoning that was just applied; the idea that faith can be used to justify belief in anything.

The problem of course is that all you do is hear the word "Santa" and immediately get your panties twisted so that any further points being made are completely ignored and replaced with whatever you want to make up and attribute to us.

Perhaps that's because the intent of the comment, which is fallacious mind you, it really about twisting people's underwear rather than actually proving something.

By inserting something 'different' all you are doing is creating the guilt by association fallacy.
It's not association, Neutral. It's commonality. There is a HUGE difference in saying that someone is guilty because they associate with guilty people, and pointing out that they're guilty because they act identically to guilty people. If you can't understand explanations for fallacies (and you clearly can't), then don't try to classify what people state as being fallacies.


No, its called rationalizing the guilt by association fallacy. We already know you don;t believe in God - in a discussion forum its called defending it that makes it good and bad.

The fact that you a jerk about it, be deriding it rather than supporting it, isn't acceptable simply because you think so.

Its a form of bigotry - I am smart, and theists are dumb ... like Santa Clause.

Unfortunately, such things say more about you than it does the faithful.

Its arrogance and insults, not proof. THAT is the truth. All people who use this line have at the end of the day is spire and arrogance.

You think its 'intellectual' that stop talking about f*cking Santa and start talking about 'evidence'. When your evidence is vacuous comparisons to Santa and unicorns, ... well, rational people would stop when that was the center piece of their argument - not extremist atheists though!