Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If you don't believe in God, why not?

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

No one who has proposed him has, to my mind, come close to fulfilling their BoP on the proposition. Which TO ME (and without intent to insult anyone), it joins the ranks of any other thing proposed through seemingly pure speculation and lacking evidence.

I generally don't believe in things without a reason to do so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:36:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:34:18 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
So lack of evidence is your main problem with the existence of God?

Evidence for god yes--I mean, I'm aware that there's plenty of evidence that the claim is made. If that makes sense.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:36:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:34:48 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:28:05 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Which god?

The Christian God

Which Christian god? The one described in the Old Testament? The one described in the New Testament? The one that is somehow a conflation of the two, despite all the conflicting descriptions? The one described by one or both books taken literally? The one described by one or both books taken partially as metaphor?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:38:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:34:18 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
So lack of evidence is your main problem with the existence of God?

(Sorry to double-respond--I should have folded this one into the other one, but didn't)

There are other problems, though, too--but I'd definitely start there, just because if there were good evidence for the proposition, we'd at least have grounds to think it true in some fashion, and most of the other problems with it are ones of reasonablility, not possibility--and reality doesn't bend to what WE think is reasonable or not; the parts of, to specify, Christianity which are problematic could really just be answered theoretically with "*Shrug* Reality is weird".

Kind of like platypi.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:36:39 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:34:48 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:28:05 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Which god?

The Christian God

Which Christian god? The one described in the Old Testament? The one described in the New Testament? The one that is somehow a conflation of the two, despite all the conflicting descriptions? The one described by one or both books taken literally? The one described by one or both books taken partially as metaphor?

The God of the old Testament who is made up of the trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:15:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:38:56 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:36:39 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:34:48 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:28:05 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Which god?

The Christian God

Which Christian god? The one described in the Old Testament? The one described in the New Testament? The one that is somehow a conflation of the two, despite all the conflicting descriptions? The one described by one or both books taken literally? The one described by one or both books taken partially as metaphor?

The God of the old Testament who is made up of the trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Okay, you got half of the clarification I was asking for. Are we to take the OT as literal truth in its descriptions of the god, or are some descriptions of the god and its behavior simply metaphorical?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:23:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

Your asking the wrong question. You don't start in a position of believing something then ask people to explain why they don't believe it. Rational belief requires rational support. To my knowledge none for the God you believe in or God or any other has been provided. And believe me I have looked.

But to give you a little more... God has many different meanings and versions so you need to be specific, and that is where the problem comes in. There are many Gods I not only don't believe in but will definitively say don't exist. Like the all loving God who sends people to hell. Or a perfectly just God who is also merciful. Or a timeless God who is also intelligent (intelligence requires a thought process, a thought process requires a sequence of thoughts, a sequence of anything requires time). I could go on.

Once you get rid of all of the logical contradictions then you are left with nothing close to the God most theists worship, and nothing that seems to be supported by the bible. So the way I see it, you must either get rid of the bible (in which case you have no basis at all for your claims) or you have to accept logical contradictions, which makes you by definition incoherent to have a rational discussion with.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:42:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

Perhaps you've presented your first problem in understanding. Who says we have objections to the idea?

I disbelieve in God for precisely the same reason I disbelieve in fairies - there isn't any objective evidence for either one.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:57:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

Unfulfilled burden of proof.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:34:48 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:28:05 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Which god?

The Christian God

Why don't you believe in all the other gods?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:16:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

1) The burden of proof is on the theist to show there is a god. I have yet to see a theist meet the burden of proof.
2) I see no evidence of an immaterial world, so I take the philosophical position of materialism.
3) I find the B-Theory of Time to be most convincing, and do not see it likely that there is a god and that B-Theory is correct.

Why do you believe in a god?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:25:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:38:56 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
The God of the old Testament who is made up of the trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the God head. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head. [The Triune God , by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:16:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

1) The burden of proof is on the theist to show there is a god. I have yet to see a theist meet the burden of proof.
2) I see no evidence of an immaterial world, so I take the philosophical position of materialism.
3) I find the B-Theory of Time to be most convincing, and do not see it likely that there is a god and that B-Theory is correct.

Why do you believe in a god?

Here's a question for you then, and if you can answer it I'd be surprised based on your worldview of materialism: If everything is just matter, and material is all that exists in the world, then where does consciousness come from? If you were to look at a piece of paper with words printed on it, are the word's meanings made up of only the paper and ink that were used to print them? The problem with materialism is that it leaves out the obviously immaterial things like thought and rationality, logic and conciousness. Where do they come from? I have an answer to those questions, and if your worldview can't answer them, why should you be able to say that the existence of a God is impossible due to lack of evidence? Yes I understand that you don't believe there is material evidence for God, but if you followed your logic, what makes that unbelief any different when it comes to the fact you believe that consciousness exists. To be having this conversation with me you are using rational thought processes and ideas, but in your worldview those things must not exist.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:25:56 PM, Composer wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:38:56 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
The God of the old Testament who is made up of the trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a trinity within the God head. Even to see in the Old Testament, suggestions or fore-shadowings or veiled signs of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. The New Testament writers give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head. [The Triune God , by Edmund Fortman, Jesuit].

Maybe if Edmund Fortman had done his research he could've found this : 1 John 5:7 states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Now if that doesn't "explicitly teach" that there are three co-equal divine persons, I don't know what does. But actualy I do, because if that's not enough for you try looking at this nice collection of verses that completely show Fortman's statement to be false: http://bible-truth.org...
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity? If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence. You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly. In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists. If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible. The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being. If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery? Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet, that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance. Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity? If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence. You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly. In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists. If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible. The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being. If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery? Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet, that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance. Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible

But that is literally the only argument for the existence of God, that the world and/or universe is too complex or "perfect" to have merely come into being, and that it must have a creator. I dismiss such motions. Unlike a watch, which (generally speaking, if build properly) works without fault... the world and the universe does not. The universe especially... is a very chaotic place. At least six times in the history of the Earth, a huge asteroid is thought to have collided with the planet (the most recent wiping out the dinosaurs). This happens all around the universe, collisions, chaos, imperfection you could almost call it.

You could apply the same thing to the Earth. Where as a watch has no real faults. Look at the world itself, just look at humanity. Evil, corruption, war, greed etc. Our actions are destroying the world, even tore through the Ozone and are currently thickening the atmosphere with Co2 warming up the planet. Even without human interference, there have been many massive climate changes and catastrophic events. The greatest extinction event ever, known as "The Great Dying" wiped out 96% of ALL life on Earth. This is not a perfect world, far from it. And that fact that so many "if's" had to occur for the life we see to say, does not evidence a creator... but merely explains why there is no life within range. And although I believe life does exist out there... I believe planets with complex life on... are very very far apart from one another due to the very remote chances of the right circumstances for life being met.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:16:29 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity? If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence. You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly. In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists. If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible. The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being. If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery? Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet, that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance. Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible

But that is literally the only argument for the existence of God, that the world and/or universe is too complex or "perfect" to have merely come into being, and that it must have a creator. I dismiss such motions. Unlike a watch, which (generally speaking, if build properly) works without fault... the world and the universe does not. The universe especially... is a very chaotic place. At least six times in the history of the Earth, a huge asteroid is thought to have collided with the planet (the most recent wiping out the dinosaurs). This happens all around the universe, collisions, chaos, imperfection you could almost call it.

You could apply the same thing to the Earth. Where as a watch has no real faults. Look at the world itself, just look at humanity. Evil, corruption, war, greed etc. Our actions are destroying the world, even tore through the Ozone and are currently thickening the atmosphere with Co2 warming up the planet. Even without human interference, there have been many massive climate changes and catastrophic events. The greatest extinction event ever, known as "The Great Dying" wiped out 96% of ALL life on Earth. This is not a perfect world, far from it. And that fact that so many "if's" had to occur for the life we see to say, does not evidence a creator... but merely explains why there is no life within range. And although I believe life does exist out there... I believe planets with complex life on... are very very far apart from one another due to the very remote chances of the right circumstances for life being met.

If our existence on the earth has no purpose except to hurt nature, why don't you kill yourself? Don't take this the wrong way, im trying to make a point. If there is no reason that we are here, and if all we do is pollute and hurt, what makes it wrong to kill others? if I killed you according to your worldview you'd have to agree that its better for the earth without you, because im sure you drive a car that puts out emissions and you probably use non recyclable materials everyday. If the earth would be better without us, why are we here? my worldview answers that question, but does yours? And as far as the world not working perfectly, yes there is evil in the world and it doesn't work perfectly. My worldview attributes this to the sin of mankind, but even if you don't look at it that way, there is still order in the world right? there is order in the world. we see it in governments and societies. yes of course its not perfect order, but why does it exist anyway?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 10:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:48:20 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 10:16:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

1) The burden of proof is on the theist to show there is a god. I have yet to see a theist meet the burden of proof.
2) I see no evidence of an immaterial world, so I take the philosophical position of materialism.
3) I find the B-Theory of Time to be most convincing, and do not see it likely that there is a god and that B-Theory is correct.

Why do you believe in a god?

Here's a question for you then, and if you can answer it I'd be surprised based on your worldview of materialism:

Let's hope you understand that not all variations of materialism are as Christopher Hitchens advocated.

If everything is just matter, and material is all that exists in the world, then where does consciousness come from?

This depends heavily on how you define consciousness.

If you were to look at a piece of paper with words printed on it, are the word's meanings made up of only the paper and ink that were used to print them?

Memory is stored in the brain, it is physical. Sounds are physical, sights are physical, etc.
We are taught what certain scratches mean, which were initially made up by people, and so the meaning of such scratches are stored in the brain (physical). When we see words, we assign meaning to them based off of our knowledge.
I could also be an Ontological materialist, which can get rid of this issue extremely easily.

The problem with materialism is that it leaves out the obviously immaterial things like thought and rationality, logic and conciousness.

How are these immaterial? Thought is reaction in the brain, consciousness is reaction in the brain, logic is something we have defined.

Where do they come from?

Even if the answer is unknown, that does not mean you can make something up to answer them. That would be argument from ignorance.

I have an answer to those questions, and if your worldview can't answer them, why should you be able to say that the existence of a God is impossible due to lack of evidence?

1) Because argument from ignorance is not a valid argument.
2) I do not claim omniscience
3) Some things can be answered or deduced with a high probability, and I have yet to find anything deduced as having a high probability of being immaterial.

Yes I understand that you don't believe there is material evidence for God, but if you followed your logic, what makes that unbelief any different when it comes to the fact you believe that consciousness exists.

Again, it depends on how you define consciousness. I define consciousness as awareness of self and surroundings. I am self aware, and aware of my surroundings. We know that this is not possible without a cerebral cortex, and therefore it can very easily be said to be material.

God, on the other hand, does not have any self-evidence evidences, can not be explained with our current understanding of the universe, and is an unnecessary assumption.

To be having this conversation with me you are using rational thought processes and ideas, but in your worldview those things must not exist.

This is simply false. If you cannot even look up how these can be answered under materialism (a quick google search can answer this for you), then why should I waste my time?

It is especially pathetic that you do not know that there are different variations of materialism.
Ontological materialism is the view that if there does exist anything immaterial that it can be the product of the material. It allows for certain immaterial things to exist, but only as products of the material and are reducible to natural laws.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:03:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:48:20 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 10:16:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

1) The burden of proof is on the theist to show there is a god. I have yet to see a theist meet the burden of proof.
2) I see no evidence of an immaterial world, so I take the philosophical position of materialism.
3) I find the B-Theory of Time to be most convincing, and do not see it likely that there is a god and that B-Theory is correct.

Why do you believe in a god?

Here's a question for you then, and if you can answer it I'd be surprised based on your worldview of materialism: If everything is just matter, and material is all that exists in the world, then where does consciousness come from? If you were to look at a piece of paper with words printed on it, are the word's meanings made up of only the paper and ink that were used to print them? The problem with materialism is that it leaves out the obviously immaterial things like thought and rationality, logic and conciousness. Where do they come from? I have an answer to those questions, and if your worldview can't answer them, why should you be able to say that the existence of a God is impossible due to lack of evidence? Yes I understand that you don't believe there is material evidence for God, but if you followed your logic, what makes that unbelief any different when it comes to the fact you believe that consciousness exists. To be having this conversation with me you are using rational thought processes and ideas, but in your worldview those things must not exist.
Consciousness comes from the brain and it is a purely physical process. We can track this process through fMRI scans which allow us to see the active centers in the brain, and to trace the chemical neurotransmitters. Those are the physical reality of thought, along with the triggering of synapses between the dendrites of neurons.
We use paper and ink to store, record and convey those thoughts. Logic comes from an understanding of the universe in which we live. It's testable and confirmable and it's based on what can be observed of the interaction of matter and energy. Nothing about these things is the least bit immaterial.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity?
What, about nature do you suggest is irreducibly complex?

If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence.
Now think about why you would use a watch as an example. It is because it is so similar to the forest around it? Or is it because it is so obviously dissimilar? You choose a watch because it is dissimilar, and exhibits signs of being designed. No such signs of design are found in nature, and in reality, nature demonstrates very poor designs in many, many cases. Would you buy a camera which could only focus a small area in the center of the field of view? What about one with circuitry running across the top of the sensor, blocking portions of the image, and with a hole in the middle of the sensor, to allow the circuitry to exit behind the sensor? This is an adequate description of the human eye, which also offers lower resolution, due to the amount of light which is blocked by having seven layers of soft tissue on the top of the retina, which would perform just as well if it were under the retina. In fact, in cephalopods, we find a different evolutionary path for the eye, and these multiple layers are on the back of the retina, rather than on the front. The lens of our eyes also yellows over time and clouds, leading to cataracts and loss of sight. Is that an "intelligent design"?

If you were to see an animal's eye sitting next to a modern camera, could you tell which was which?

You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly.
Which is distinctly different than with natural structures. For instance, we find five general stages in the development of the eye, and the eye is functional at each and every stage. And we know that because there are still species exhibiting each of these five general levels of eye development.

In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists.
And yet, chaos theory not only explains how complexity and order arise from apparent disorder, but demonstrates this process. A snowflake - for instance - demonstrates order and patterns arising from a chaotic disarrangement of water molecules. We find the same kind of order arising from disorder in sand dunes, the patterns found in cracked mud in dry lakes, and the fractal nature of a coastline.

If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible.
This is not true. Only the life which is currently on Earth would not be possible. That doesn't rule out forms of life which do not exists on Earth. Why would you expect forms of life which couldn't exist on Earth, to have formed and thrived here? Of course we only find forms of life which find the environment to be compatible. And yet, we do have examples of life which could survive in a very diverse set of environmental parameters. For instance, the tardigrade which can survive a temperature range from 312-degrees Fahrenheit, to very near absolute zero. It can lose nearly all of its hydration and go without water for up to 10-years. It can even withstand radiation levels 1000 times that which would kill a human, and has demonstrated the ability to survive the vacuum of space. Such forms of life could easily survive on Earth were it not tilted as it is. But because it is tilted, and provides a consistent climatic range, evolution has no need to provide species with the ability to survive outside of these ranges.

The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being.
This is patently untrue. Cells are the oldest known form of life on the planet and have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years. Endosymbiotic Theory shows how many modern cells are actually conglomerations of more primitive cell types. Eukaryotes resulted from the uptake of mitochondria, plastids and possibly other organelles, which were formerly free-living bacteria. They were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont, around 1.5 billion years ago. The simplest proto-cells developed today, consist of as little as 4 chemicals in a water base, and yet demonstrate motility, the ability to seek out food, to alter their environments, and to flee other proto-cells. Current research involving E.Coli has resulted in 12 different strains of E. Coli, evolving from a single original strain. Cells are the most highly evolved form of life on Earth.

http://www.newscientist.com...
BACTERIA MAKE MAJOR EVOLUTIONARY SHIFT IN THE LAB

- "A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery?
Designed structures have not shown the ability to evolve because they cannot reproduce. Evolution requires reproduction.

Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet
You're speaking as though life emerged first, and were then positioned on a planet which provided for its needs. That's backward. The planet existed first, and then only those forms of life which could exist in its environments emerged.

that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance.
It's not suggested to be a matter of chance. It's a matter of chemical properties. You can't simply mix any two chemicals and expect molecular bonding.

Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible
Big-bang is absolutely outside of the realm of intelligent doubt. And big-bang is not proposed to have lead to life. The emergence of life (abiogenesis), is a completely separate process, as is evolution. All three are completely independent.

I welcome your attempts to argue this, but I've already seen the arguments and I'll warn you ahead of time, they all fail. Big-bang, evolution and abiogenesis are all fully valid and none of them require odds outside of the realm of what would be purely expected.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:21:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:32:42 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:16:29 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity? If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence. You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly. In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists. If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible. The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being. If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery? Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet, that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance. Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible

But that is literally the only argument for the existence of God, that the world and/or universe is too complex or "perfect" to have merely come into being, and that it must have a creator. I dismiss such motions. Unlike a watch, which (generally speaking, if build properly) works without fault... the world and the universe does not. The universe especially... is a very chaotic place. At least six times in the history of the Earth, a huge asteroid is thought to have collided with the planet (the most recent wiping out the dinosaurs). This happens all around the universe, collisions, chaos, imperfection you could almost call it.

You could apply the same thing to the Earth. Where as a watch has no real faults. Look at the world itself, just look at humanity. Evil, corruption, war, greed etc. Our actions are destroying the world, even tore through the Ozone and are currently thickening the atmosphere with Co2 warming up the planet. Even without human interference, there have been many massive climate changes and catastrophic events. The greatest extinction event ever, known as "The Great Dying" wiped out 96% of ALL life on Earth. This is not a perfect world, far from it. And that fact that so many "if's" had to occur for the life we see to say, does not evidence a creator... but merely explains why there is no life within range. And although I believe life does exist out there... I believe planets with complex life on... are very very far apart from one another due to the very remote chances of the right circumstances for life being met.

If our existence on the earth has no purpose except to hurt nature, why don't you kill yourself?
Because we can choose to give our lives purpose. We can even choose to benefit nature.

Don't take this the wrong way, im trying to make a point. If there is no reason that we are here, and if all we do is pollute and hurt, what makes it wrong to kill others?
We need others. Humans are a social species, as are ants, bison, termites, mountain gorillas, wolves, bats and many, many other species. In many cases, the individual has little potential to survive alone, or even no chance whatsoever. But living together means observing the rights and needs of others, which is why it's wrong to kill others. It degrades the quality of the social benefits for everyone.

if I killed you according to your worldview you'd have to agree that its better for the earth without you, because im sure you drive a car that puts out emissions and you probably use non recyclable materials everyday.
Which is fine from a non-human perspective. But we are human, and therefore tend to observe things from a human perspective.

If the earth would be better without us, why are we here?
We're here because we evolved here. Earth is indifferent to us and has no need or capacity to be anything but indifferent. We however, can't afford to remain indifferent to Earth indefinitely.

my worldview answers that question, but does yours? And as far as the world not working perfectly, yes there is evil in the world and it doesn't work perfectly.
The Earth and universe don't operate in a manner which would indicate that they were designed for us... or even designed for life. However, your world view claims that they were.

My worldview attributes this to the sin of mankind, but even if you don't look at it that way, there is still order in the world right? there is order in the world. we see it in governments and societies. yes of course its not perfect order, but why does it exist anyway?
Because there is order in nature. If you don't believe that, look at the structure of a hydrogen atom... ANY hydrogen atom. Don't they call contain a single proton and a single electron? That's what makes them hydrogen. Add a second proton and a second electron, along with two neutrons, and you have helium. The point here is that at it's smallest units, nature is highly ordered. To suggest this can result only in disorder is illogical, unreasonable, and counter-evidenced. So it only makes sense that there should be order in the world.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:21:36 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:32:42 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:16:29 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/8/2014 5:07:22 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:54:20 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?

There is no evidence to support his existence, and as science continually explain things which were previously, explained by God, his existence seems less and less likely.

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personaly the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity? If you were to find a watch in the woods, you would assume that it was made by someone right? I mean all those moving parts have to be put together perfectly for it to be a working watch. Being a rational thinker, You wouldn't just assume that somehow the circumstances and elements were just right that somehow it just evolved or it was a freak accident that it came into existence. You would be able to observe through its complexity, that without just one single piece it could not work correctly. In the same way we should be able to look at the world around us and see that it is much more complicated and ordered than just a mere coincidence that it exists. If the earth was tilted just a fraction of a degree more we'd be toast and if the moon didn't exist (if in the "big bang" just that one little moon in our solarsystem) if it wasn't here, life on earth would be impossible. The complexity of a cell is so minute and has so many small details that without on part it couldn't function. Cells can't evolve, just like a watch can't evolve into being. If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery? Theres so much that would have had to go ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for things to turn out perfectly for life on this planet, that it is not rational to think that it could have happened by chance. Just apply the same logic of the watch to the universe, and see how ridiculous the idea of the big bang sounds. You can't break down that logical argument no matter how hard you try, because if you deny that logic, explaining the existence of anything becomes impossible

But that is literally the only argument for the existence of God, that the world and/or universe is too complex or "perfect" to have merely come into being, and that it must have a creator. I dismiss such motions. Unlike a watch, which (generally speaking, if build properly) works without fault... the world and the universe does not. The universe especially... is a very chaotic place. At least six times in the history of the Earth, a huge asteroid is thought to have collided with the planet (the most recent wiping out the dinosaurs). This happens all around the universe, collisions, chaos, imperfection you could almost call it.

You could apply the same thing to the Earth. Where as a watch has no real faults. Look at the world itself, just look at humanity. Evil, corruption, war, greed etc. Our actions are destroying the world, even tore through the Ozone and are currently thickening the atmosphere with Co2 warming up the planet. Even without human interference, there have been many massive climate changes and catastrophic events. The greatest extinction event ever, known as "The Great Dying" wiped out 96% of ALL life on Earth. This is not a perfect world, far from it. And that fact that so many "if's" had to occur for the life we see to say, does not evidence a creator... but merely explains why there is no life within range. And although I believe life does exist out there... I believe planets with complex life on... are very very far apart from one another due to the very remote chances of the right circumstances for life being met.

If our existence on the earth has no purpose except to hurt nature, why don't you kill yourself?
Because we can choose to give our lives purpose. We can even choose to benefit nature.

Don't take this the wrong way, im trying to make a point. If there is no reason that we are here, and if all we do is pollute and hurt, what makes it wrong to kill others?
We need others. Humans are a social species, as are ants, bison, termites, mountain gorillas, wolves, bats and many, many other species. In many cases, the individual has little potential to survive alone, or even no chance whatsoever. But living together means observing the rights and needs of others, which is why it's wrong to kill others. It degrades the quality of the social benefits for everyone.


Which is fine from a non-human perspective. But we are human, and therefore tend to observe things from a human perspective.

Simple question then... what makes "human perspective" so unique and important?

Also When you said "But living together means observing the rights and needs of others, which is why it's wrong to kill others. It degrades the quality of the social benefits for everyone." well this is true, but from your worldview if i asked if one ant killing another was wrong, you'd say "no, its just inconvenient and doesn't help the colony for that ant to kill the other ant". So if we apply this same logic to humans, it still follows that by your worldview, killing another person is not necessarily wrong, just "inconvenient". So since you don't believe in moral absolutes, you cant call it wrong, just inconvenient. Or maybe i should ask, do you believe in moral absolutes or any sense of objective morality?
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:25:52 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
What are your main objections to the idea of the existence of God?
Why don't I believe in your God?

It all started when I was Alone in Siberia... miles from civilization.. lost.. watching people burn and die... try praying after seeing that.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 7:40:00 PM, apologetics1697 wrote:
At 10/9/2014 4:21:36 AM, Beastt wrote:

If our existence on the earth has no purpose except to hurt nature, why don't you kill yourself?
Because we can choose to give our lives purpose. We can even choose to benefit nature.

Don't take this the wrong way, im trying to make a point. If there is no reason that we are here, and if all we do is pollute and hurt, what makes it wrong to kill others?
We need others. Humans are a social species, as are ants, bison, termites, mountain gorillas, wolves, bats and many, many other species. In many cases, the individual has little potential to survive alone, or even no chance whatsoever. But living together means observing the rights and needs of others, which is why it's wrong to kill others. It degrades the quality of the social benefits for everyone.


Which is fine from a non-human perspective. But we are human, and therefore tend to observe things from a human perspective.

Simple question then... what makes "human perspective" so unique and important?
Better question; what makes you think that human perspective is unique or important? Do you think gorillas don't have a gorilla-centric perspective on the world? I live with a number of cats and they make it very clear that they hold a completely different perspective than I do. "Bandit" was raised in a house with no rules. The owner had to move and couldn't keep him. Now he's with me and I have rules. You can see in his behaviors and the looks he gives me, that he simply can't understand why I think that I should be in charge. He's learning, but he still struggles with the idea that he has to do what I say. And yet, when he gets picked on by another cat, he comes running to me for protection. He has not just a cat's perspective but a "Bandit" perspective. "Missy" doesn't understand why other cats eat from her bowl. She won't eat from other bowls. She was rescued from a shelter where she had been kept in a small plastic kennel for 4-years. They each have a cat-perspective, and an individual perspective.

And so it is with people. Our perspectives are formed by a combination of being human, and being who we are and having the experiences we've endured.

Also When you said "But living together means observing the rights and needs of others, which is why it's wrong to kill others. It degrades the quality of the social benefits for everyone." well this is true, but from your worldview if i asked if one ant killing another was wrong, you'd say "no, its just inconvenient and doesn't help the colony for that ant to kill the other ant".
Are you talking about two ants from the same colony, or ants from different colonies?
And the bottom line is going to be; I'm not an ant. I can't decide what works best for ant sociology. Only ants can.

So if we apply this same logic to humans, it still follows that by your worldview, killing another person is not necessarily wrong, just "inconvenient".
Slow down. You're making assumptions and then running with them. What percentage of a human society believes it's okay to kill other members without "justification" (which itself, is altered by human perspective)? The vast majority recognize that when you harm someone, you harm the people who care for that person, and this rapidly starts an adversarial scenario. Such situations rapidly degrade the quality of social harmony. And when social harmony collapses, cooperation falls. Once you lose cooperation, you're back to working as individuals, or small groups. And a small group of people, can't hope to accomplish what a nation working in harmony can accomplish. Look around you. How much of what we observe as human accomplishment (cars, roads, houses, hospitals, utility services, inventions, etc.), could you produce on your own? How much might a small group of a few hundred people achieve? How successful is a single ant, or a single bee?
And for what it's worth, ants don't tend to think or reason. They have nerve ganglia which react to chemical stimulation from pheromones. When a scouting ant finds food, it's body reacts by releasing a particular chemical trail as it hauls some of the food back to the colony. Other members of the colony simply follow that trail to follow the food. This offers no resemblance to choice. The ants don't choose to do this. They're essentially programmed by evolution to follow these behaviors. So if an ant kills an ant from his colony, it's likely because the victim ant is tainted with a chemical signal, marking him as an enemy. Dead ants give off a different chemical signature which can be synthesized. With the right chemical mix, you can sit above an ant hill tapping ants with a Q-tip dipped in that chemical, and watching as the colony-mates grab the ants you tainted, and drag them off to a dumping zone. Once there, the ant is discarded as though it were dead. And as it runs back to the colony, another worker will grab it, haul it off to the colony's dumping zone and discard it again. This will continue until the chemical signal fades away.

So since you don't believe in moral absolutes, you cant call it wrong, just inconvenient. Or maybe i should ask, do you believe in moral absolutes or any sense of objective morality?
You're incorrect. What doesn't serve social harmony, is morally wrong. The key is to understand that not all societies react the same way, to the same stimuli. How many primitive societies thought it was necessary and appropriate to sacrifice children to gods, volcanoes, etc.? And if you refused to relinquish your child for the sake of the society, you were considered to be acting immorally. In Nazi Germany, hiding Jews was considered a threat - not just to the welfare of German society - but to all of mankind. So it was immoral to protect a Jew, despite the fact that human compassion obviously demands it.

Human compassion arises from "mirror neurons" in the brain, which allow us to comprehend the perspective of another person, within the parameters of our experiences and knowledge. This is why we have some people who fight so diligently to protect non-human animals, and others who see nothing wrong with treating those animals as mere objects.

Our human compassion is a great tool, but it shouldn't be confused with morality. Compassion is individual. Morality is social.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
apologetics1697
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

It depends on which way you look at science from, and personally the more and more we learn about science, the more and more we can see the complexity of the world. Even if you weren't to concede to the fact that God exists, wouldn't it seem more rational to think about the irreducible complexity of nature being put into motion by a deity?
What, about nature do you suggest is irreducibly complex?
The brain.... how can you prove that it evolved in time for it to have the consciousness or instinct necessary to be able to know what was and wasn't working in the evolutionary process? Also even if we did evolve, what are the chances of getting a perfectly symmetrical human bodies? wouldn't there be fossils of the "failed" beings that didn't survive? I mean we have fossils of all kinds of animals and humans, but where are the failed ones? do you expect me to believe that evolution is true without showing me evidence of human fossils that don't look anything like humans today? or in that case, ANY in between fossil?

You also said: "You choose a watch because it is dissimilar, and exhibits signs of being designed. No such signs of design are found in nature, and in reality, nature demonstrates very poor designs in many, many cases. "

Wouldn't you agree that the fact that the earth is the only planet with conditions that are necessary to intelligent life is dissimilar to EVERY OTHER SOLAR SYSTEM OR PLANET IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE? I know that some people believe there is life out there, but since there is no documented factual evidence for other life, id say that earth is pretty dissimilar to the rest of the known universe. and if your only response to this question is to say that "there is still possibilities of life in the universe we just haven't found yet because it's so big" then you are no longer arguing scientifically.. id like to hear your thoughts on the uniqueness of earth.



You said: "Only the life which is currently on Earth would not be possible. That doesn't rule out forms of life which do not exists on Earth. Why would you expect forms of life which couldn't exist on Earth, to have formed and thrived here? Of course we only find forms of life which find the environment to be compatible" my response is: well so what if there could be other forms of life, my point was that intelligent life (namely humans) could not exist. so the fact that you are alive is proof that either we are just super lucky that the big bang went perfectly and now we are rotating on the perfect angle of axis for seasons to work and human life to exist. I'd say that's providential, you'd say that's lucky. lucky for humankind in the fact that we are alive. This fact is SIGNIFICANT because humans are the most intelligent species and the only species capable of understanding all other species on the planet. we are the only species that could really create change in the world, and even though we fail sometimes if we were not here. coincidental? I don't think so.
If that watch happened to have evolved without a battery and couldn't run at all, how could it know it needed a battery?
Designed structures have not shown the ability to evolve because they cannot reproduce. Evolution requires reproduction.
but take it back to the first life on the earth after the big bang, and ill ask you: if everything evolved, and evolution requires reproduction, where did the instinct to reproduce come from? wouldn't the first life on earth have to have had that already? by your theory, it didn't, because it had to evolve from nothing into something, so why didn't the first life die, and how did it ever exist before it died if reproduction wasn't added into its instinct or anatomy?

I appreciate your willingness to debate this as well, but I am here to have questions answered: are we just lucky that everything turned out well enough for us to survive? How is the fact that our planet is the only known planet with life in our solar system and in the UNIVERSE as it is known so far, make it not "dissimilar" to the rest of the universe? where is there convincing fossil evidence of hhuman life in any stage that is flawed? also since there are billions of species of life on the earth, and they all evolved, then it follows through probability that we could see at least one fossil of an in between stage of life evolving for each species.