The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Offline Children who die before being born do not need to experience evil to learn how to live in eternity. Being in the presence of God, they will experience the reality of perfection and goodness, just as all believers will. They will experience the life that all of us should have had from the beginning, before evil entered into the world.
If God is able to allow these children into Heaven without having risked damnation, then why does he require a test of the rest of us? Why wouldn't an all-loving God just let us all learn how to live in eternity by being in His presence?
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay Theologic,
I am no astrophysicist (and neither is Craig), but I do have some questions regarding this dreadfully long post that, by your bravado, I'm assuming you can answer. I'll skip Craig's history of modern physics propositions, which, although he can't possibly understand all the implications of each, he puts in little boxes with the inference that "this has been dealt with," of course, they have not. They are all relatively young propositions in scientific history. He does not mention Smolin's Theory of fecund universes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes), where black holes are proposed to "give birth" to new universes with potentially unknown naturalistic laws/properties in an eternal Multi-verse (i.e. our universe sprang from a black hole in another universe). This theory eliminates the first cause for our universe, but I'll concede your (Craig's) first cause notion for the time being. The questions and troubles seem to arise when he comes to: The Supernaturalist Alternative
The Supernaturalist Alternative If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality.
Realize that he is arguing for a vague deistic notion of god at this point, miles from the God of Christian theology. This is merely an argument for teleology- no morality, no plan, no emotion, etc. So my question at this point is if timelessness implies changelessness, how did something change? Is this first cause changeless or not? If "something springing from nothing" is absurd to you, then how about "change from changelessness?"
Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.
Funny how he mentions Ockham's Razor shaving away multiple causes beyond necessity, because, as I posted earlier in this thread, such a Being would have to have all of the parameters inherent in purpose coupled with omniscience. This means that every possible universal event must have been considered for application or dismissal. A universe (Multiverse) already in existence does not need these parameters. If there is motivation in purpose, how is this Being changeless again?
Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations.
Okay, now it gets really interesting. Personhood. And floating minds. We have never observed mind that is not biologically contingent. Abstract objects are properties of causal relations, whether potentially viable or not. Last, who can decide with certainty what is or isn't eternal, especially if matter is energy? Can you tell me why energy cannot be eternal in a closed system?
Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions.
Do I understand this right: the only way for change to happen is if it comes from a changeless Being? Can purpose, immaterial or not, not have determining conditions? What makes this changeless purpose suddenly want to change? And this teleological force made a decision at some time in timelessness?
Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator. Naturalistic Objections Many persons will, of course, be reluctant to take on board such metaphysical baggage. But what objection is there to the postulate of a personal, causal agency beyond the universe? Some critiques may be easily dismissed. For example, metaphysician John Post obviously begs the question when he claims that there cannot be a cause of the origin of the universe, since "by definition the universe contains everything there is or ever was or will be." Again it is an obvious non-sequitur when he infers that because "the singularity cannot be caused by some earlier natural event or process," therefore "contemporary physical cosmology cannot be cited in support of the idea of a divine cause or creator of the universe." On the other hand, Smith realizes that the metaphysician must take seriously the "more difficult question" of "whether or not the singularity or the Big Bang probably is an effect of a supernatural cause." What problem, then, is there with a supernaturalist perspective? Adolf Grünbaum has argued vigorously against what he styles "the New Creation Argument" for a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe. His basic Ansatz is based on the assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Since there were no instants of time prior to the Big Bang, it follows that the Big Bang cannot have a cause. It seems to me that there are a number of options for dealing with this objection, one of which is to hold that the Creator of the universe is causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang singularity, such that His act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous, or co-incident, with its beginning to exist. Grünbaum provides no justification for his assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous. One could hold that the Creator sans the universe exists changelessly and, hence, timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity created the universe along with time and space. For the Creator sans the universe, there simply is no time because there are no events of any sort; time begins with the first event, at the moment of creation. The time of the first event would be not only the first time at which the universe exists, but also, technically, the first time at which the Creator exists, since sans the universe the Creator is timeless.
Is this the position of modern Christianity? That God was created at the same time as the universe? That's news to me. So the creation of heaven, then Satan being the favorite, then Satan falling, then the war of angels, etc., all happened when Adam and Eve were prancing around Eden before the fruit incident?
The act of creation is thus simultaneous with the origination of the universe. The scenario I have sketched of the Creator's status sans the universe requires that the Creator be both a timeless and personal agent. But some philosophers have argued that such a notion is self-contradictory. For it is a necessary condition of personhood that an individual be capable of remembering, anticipating, reflecting, deliberating, deciding, and so forth. But these are inherently temporal activities. Therefore, there can be no atemporal persons. The weakness in this reasoning is that it conflates common properties of persons with essential properties of persons. The sorts of activities delineated above are certainly common properties of temporal persons. But that does not imply that such properties are essential to personhood. Arguably, what is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness and free volition, and these are not inherently temporal notions.
Arguably, in the least. Is there a single shred of evidence that self-consciousness and volition can exist atemporally without any causal reference? What decisions are made in timelessness? Purpose has motivation- that is causal.
In his study of divine timelessness, John Yates writes, The classical theist may immediately grant that concepts such as reflection, memory, and anticipation could not apply to a timeless being (nor to any omniscient being), but this is not to admit that the key concepts of consciousness and knowledge are inapplicable to such a deity . . . . there does not seem to be any essential temporal element in words like . . . 'understand,' to 'be aware,' to 'know,' and so on . . . . an atemporal deity could possess maximal understanding, awareness, and knowledge in a single, all-embracing vision of himself and the sum of reality.
That is just implausible on so many levels, sorry. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Could would should. This theory requires a God that has all powers and so there is a God that has all powers. God must also transcend epistemology in order to be omniscient, yet in timelessness, how could He come to know anything? He just does. If nothing had ever existed, and you just floated in blackness with no history, no experience, no anything... how would you come to know anything about anything?
Similarly, the Creator could possess a free, changeless intention of the will to create a universe with a temporal beginning. Thus, it seems that neither self-consciousness nor free volition entail temporality. But since these are plausibly sufficient for personhood, there is no incoherence in the notion of a timeless, personal Creator of the universe.
Again, His will is changeless, but at some point in timelessness, He decided to create the universe. Well, I think I agree that, at best, God would have to have invented His "temporal personhood" co-incidentally with the universe, but this still leaves a heap o' trouble jumping from some vague notion of deism to one of at least 2,500 theological notions of God in our history so far. Neither does this teleological notion offer any ground whatsoever for a moral Being. Judging by the inherent dualism of good/evil that we observe in the world- each necessarily dependant on each other (I know you disagree), He may have just created us to watch us like an ant farm. I have a deist friend who believes something like that: no omni-benevolence. He believes (mostly based on Heidegger's notion of Being and the Pre-Socratics) that everything that exists is an extension of this teleological force, that it is ever changing, and that creative awareness in that eternal change is all. There are infinite ways to slice up a teleological pie. Again, I am no astrophysicist, but it seems like there are some glaring issues with these propositions.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
- Login to post comments
Offline ok so the universe making factory cant be visited, hmmm well, let me think about this. well when i see a stone on the beach such as you spoke of in the video, if their is a rock then their is a rocker? i guess that was a joke becasue it totally missed the point.
“You”? So now I’ve morphed into Sapient then, have I? Thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment.
I suppose he was being cheeky with that, yes. The best way to read it if you actually follow the logic is to note that a rock would need a rock maker for Ray’s argument to hold. Given that we know that rocks come from something other than a rock making factory for instance, something altogether different than a painting, Ray’s warped assertions fall to pieces right there. Brian illustrates this point when making that comment, even if you don’t much care for the way in which he presented it.
Perhaps you didn’t get “it” because you don’t want to?
well say i see a stone on the beach, i pick it up and it is worn and smooth and flat, thus giving me information on where the stone has been and what forces had been acted upon it, my reasoing will show me that it has been acted on by the force of erosion, and also it tells me alot about the force of erosion is also, how smooth it is and what not, all this information i get from the stone, i mean their is so mcuh information about this stones origin and what made it this way just contained in the stone to human reasoning.
Okay, true. I actually agree with you here. The thing is, you know this erosion process because you studied it in school. Schools teach this because it benefits society when children learn scientific facts that are accepted and manipulated to the betterment of everyone, those based on the method that relates directly to fallibility. You know that rocks can conduct heat because of this same process. If you are a scuba diver like me, you also know that the density of water carries the sound of rocks crashing under waves farther and with more intensity than the same sound waves carry in air. By putting all of this together, by comparing the observations made by ourselves and coupling those with actual research that explains these processes, we learn what actual fact is. All of this is known through empirical study or experience plus what we have accumulated over the years with science.
You didn’t just walk up to the stone, pick it up and know these things. This is important to state. In a simpler time, you could have easily given the rock’s heat a god-source or the fact that it is smooth to an earthen or sea god, as many, many people have done. Ray arguing for a god because of all this “creation” is doing exactly the same thing as the person of antiquity who made up a rain god or bowed aboard a wayward ship to plead with Poseidon to spare him. If you can open your mind to see this for what it is, namely constructs from ignorance, then you are on the right path to real understanding. If you can’t see “it,” as your post above indicates, then you aren’t allowing yourself to.
Now when i look at a human being, i see all these same things, the forces tht have been acted upon it and the origin is revealed also, what kind of forces that have come into order to assign each function to the body, it is amazing what you can see in the design of the human body, or animals or plants, what u can see from the forces and laws that govern the matter to form such things.
I agree. It is true that theists and atheists can in fact concur with the idea that this life we have is indeed “amazing.”
one of these forces and laws that i reason out that must be applied to create humans, just like the stone that must have had a light force from water or another smooth rounding substance to form it, i see in a human being the intelect that it would require, and not randomness, as those people who rely on evolution say, evolution is merely the means of the laws and forces acted upon the matter, it is in no way an end.
This “randomness” idea is already in thin water, but I’ll leave it for the moment. By the time I post this, someone will have pointed out why you are wrong with this language. Instead, I’ll stay on the same track I started this post with.
Your desire, heartfelt though it may be, to envisage a creator for our intelligence is exactly the same extrapolation that every man of antiquity used in creating a god construct for a massive ball of fire in the sky we know of as the sun. This man of antiquity summoned up earth and rain gods, gods of elementals who shape shift and either kill us or protect us. This process by which these images come to life is traceable, the products of the process’ tenure in our lives is evidence to the very intelligence you claim was given us by some out-of-space-and-time creator.
But that doesn’t hold, does it? If the creator gave us this intelligence and the creator wants us to worship him, then why would we have created many gods before him (your god I mean) and then changed him over time as our needs changed? Why would it be necessary to have counsels look over reams of written text to deicide what is the true about him what is not? Why would even this counsel fail to provide a knowable god that could be embraced by all?
Could it be that your god is, as all the others are, our product, our stone picked up and molded for the sake of our collective inner peace? Could it be that Yahweh is just like a stone conducting the heat given it by mythology and oral legend? And like our understanding of stones and what they really are, is it possible you are hanging on to this special pleading because you don’t want to let your god go in the face of damning evidence?
I can imagine some members of a foregone community being concerned when an upstart farmer who happened to have land by the river proclaimed that the heat of the stones seemed to be a remnant of the daytime hours and of the fires that the townspeople used to keep warm at night. I can imagine how he demonstrated the process to the town elders by showing them how he could get heated rocks by leaving them out in the day under the sun or by tossing them into a fire for a spell and fishing them out.
This upstart farmer then went too far. To prove his thesis, he told the elders that he didn’t need to use the “heating prayer” or the “garments of earth” to appease the gods to get this heat. He claimed boisterously that the heat was theirs to make at a whim. In doing so, some members of the community began to be disturbed by this message. The elders became concerned about the flock.
“Wasn’t it my grandfather who taught me that the heat comes from the earth god?” one older, more powerful elder thinks. “Didn’t he say that doubting this truth would mean famine and plagues for the town?”
Others noted the “danger” in these ideas because the earth god was a jealous god and everyone knew what that meant. The dry troubles of yore were still the themes of legends. Better have an all-encompassing flood than to have another of those dry periods the villagers thought.
It is easy to see how those who didn’t want this information to propagate picked up those same stones, as the written law called for, and then hurled them at the head of the man who doubted the scripture and the wrath of the earth god. His death sentence in this case would be in beginning to understand what you already know and outlined in the text above, that stones do conduct heat and that no god is needed to make this process happen.
Again, I ask you in all earnestness to think this through honestly. If the rain god, Poseidon, Allah, Mithra and all the other gods you dismiss for any number of logical reasons can be seen as the byproducts of this intelligence we humans have and have developed by our own means, why is it you allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that your learned god construct is the real ONE in the face of all these others?
and as someone said above about delving into quantum mechanics, into dimensions that we cant see or even understand logically, spheres of existance where i timeless God become logical to the human mind, possibly obtained by higher leveles of consiousness.
This is quite jumbled, sorry. I have no idea what you are saying here.
Cheers!
{mod - FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline Now when i look at a human being, i see all these same things, the forces tht have been acted upon it and the origin is revealed also, what kind of forces that have come into order to assign each function to the body, it is amazing what you can see in the design of the human body, or animals or plants, what u can see from the forces and laws that govern the matter to form such things.
You might want tor review Organisms That Look Designed some time.Or consider all the adaptations that are at cross purposes. Predators are adapted for catching their prey, while prey are adapted for thwarting their predators. Even plant eating may be interpreted as a form of predation -- on the plants.
Predatory animals have been around for LONG before our species has existed; there is abundant fossil evidence of not only adaptations for being predatory, but also predation itself -- fish that choked on other fish, stomach contents, even fragments of bone and the like in coprolites (fossil excrement).
This goes back into the Cambrian, about 500 million years ago, where some trilobites have bite marks on them.
So what sins could we have committed that made anomalocarids try to eat trilobites 500 million years before us?
- Login to post comments
Offline ok so the universe making factory cant be visited, hmmm well, let me think about this. well when i see a stone on the beach such as you spoke of in the video, if their is a rock then their is a rocker? i guess that was a joke becasue it totally missed the point.
“You”? So now I’ve morphed into Sapient then, have I? Thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment.
I suppose he was being cheeky with that, yes. The best way to read it if you actually follow the logic is to note that a rock would need a rock maker for Ray’s argument to hold. Given that we know that rocks come from something other than a rock making factory for instance, something altogether different than a painting, Ray’s warped assertions fall to pieces right there. Brian illustrates this point when making that comment, even if you don’t much care for the way in which he presented it.
Perhaps you didn’t get “it” because you don’t want to?
end quote
I can easily show you the rock making factory, and indeed to have a rock you need a rock making factory, its called a universe, the universe is a factory which function is to create, it has a single set of numbers much like an equation and also the same variables are acting upon the set at all times, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, and as far as we know the laws of the universe do not change, if you have a singularity like so
{1} and you apply a function to the singularity and the function would be the universal laws which we can call 1x+y then each time that the equation is worked out, say the big bang, the outcome will be the same.
so yes, the function of the universe is to create these forms, they have shown in physics and also even quantum mechanics, correct me if i am wrong, that things are deterministic when under the laws of physics. So yes if you have a rock, you need a rock maker, if you have a mountain you need a mountain maker, its called the function of the universe.
You didn’t just walk up to the stone, pick it up and know these things. This is important to state. In a simpler time, you could have easily given the rock’s heat a god-source or the fact that it is smooth to an earthen or sea god, as many, many people have done. Ray arguing for a god because of all this “creation” is doing exactly the same thing as the person of antiquity who made up a rain god or bowed aboard a wayward ship to plead with Poseidon to spare him. If you can open your mind to see this for what it is, namely constructs from ignorance, then you are on the right path to real understanding. If you can’t see “it,” as your post above indicates, then you aren’t allowing yourself to.
end quote
of course i didnt walk up to the stone and just "know it" i had to reason it out using my mind, with the question of existance you can ot use just plain reasoning, it is going to be abstract, are you saying that abstract human reasoning is useless or unreasonable? Just as i knew all the things about the stone from information already possesed by me, the fact that my reasoning leads to design elements within the human organism is no less reasonable than saying the stone was worked on by erosion, i have put forth the theory that the human body has a forethought design and i have obtained it through human reasoning, you on the otherhand just say, no it wasnt designed, please explain to me why the human body was not designed by the universe factory, casue as i noted the set {1} will nevar change and the laws will nevar change so obviously one of the funstions of the universe is to create human beings. abstract human reasoning will lead you to believe that under the function of the universe to create living beings that their must be intent, which we all know what happens when we label the universe factory with intent.
got to go to work, ill respodn to the rest when im their.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your desire, heartfelt though it may be, to envisage a creator for our intelligence is exactly the same extrapolation that every man of antiquity used in creating a god construct for a massive ball of fire in the sky we know of as the sun. This man of antiquity summoned up earth and rain gods, gods of elementals who shape shift and either kill us or protect us. This process by which these images come to life is traceable, the products of the process’ tenure in our lives is evidence to the very intelligence you claim was given us by some out-of-space-and-time creator.
im putting forth a theory based upon what i have observed in the universe, im not creating anything, i am pointing out that the forms that the universe has "created" indeed reasonably will need to have some sort of pre programming in order for them to be formed when you have only 1 set of variables being acted upon by the same function.
im saying that human reason leads to believe that the function and variables intent was to create living beings, just as the function and intent of a shoe making factory would be to make shoes.
But that doesn’t hold, does it? If the creator gave us this intelligence and the creator wants us to worship him, then why would we have created many gods before him (your god I mean) and then changed him over time as our needs changed? Why would it be necessary to have counsels look over reams of written text to deicide what is the true about him what is not? Why would even this counsel fail to provide a knowable god that could be embraced by all?
i dont understand what this has to do with the argument for does god exist, i nevar said the creator wants us to worship him or that he has changed, if God is real he most likely is not going to change at the whims of the forms he has made, i dont get where yer going.
Could it be that your god is, as all the others are, our product, our stone picked up and molded for the sake of our collective inner peace? Could it be that Yahweh is just like a stone conducting the heat given it by mythology and oral legend? And like our understanding of stones and what they really are, is it possible you are hanging on to this special pleading because you don’t want to let your god go in the face of damning evidence?
i dont understand how logical reasoning leads to some sort of emotional inner peace as you are infering, yahweh? when did i state i was a jew or a christian? and what is the damning evidence that you have to support that God does not exist, please lets hear the "damning evidence", ill expect it in your next post.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...
and the absence of belief doesnt constitute a belief? so i actually am an agnostic when it comes to if fairies exist?
i mean i believe that fairies do not exist, but i dont really believe it becasie im beleiving they dont exist? makes sense to me.......
I'm just going to quickly jump in to address this, and then you can keep fighting it out with everyone else. I came across a definition one time that really helped clear things up for me on this belief/disbelief/lack of belief thing...so let me share it with you.
Theism means that you would say the following statement and consider it true:
"I do believe that God does exist."
This statement can be negated in two ways:
(1) I do not believe that God does exist.
(2) I do believe that God does not exist.
Both are atheism, because both are negations of theism. But notice the difference. The first one is a lack of belief, like a position of doubt, whereas the second is a positive belief -- the person is sure that god doesn't exist.
This matches up with many definitions of atheism in dictionaries as well. Most dictionaries define atheism in 2 parts. From dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Notice that these definitions line up (in reverse order) to the ones above. The first is a positive belief in the nonexistence of god. The second is disbelief (a lack of belief, as opposed to denial) in god.
The burden of proof is always on one who believes, not one who doubts. So the atheist who believes god doesn't exist, as well as the theist who believes god does, both have a burden of proof. The person in the "middle," who isn't convinced by either side, which you call agnostic, is actually an atheist, because he falls under the "implicit atheist" definition (#1 way above). He does not consider "I do believe that god does exist" to be true, so he's an atheist.
Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, not beliefs. In technical terms it is a question of epistemology, not metaphysics. "What exists?" is metaphysics. "How do we know?" is epistemology. It's a modifier to the atheism/theism belief, not a middle ground between them.
As a final example to explain "lack of belief," consider this. If I were to ask you if you believe that the Chinese Gate Gods exist, and you said "What the heck are those?," that's an atheistic answer. You lack belief in gods you've never heard of, not because you've gone out and proven they don't exist, but because you've never heard of them. You can't believe in something you've never thought of.
I hope this clears things up a bit. I try to be very specific with my words, because in a debate like this (between different worldviews), clarity is extremely important.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can imagine some members of a foregone community being concerned when an upstart farmer who happened to have land by the river proclaimed that the heat of the stones seemed to be a remnant of the daytime hours and of the fires that the townspeople used to keep warm at night. I can imagine how he demonstrated the process to the town elders by showing them how he could get heated rocks by leaving them out in the day under the sun or by tossing them into a fire for a spell and fishing them out.
This upstart farmer then went too far. To prove his thesis, he told the elders that he didn’t need to use the “heating prayer” or the “garments of earth” to appease the gods to get this heat. He claimed boisterously that the heat was theirs to make at a whim. In doing so, some members of the community began to be disturbed by this message. The elders became concerned about the flock.
“Wasn’t it my grandfather who taught me that the heat comes from the earth god?” one older, more powerful elder thinks. “Didn’t he say that doubting this truth would mean famine and plagues for the town?”
Others noted the “danger” in these ideas because the earth god was a jealous god and everyone knew what that meant. The dry troubles of yore were still the themes of legends. Better have an all-encompassing flood than to have another of those dry periods the villagers thought.
It is easy to see how those who didn’t want this information to propagate picked up those same stones, as the written law called for, and then hurled them at the head of the man who doubted the scripture and the wrath of the earth god. His death sentence in this case would be in beginning to understand what you already know and outlined in the text above, that stones do conduct heat and that no god is needed to make this process happen.
Again, I ask you in all earnestness to think this through honestly. If the rain god, Poseidon, Allah, Mithra and all the other gods you dismiss for any number of logical reasons can be seen as the byproducts of this intelligence we humans have and have developed by our own means, why is it you allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that your learned god construct is the real ONE in the face of all these others?
what God are you reffering to? i am putting forth theories about God, i nevar said that my God is the one true God so i am wondering where you got this?
- Login to post comments
Offline clarification
thiest1 wrote:
...
and the absence of belief doesnt constitute a belief? so i actually am an agnostic when it comes to if fairies exist?
i mean i believe that fairies do not exist, but i dont really believe it becasie im beleiving they dont exist? makes sense to me.......
I'm just going to quickly jump in to address this, and then you can keep fighting it out with everyone else. I came across a definition one time that really helped clear things up for me on this belief/disbelief/lack of belief thing...so let me share it with you.
Theism means that you would say the following statement and consider it true:
"I do believe that God does exist."
This statement can be negated in two ways:
(1) I do not believe that God does exist.
(2) I do believe that God does not exist.
Both are atheism, because both are negations of theism. But notice the difference. The first one is a lack of belief, like a position of doubt, whereas the second is a positive belief -- the person is sure that god doesn't exist.
This matches up with many definitions of atheism in dictionaries as well. Most dictionaries define atheism in 2 parts. From dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Notice that these definitions line up (in reverse order) to the ones above. The first is a positive belief in the nonexistence of god. The second is disbelief (a lack of belief, as opposed to denial) in god.
The burden of proof is always on one who believes, not one who doubts. So the atheist who believes god doesn't exist, as well as the theist who believes god does, both have a burden of proof. The person in the "middle," who isn't convinced by either side, which you call agnostic, is actually an atheist, because he falls under the "implicit atheist" definition (#1 way above). He does not consider "I do believe that god does exist" to be true, so he's an atheist.
Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, not beliefs. In technical terms it is a question of epistemology, not metaphysics. "What exists?" is metaphysics. "How do we know?" is epistemology. It's a modifier to the atheism/theism belief, not a middle ground between them.
As a final example to explain "lack of belief," consider this. If I were to ask you if you believe that the Chinese Gate Gods exist, and you said "What the heck are those?," that's an atheistic answer. You lack belief in gods you've never heard of, not because you've gone out and proven they don't exist, but because you've never heard of them. You can't believe in something you've never thought of.
I hope this clears things up a bit. I try to be very specific with my words, because in a debate like this (between different worldviews), clarity is extremely important.
this clears up nothing but that athiests want a free pass on their belief, becasue they do not have anything to base their belief on.
and u describe someone who doesnt know what God is as an agnostic, i would consider that an ignorant.
Like i said an athiest can make a positive claim about what they believe just like anyone else, if athiests want to claim ignorance thats fine with me, but i would not call that atheism.
in my opinion when all you do is say someone else is wrong, it doesnt make you right.
for arguments sake i will alwsy consider an athiest someone who believes that god does not exist and an agnostic as someone who understand what the conception of god is but does not know if he exists or not becasue they can not reason out a conclusion.
i mean why would you be a member of this website if you did not understand somewhat the conception of god?
- Login to post comments
Offline So your argument is that we look like we had been designed?
You might want tor review Organisms That Look Designed some time.Or consider all the adaptations that are at cross purposes. Predators are adapted for catching their prey, while prey are adapted for thwarting their predators. Even plant eating may be interpreted as a form of predation -- on the plants.
Predatory animals have been around for LONG before our species has existed; there is abundant fossil evidence of not only adaptations for being predatory, but also predation itself -- fish that choked on other fish, stomach contents, even fragments of bone and the like in coprolites (fossil excrement).
This goes back into the Cambrian, about 500 million years ago, where some trilobites have bite marks on them.
So what sins could we have committed that made anomalocarids try to eat trilobites 500 million years before us?
i seriouslt have no idea what you are trying to say? sins we commited? u describe a proccess of the universal function what does that have to do with sins?
- Login to post comments
Offline But my point was that I see a similarity in the universal laws and those invented by human intelligence (as in the case of developing computer programs). That is the issue. Purpose is related just as a programmer purposes to create a program and sets the parameters to a certain specificity so that it works according to his will. I believe God did the same with the universe.
Consider the Linux kernel.
Linus Torvalds had written the first versions of it, but after he released it, he got numerous contributions from others -- contributions which have ended up being much of the kernel, if not most of it.
And much the same can be said of all the other larger software; simply check out the websites of many open-source software packages for who is credited in them.
So as much as you all want to have your cake and eat it too, you cannot say that life overall is meaningless and then say your experience shows that life has "local" meaning.
Even if there was, Sara, are you willing to live with a cosmic purpose that you strongly dislike?
Like a cosmic purpose involving tormenting us just for the fun of it?
Evil is the decision to rebel against God and His precepts, so obviously God would not be involved in it. He does allow it to occur because the potential of committing evil must be allowed in order for free will to exist.
And what's so great about free will if it leads to committing sins? Jesus Christ taught that you ought to amputate parts of your body that make you commit sins, so why not also do that with free will?
If you are referring to the Canaanite extinguishment, then I think you’ve made a serious oversimplification. God is omniscient and knows the hearts of all men so He alone is qualified to make such a determination. We know from historical records (outside the bible) that the Canaanite peoples were very violent, murderous, and practiced infanticide. So these were hardly nice, innocent people.
And why does that mean that they deserve genocide?
"The Final Solution of the Canaanite Question", as it might be called.
Yes, you’re right, I forgot to mention mutations as being the main RANDOM component behind evolution. But the forces behind natural selection are also equally random.
- Login to post comments
Offline So order and structure and whatever imply design? And why a single super designer? If you went to a museum of watches and clocks and hourglasses and sundials and other timepieces, would you conclude that they all had a single super designer?
Consider the Linux kernel.
Linus Torvalds had written the first versions of it, but after he released it, he got numerous contributions from others -- contributions which have ended up being much of the kernel, if not most of it.
And much the same can be said of all the other larger software; simply check out the websites of many open-source software packages for who is credited in them.
end quote
do order and structure imply design? and if they do not imply design please show me why.
if i showed you a babies bottle would you tell me that it has elements of design?
if you say no you are a liar.
now if i showed you a womans breast would you tell me their is no design? of course you would becasue you have some pre concieved idea about design that will not allow you to admit that anything not moan made doesnt have design.
but tell me, what is the differance between the breast and the babies bottle, that would make you think one is designed and one is not, please explain.
- Login to post comments
Offline
this clears up nothing but that athiests want a free pass on their belief, becasue they do not have anything to base their belief on.
and u describe someone who doesnt know what God is as an agnostic, i would consider that an ignorant.
Like i said an athiest can make a positive claim about what they believe just like anyone else, if athiests want to claim ignorance thats fine with me, but i would not call that atheism.
in my opinion when all you do is say someone else is wrong, it doesnt make you right.
for arguments sake i will alwsy consider an athiest someone who believes that god does not exist and an agnostic as someone who understand what the conception of god is but does not know if he exists or not becasue they can not reason out a conclusion.
i mean why would you be a member of this website if you did not understand somewhat the conception of god?
You seem to have completely misunderstood my post, and you sound angry about it. I'll try one more time.
It's not about a free pass or ignorance, it's about unbiased definitions that fit with the dictionary and history of the words. You can define things how you like, but if your definitions go against the person who originally invented the word, I would say that you're probably wrong.
Thomas Huxley invented agnosticism, and his definition matches mine -- it's a question of the limits of human knowledge, not the existence of things. You can be an agnostic theist ("I don't know the attributes of God, but I believe he exists."
or you can be an agnostic atheist ("I don't know the attributes of God, so I don't believe he exists." If, as you say, a person does not "know if he exists or not becasue [sic] they can not reason out a conclusion," then that person is an atheist, because they lack a belief in his existence. Lack of belief = "I do not believe that God does exist" = Atheist
As an analogy, consider aliens. We don't have any evidence of alien life, so we have no knowledge of aliens. Do they exist? I don't know, but if I had to decide I'd say they probably do, somewhere. That's a positive belief. Someone else might say "I don't know either, but if I were pushed I'd say I don't believe aliens exist." That's a lack of belief. Do they have to prove that aliens don't exist to have a rational position? No. But do I have to provide reasons why I do think aliens exist to have a rational positon -- yes.
You never assume existence -- you infer or deduce it from evidence. Therefore, the one claiming existence is the one who must provide the evidence. Always.
- Login to post comments
Offline Lack of belief = "I do not believe that God does exist" = Atheist
As an analogy, consider aliens. We don't have any evidence of alien life, so we have no knowledge of aliens. Do they exist? I don't know, but if I had to decide I'd say they probably do, somewhere. That's a positive belief. Someone else might say "I don't know either, but if I were pushed I'd say I don't believe aliens exist." That's a lack of belief. Do they have to prove that aliens don't exist to have a rational position? No. But do I have to provide reasons why I do think aliens exist to have a rational positon -- yes.
You never assume existence -- you infer or deduce it from evidence. Therefore, the one claiming existence is the one who must provide the evidence. Always.
end quote
yeah ummm sint that what i have been posting the enitre time???? im infering theories about god existance in my last posts so go ahead and tell me why my evidence doesnt work as reasonable evidence, otherwise im not going to play some guess what i mean game with yer words, ill repeat it again, the burden of proof is definitely on the person making the assumption, and this burden of proof in on the website RSS becasue as they state.
THEISM IS A MIND DISORDER
this is a positive statement that must be backed up by with evidence, so tell me again why the burden of proof is on me when i am merely putting forth my theories? im not making claims as this site does
so lets have the evidence for the site, back up the claim that thiesm is a mental disorder, im waiting patiently.
- Login to post comments
Offline Isn't jumping from "I don't know" to I will believe anyway that a god exist, is some sort of irrational mind doing? Replace god with any other imaginary idea, and you might see my point. God in and of it self is a meaningless word, it has to many definitions some are in direct contradictions of others, so please first define god. Your creation of the universe could be thoughtless according to your statement there is nothing to indicate intelligence or non-intelligence so it is a moot point. In order to identify the significant of your deity you must present something that cannot be evidence for either side, (intelligence vs. non-intelligence).
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I had originally intended to post my dissertation here, but I could not get anything to embed properly in this forum. So instead I had to resort to creating a stupid blog entry that nobody will bother reading. It’s a shame, too. You all could have learned something.
- Login to post comments
Offline
do order and structure imply design? and if they do not imply design please show me why.
Sometimes, not always. There are several problems with your argument, so let me address each:
First, if order and structure ALWAYS imply design, then God himself is ordered and structured, and therefore also requires a designer. If this is not the case, then it's not true that order and structure always imply design, so your conclusion violates your premise.
Second, order and structure as compared to what? Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, but if you mean to say that entire universe, down to the last breast, is ordered and structured, then I'd like to know what your comparing that to to make that conclusion. There are certainly a number of seemingly random events in the universe, and many organisms have many useless or non-functioning parts. Are there parts of the universe that are not designed?
Third, if order and structure imply a design and designer, then what about things that are "bad" and organized. Hurricanes and tornadoes are trillions of molecules acting together to produce a single, stable, destructive event. That's certainly more organized than a breast. Does this imply the designer likes destruction? What about the antievolutionist Michael Behe's favorite -- Bacterium Flagella. It has a motor and some extremely complicated parts that he considers to be "Irreducibly Complex," but it also is one of the reasons Diarrhea can exist. That's not something to laugh about. Diarrhea is the number 1 killer of babies on the planet (especially in 3rd world countries). Does this imply the designer likes killing babies?
Fourth, the litmus test for design is contradistinction to nature, not whether or not it has a purpose. If you were on an alien planet and wanted to look for signs of intelligent life, you would look for things that natural forces could not produce -- regular markings or chiseled items. You would not pick up every single rock around and say "Hmm... what purpose could this serve an alien race, because if I find a purpose that means an alien race exists and made this rock for that purpose."
if i showed you a babies bottle would you tell me that it has elements of design?
Yes. Although it has a purpose, the designed part is because no known forces of nature can produce a plastic bottle with a rubber nipple. Therefore, I know it is not natural, it's designed.
now if i showed you a womans breast would you tell me their is no design?
No, because although it has a purpose, natural forces (evolution, genetics, and death) can produce it. Therefore it does not require a designer (or, if you insist, the designer is simply the blind forces of evolution).
As a counterexample: If you're walking through the forest and you find a dead branch that makes for a good walking stick, does that now mean you designed the dead branch?
Purpose does not equal design.
- Login to post comments
Offline [b][i] Your creation of the universe could be thoughtless according to your statement there is nothing to indicate intelligence or non-intelligence so it is a moot point. In order to identify the significant of your deity you must present something that cannot be evidence for either side, (intelligence vs. non-intelligence\[/i][/b]
i beg to differ, the fact that design exists shows that inteleigence is present, the fact that the equation can only develop one way and that is to create human beings also shows inteligence, if the singularity that the universe arose from is deterministic which under the laws of physics it will be, then like i said the universe factory has intent to create human beings, and where their is intent their is being.
you actually have to use your mind abstractly to understand certain concepts of design and inteligence, if you choose not to then it is a moot point for you, not me.
i am implying all these things as i theorize about God and his existance, now let me hear your side, what you belive and what your theory of the universe is, oh wait i forgot, you all claim ignorance.......
- Login to post comments
Offline whoops multiple post.
- Login to post comments
Offline The point was, if the 2nd law does not apply to a multiverse, then it would be supernatural (since it is not subject to natural laws) and the creator of what we perceive as good, evil, intelligence, and everything else. The only difference being that Atheist's do not ascribe intelligence to a multiverse.
Not necessarily. We don't know what laws apply to other universes. But to say that another one, because it lacks gravity, for example, must have intelligence, is still an assumption.
But my point was that I see a similarity in the universal laws and those invented by human intelligence (as in the case of developing computer programs). That is the issue. Purpose is related just as a programmer purposes to create a program and sets the parameters to a certain specificity so that it works according to his will. I believe God did the same with the universe.
I've argued about this with a deist friend of mine. At the end of the day, you assert that a chemical reaction is exhibiting purpose. Yes, as Veil pointed out, that's a vague distinction. It also seems to require that randomness is an assertion of will (in Being, as my deist friend argues from a Heideggerian perspective. He contends that a rock asserts its "rockness" [nature/essence/form/LOGOS/whatever you want to call it- this is a slippery slope in itself] by keeping its form and a predictable chemical reaction does the same, but that it also displays its will, by asserting randomness). Do you believe this? That all chemical reactions, etc., predictable or not are an assertion of will? He can get away with this because he does not believe in an omni-benevolent being nor intrinsic/absolute good and evil. Because God would necessarily have to be all things and expressions. Christian theism cannot get away with this. I'm not trying to make a stawman by superimposing my friend's claims onto your beliefs, just exploring your statement.
Forming an association and finding ultimate significance are two different things. For example, Gato used the example of having an a positive and negative association with a dog and then going on to assign a value to all dogs based on that experience. But this is quite different from seeing a dog as having significance in and of itself. I can make a surface statement that I like or do not like dogs, but to say that dogs do or do not have intrinsic value is pointless. In an evolutionary framework, there is no need for such an evaluation. Just like my relationships with my loved ones, I can have positive or negative associations with them. But according to evolution, I simply call the positive association "love" and the negative association "dislike" and there is no ultimate significance in my relationship with them. So as much as you all want to have your cake and eat it too, you cannot say that life overall is meaningless and then say your experience shows that life has "local" meaning.
Yes, no intrinsic value. But you are talking about two different cakes here, one for us and a bigger one for the universe. I'm enjoying my cake... Why must you insist on giving an "ultimately intrinsically meaningful" cake to non-sentient universal objects?
Since all our emotions are merely products of a brain, then we would have no control over what or who we love or don’t love. Appealing to the idea that since we’ve somehow developed a consciousness that can “override” an evolutionary predisposition presents two problems for the materialist. First, this suggestion seems to be admitting that a mind exists separately from the hardwired brain, since the mind is able to resist its genetically motivated impulses. Second, if the consciousness arose from the brain, then any overriding would essentially mean the brain is resisting its own impulses. This does not seem to be an efficient use of energy, nor does it seem logical.
This is a really interesting topic. Doesn't love often seem like a battle of bodily urges against what we feel we "should do?" Don't we experience these conflicts of interest? I don't know if you've seen my post (I think it's in this thread) of a study of genetically modified behaviour in bees from The Selfish Gene. There is evidence for the behavioral influence of genes in biological beings. But the study of how much human consciousness is dependent on this is in its infancy. I guess we'll see...
Yes, but isn’t this really a random circumstance? I mean did the animal have any control over reproductive isolationism due to geographic boundaries??? No. Did the Earth decide to create such a boundary??? No. So my point is that evolution is random or chance events (i.e. environmental and genetic changes) acting on matter (genes) to make a microbe into a man.
No, because natural selection is based on the competition of biological entities for natural recources, etc. You are only looking at one side of the coin.
But the main argument of the other poster (I think it was Gato), was that this process of random events causes efficiency. That’s not true.
I should explain this further from how I understand it. There are two issues here. First, natural selection causes a tendency towards efficiency, and that is not random (unless you want to try to argue that competition is random). Second, there is randomness in the universe, but energy creates order from randomness (either co-incidentally or temporarily). As, for example, there are random elements in weather, but also determinable conditions, that create very orderly snowflakes. That's my understanding of it. If I am wrong, someone, please enlighten me! That's why on earth (an open system), we have order multiplying exponentially- and also why, where there is energy elsewhere in the universe, order arises... but the overall energy (different from order) in the universe (a closed system- even if it originally sprang from a Multiverse with different laws) remains a constant. Must the amount of order remain a constant somehow like energy does? I don't know for sure if this isn't an absurd question and I don't know if there is someone who does. Seems to me that much of what we consider to be order is only temporary. Perhaps someone will know with certainty someday. Deriving meaning from chaos is a different beast. We can see "order" in random strings of numbers (such as finding someone's birthday in them), but these can be attributed to associations of personal meaning that we ascribe. Are scientists ascribing personal order where there is none? No, because science is based on a level of emperically derived consistency beyond random probability. Of course, you could say that consistency in the universe is God, but as I mentioned above, some modern philosophers believe that chaos is what shows agency.
At the end of the day, there is no reason to put God behind it all, let alone is there any evidence that this vague creator is/was (retired?) "good"- the needless suffering of animals alone is evidence to the contrary. You can't reasonably blame that on human sin. Sorry.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
- Login to post comments
Offline Sometimes, not always. There are several problems with your argument, so let me address each:
First, if order and structure ALWAYS imply design, then God himself is ordered and structured, and therefore also requires a designer. If this is not the case, then it's not true that order and structure always imply design, so your conclusion violates your premise.
what God are you reffering to that is ordered and structured? I nevar said god was ordered or structured, that is your contention, what if i theorized that God is an infinitaly redesigned structure initiated by the beings own will? I can theorize whatever I want about a being that you say does not exists as you have no definition for me to go by. so you are wrong.
Second, order and structure as compared to what? Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, but if you mean to say that entire universe, down to the last breast, is ordered and structured, then I'd like to know what your comparing that to to make that conclusion. There are certainly a number of seemingly random events in the universe, and many organisms have many useless or non-functioning parts. Are there parts of the universe that are not designed?
i am making the inference that the entire universe is ordered and structured, if you choose to ignore facts such as the periodic table of elements, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, quantum mechanics and all the laws that govern this universe, i would have to say you are quite ignorant. you say that creatures have usless parts, why casue you can not find a use for them? usefullness would be in the eye of the beholder also, and we can use our human reasoning to make conclusions about what we observe, which is what i am doing. and you are right, the events are seemingly random to you, but in reality they are under certain laws and forces that are constant, so nothing is random. the entire universe is designed from my observation, what do you see and explain to me your observations please.
Third, if order and structure imply a design and designer, then what about things that are "bad" and organized. Hurricanes and tornadoes are trillions of molecules acting together to produce a single, stable, destructive event. That's certainly more organized than a breast. Does this imply the designer likes destruction? What about the antievolutionist Michael Behe's favorite -- Bacterium Flagella. It has a motor and some extremely complicated parts that he considers to be "Irreducibly Complex," but it also is one of the reasons Diarrhea can exist. That's not something to laugh about. Diarrhea is the number 1 killer of babies on the planet (especially in 3rd world countries). Does this imply the designer likes killing babies?
why is a hurricane bad? I do not see why a hurricane would be labeled as bad, it can be used to clean and flush entire shorelines of pollutants and other things, your getting into opinions of good and bad which we cant really use to prove the existance of God so dont bother with them. if you want to imply that the designer likes to kill babies go ahead, many parts of the universal function will not be liked by opiniated humans but hey, im not the designer.
Fourth, the litmus test for design is contradistinction to nature, not whether or not it has a purpose. If you were on an alien planet and wanted to look for signs of intelligent life, you would look for things that natural forces could not produce -- regular markings or chiseled items. You would not pick up every single rock around and say "Hmm... what purpose could this serve an alien race, because if I find a purpose that means an alien race exists and made this rock for that purpose."
the rock does have a purpose, it is a complex construct that is used to create planets so yes it does have a purpose, so you do agree that if their is something designed that it implies inteligence, at least we can agree on that point.
Yes. Although it has a purpose, the designed part is because no known forces of nature can produce a plastic bottle with a rubber nipple. Therefore, I know it is not natural, it's designed.
look at what i have said, the universal function designed the breast, it had the plans programmed from the beggining of the singularity as in my theory, does that make it any less inteligent than a human being designing a baby bottle? and you did not explain what is the distinction
tell me why is a video recorder designed but a eyeball is not?
design as a concept does not include "nature did it" so it sint a design, thats you making an assumption, so back it up, why cant the universe design things, when it obviosly has designed things, such as eyeballs and wings.
No, because although it has a purpose, natural forces (evolution, genetics, and death) can produce it. Therefore it does not require a designer (or, if you insist, the designer is simply the blind forces of evolution).
As a counterexample: If you're walking through the forest and you find a dead branch that makes for a good walking stick, does that now mean you designed the dead branch?
Purpose does not equal design.
evolutionary force is not blind, it is part of the fucntion of the universe, and is quite set out under the laws and forces that it needs to work, it is hardly blind, to ascribe the force that creates eyeballs and wings as blind is quite rediculou as i have stated their is nothing random about evolution.
your anology doesnt make any sense, the universal function deisnged the tree branch and i put it to good use, thats all their is to it.
purpose does not equal design? tell me why, dont just say it, and also if you say their is purpose in such things as breasts, would you say their was purpose in such things as human beings? what is the purpose of a human being , if their is purpose to a breast then their should be purpose to the entire organism, what is our purpose?
you have ust stated that you agree their is purpose in the universe i hope we can move on from here. as if their is purpose, we can reason that we might be able to uncover intent as well, which maybe we can lead to discover being behind this intent and purpose.
- Login to post comments
Offline No, because although it has a purpose, natural forces (evolution, genetics, and death) can produce it.
i am wondering, why does it matter if a "natural force" designs something or a human being deigns something, why is it differant, what is the distinction you are making and the criterion you are using to declare design?
and if you really want to get into it, are not human beings "natural forces" when it comes to athiesm, becasue nothing is supernatural right?
so either accept that nature designs things or accept that humans are supernatural.
i guess you can choose whichever one is easier for you to fit into your world view, which one is it?
- Login to post comments
Offline Miketwo says:Great post (I cut the quote short to save on space). There are several areas where I disagree with you, so let me try to be brief with them.
Re: "Ockham's [sic] Razor is only as sharp as you are." (+ the Spacey movie, BIV argument, and other items showing the limitations of human knowledge).
Thanks for responding! Sorry I’ve been out for a while. (FYI: no need for a “sic”…“Ockham” is the proper spelling for the British city where William of Ockham was from…call me a purist…lol.)
Although you are very correct in pointing out our epistemological limitations, you seem to use this deficiency as a springboard for the God argument. "Since we could be wrong about everything, it's ok that our predictions about God are wrong. God can poke out of our concept box all he wants." This seems, to me, to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I disagree. There is no baby hurling. You and I agree that Reality is transcendent to us in that there will always be questions that we cannot answer, things we will not understand. For example, we don’t understand where the laws of physics come from. I am basically saying the same thing about God. If the presupposition is that God created Reality, we should expect him to be even more transcendent than we find Reality. Thus there will be questions about God we will not be able to answer and things we will not be able to completely understand.
The first thing everyone needs to agree on is that knowledge isn't certain. There is always some improbable brain-in-vat or God Did It theory that "could" be "True". Even God's knowledge is uncertain. How does he know he's not the product of a SuperGod, who has decided to make God think he is omnipotent and all-knowing, but who in Truth cannot detect the crafty SuperGod. (I think this argument is called Descartes' Demon?)
I think it is a mistake to assume: as we, so God. Who is to say what the consciousness of God is like?
In light of this, we need to drop certainty from our list of Things Knowledge Must Be To Be Accepted. Knowledge is uncertain, and that is why mankind has developed a process to distinguish true from false to the best of our ability. That process is basically "test your thoughts against reality." To look at this fact and say "Because we can't know everything, we don't really know anything" is turning epistemology on its head. It takes the very reason for the scientific method (uncertainty and fallible knowledge) as some kind of proof that we can't use the scientific method for everything. That doesn't make sense...
I am not arguing that “we don’t really know anything.” I follow a Critical Realist epistemology which entails fallibilism, but not in the extreme sense of not being able to know anything. I do believe that we can know things, but we can only do so with a posture of epistemological humility. In that humble position, we must recognize (as we do) that foundationalism is an illusion. Descartes was wrong. There is no absolutely certain knowledge for finite knowers. What this means, then (I think) is that any “bottom-up” search for knowledge is ultimately an illusion because any “bottom” from which you start is not a true, presupposition-less “bottom.” In other words, presuppositions are necessary.
These presuppositions that we have are the starting point for the hermeneutical process we use to discern reality, and thus the process is a circular one. In his book Personal Knowledge (which I’m reading…it’s so good!) Polanyi points to the many factors that go into discerning reality. He says that it is necessary to have presuppositions to have knowledge, and that these presuppositions are the tools we use to discern reality. He claims that “objectivity” is ultimately a myth when it comes to discerning reality, and that even scientific rationality is cultural in origin. The traditional Eastern mindset for example, as I understand it, does not lend near the amount of creedence to logic and science as we do. There is more of an emphasis on experience and intuitive knowledge than we have.
Wherever we start with in our presuppositions, from that point our knowledge of reality is garnered through a hermeneutical spiral. We are constantly encountering data (i.e. experience, logic, research, feelings, etc.) with which we test our epistemological worldview. Some information fits with our worldview, and some doesn’t. However, we never immediately toss aside our worldview the second we encounter data that appears dissonant with our worldview. There is always a sort of “buffer” intrinsic to our worldview because of the recognition of our epistemological finitude (i.e. “simply because I don’t understand how this fits with my worldview does not mean that it cannot fit with my worldview”). However, the more and more we encounter dissonance with our worldview, the more apparent it becomes to us that our worldview does not fit with the world that is presented to us. At that point we either hone our current worldview, adapting it to the point that it does correspond with this reality, or else we toss it aside completely. This is the hermeneutical spiral.
In this way, then, in order to really understand a worldview such as Christianity, you must understand it from the inside. And this is understandably difficult since there are so many different perspectives within Christianity. Speaking as a Protestant Christian theologian-in-process, I can tell you that we would tend to say is that the epistemological “top” is ultimately fourfold: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. And this is the task of theology—to understand reality using those epistemological tools.
On a personal note, I’d like to share some of my background to elaborate on this process. I grew up a Christian in the Southern Baptist church and my father is a pastor. I went to a Christian college, and while at that college my first year I encountered quite a bit of dissonance to my Christian worldview. However, I also understood my own epistemological limitations (although I had no clue what the world “epistemological” meant…lol). I just knew that there were many people that I considered extremely intelligent and trustworthy (especially C.S. Lewis) that did not seem to find this dissonance I was looking at so grave as to toss aside the Christian worldview entirely. That was my “buffer.” However, I was extremely curious and interested in trying to find my own answers to these problems, so I decided to change my major to theology. I wanted to understand—to really, deeply understand—the perspective I was coming from before I tossed it aside and adopt another starting point for the hermeneutical spiral. The more and more I have studied theology, the more I have been able to find answers to these questions that I have had about my faith. And I have to tell you that I have yet to encounter the kind of cognitive (and emotional) dissonance that would demand that I toss my worldview aside. I have had to adjust many ways in which I understand my faith. Many of the doctrines I grew up assuming I have had to hone through critical examination of what Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience really teach me. But I have never had to toss it aside entirely. On the contrary, the more I understand my faith, the more the world makes sense. I’m astonished at how cohesively even some of the hardest questions seem to fit into this understanding of reality.
When I try to examine reality from the atheist perspective, it just doesn’t seem to make near as much sense of life and reality. Of course I haven’t spent as much time examining it and other persepectives as I have my own. Perhaps in the future I will encounter such dissonance that will demand me to more seriously examine other perspectives. But until the…why? That is not to say that I don’t look at other worldviews. But we only have so much “bandwidth” to do things in life, and we cannot spend all of our time examining other worldviews. This is another reason why presuppositions are important to life. Perhaps the ultimate presupposition is that life is to be lived, not merely thought about.
But in the end, I recognize that I am only a pilgrim. My understanding of reality is necessarily penultimate. And so I journey on.
I would like to see extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.
First you must answer the question of whether or not what you would “like” to see is appropriate critera. But beyond that, what is “extraordinary”? And what criteria establishes something as “extraordinary”? And do you use the same criteria for one thing that you do another? For example, the criteria that establishes a work of art as “extraordinary” is different than what establishes a scientific theory as “extraordinary.” An extraordinary scientific theory is reductionistic. The more and more I learn about and experience the fine arts however, I find that the general consensus is that an extraordinary piece of art is elusive and defies reductionism. Does the question of God fall under the artistic or scientific criteria? Or should it lend itself to both? Rudolph Otto and Paul Tillich and others make some rather interesting connections between the artistic and religious experiences. Otto explains the non-reductionistic “numinous” nature of the religious experience in terms like “supra-rationality” and Tillich in terms like “ecstatic-reason.” Really interesting stuff…
One other thing that Polanyi and Critical Realism points to is the idea that the what seems to be the “highest” forms of truth are not reducible but elusive. For example, the laws of physics and mathematics are some of the highest forms of truth, the tools we use to determine reality… and yet they are elusive and not reducible in the sense that we cannot answer from whence they came. The most important truths, then, are tacit, elusive, and presupposed. If God existed, he certainly be one of the most important truths. As such, we are not surprised to find Him elusive and non-reductionistic.
One last thing that Polanyi speaks of is how natural theology and “proofs” for God are proofs from the inside the hermeneutical spiral. They make sense of the worldview from the inside, but they are not proofs from the outside, and they don’t necessarily need to be. In other words, “the proof is in the pudding.”
Ok… that was another really long post. I’m sorry! But I think an appropriate epistemological understanding is really important, obviously, if we are talking about knowledge of anything, much less knowledge of God. If you have a chance, check out Polanyi’s book Personal Knowledge. Also check out Rudolph Otto’s The Idea of the Holy. You can find them both in their full texts at Questia.com. Seriously intriguing stuff.
I hope to get to some of the other stuff you guys brought up later. Until then, take care!
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
- Login to post comments
Offline
No, because although it has a purpose, natural forces (evolution, genetics, and death) can produce it. i am wondering, why does it matter if a "natural force" designs something or a human being deigns something, why is it differant, what is the distinction you are making and the criterion you are using to declare design? and if you really want to get into it, are not human beings "natural forces" when it comes to athiesm, becasue nothing is supernatural right? so either accept that nature designs things or accept that humans are supernatural. i guess you can choose whichever one is easier for you to fit into your world view, which one is it?
The important distinction is conscious intent. Intent is something that comes about due to being aware of oneself and the actions that a sentient being is responsible for. Consciousness arises due to a "Strange Loop" (As Hofstadter has called it) within the mechanism of a brain-like machine that is structured to take in and process input about parts of the body it's hooked up to as well as organs which are structured such that they can interpret physical stimuli from the world around that body.
When the machine--in our case a brain made out of neurons and such--is not only able to process this information but also process that it is processing that information, it becomes self-aware.
A brain-like thing is the only known way to have this happen. If it can happen in some other structure, it would still have to be physical in order to process physical patterns in any way.
So, if something designed the universe--including all of the matter, energy, space, and time--it would have to have some structure with which to process the information to have intent. But the creator of the universe can't be made of matter or energy, because taht's what the universe contains, right? Unless you have some way that this can be done without some physical structure, there could have been no intent in the creation of the universe itself.
The complexity that arises in the universe need not to have existed since the beginning of time. The fact that it arises do to interacting stuff in spacetime will create patterns that will eventually coalesce into blind designing processes, and eventually (at least in this universe) creators that have intent and intelligence for their designed artifacts.
It's related to the difference between an artifact and things like biofacts or ecofacts in archaeology. It is true taht the distinction between what "nature" makes and what humans make is somewhat arbitrary, but nonetheless there is a difference.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline A brain-like thing is the only known way to have this happen. If it can happen in some other structure, it would still have to be physical in order to process physical patterns in any way.
You saying this does not make it true, all you do is point out the limits of your own knowledge while putting forth no other theory that you have reasoned out, you basically negate the concept in question just by explaining it away in ignorance, with no attempt to use your abstract human reasoning to find a conclusion.
So, if something designed the universe--including all of the matter, energy, space, and time--it would have to have some structure with which to process the information to have intent. But the creator of the universe can't be made of matter or energy, because taht's what the universe contains, right? Unless you have some way that this can be done without some physical structure, there could have been no intent in the creation of the universe itself.
Again where are you getting your information on the structures of knowledge and awareness? if you say that we are aware solely due to the brain then what is awareness but a physical thing, is awareness physical? what substance is awareness made of? if awareness isnt a physical thing then awarenesss needs no physical structure to exist, and untill you explain to me the substance of my awareness I will not be able to use your logic that it requires physical structure.
The complexity that arises in the universe need not to have existed since the beginning of time. The fact that it arises do to interacting stuff in spacetime will create patterns that will eventually coalesce into blind designing processes, and eventually (at least in this universe) creators that have intent and intelligence for their designed artifacts.
like i said before, nothing is random about the universe, everything is set, from energy levels to the laws that govern them, their is nothing random so your "blind evolution" isnt really a good personification of the process of evolution, becasue truly evolution personified has the intellect of a many million men in a thintank for eternity.
the rest of what you said about artifacts gonna need to dumb it down and stop using your retardedly cryptic language.
It is true taht the distinction between what "nature" makes and what humans make is somewhat arbitrary, but nonetheless there is a difference.
ok you have stated this, now tell me why, and dont use your cryptic language, explain it plainly, what is the differance? Cause unless you will admit that humans are above nature then you would then be on a slippery slope with things ascending above the physical and eventually becoming non physical, if the universe creates creatures that go "above" it, what are the implications?
Humans are either entwined with nature physically by an unbreakable bond, which makes the universe inteligent, or they are supernatural.
- Login to post comments
Offline A brain-like thing is the only known way to have this happen. If it can happen in some other structure, it would still have to be physical in order to process physical patterns in any way. You saying this does not make it true, all you do is point out the limits of your own knowledge while putting forth no other theory that you have reasoned out, you basically negate the concept in question just by explaining it away in ignorance, with no attempt to use your abstract human reasoning to find a conclusion.
Fine, let's see your evidence for a mind that exists without a brain. Or even your coherent theory for how this could be possible.
So, if something designed the universe--including all of the matter, energy, space, and time--it would have to have some structure with which to process the information to have intent. But the creator of the universe can't be made of matter or energy, because taht's what the universe contains, right? Unless you have some way that this can be done without some physical structure, there could have been no intent in the creation of the universe itself. Again where are you getting your information on the structures of knowledge and awareness? if you say that we are aware solely due to the brain then what is awareness but a physical thing, is awareness physical? what substance is awareness made of? if awareness isnt a physical thing then awarenesss needs no physical structure to exist, and untill you explain to me the substance of my awareness I will not be able to use your logic that it requires physical structure.
You awareness consists of electrochemical exchanges in your brain. It is partly electrical energy and partly a chemcial exchange of ions across a neural gap. It is made matter and energy just like everything else in this universe.
The complexity that arises in the universe need not to have existed since the beginning of time. The fact that it arises do to interacting stuff in spacetime will create patterns that will eventually coalesce into blind designing processes, and eventually (at least in this universe) creators that have intent and intelligence for their designed artifacts. like i said before, nothing is random about the universe, everything is set, from energy levels to the laws that govern them, their is nothing random so your "blind evolution" isnt really a good personification of the process of evolution, becasue truly evolution personified has the intellect of a many million men in a thintank for eternity. the rest of what you said about artifacts gonna need to dumb it down and stop using your retardedly cryptic language.
There is true randomness in the universe but only at the quantum level. Evolution is not random.
It is true taht the distinction between what "nature" makes and what humans make is somewhat arbitrary, but nonetheless there is a difference. ok you have stated this, now tell me why, and dont use your cryptic language, explain it plainly, what is the differance? Cause unless you will admit that humans are above nature then you would then be on a slippery slope with things ascending above the physical and eventually becoming non physical, if the universe creates creatures that go "above" it, what are the implications? Humans are either entwined with nature physically by an unbreakable bond, which makes the universe inteligent, or they are supernatural.
Humans are a natural phenomenon and there is no reason why the universe needs to be intelligent in order for humans to be intelligent. Intelligence is an evolved property, like walking upright. The smarter apes lived and reproduced, the dumber ones died.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Fine, let's see your evidence for a mind that exists without a brain. Or even your coherent theory for how this could be possible.
i could theorize that awareness is not connected to the body, and that our awareness is only pulled into the dimension through the organism of the human form. Look at quantum mechanics, it shows that their is most likely more than 10 dimensions, we can see 3 of them, i could theorize endlessly about these dimensions and what is possible through such parameters of 10+ dimensions. You can do it also, you should try it sometime.
You awareness consists of electrochemical exchanges in your brain. It is partly electrical energy and partly a chemcial exchange of ions across a neural gap. It is made matter and energy just like everything else in this universe.
If awareness is only physical atoms moving from place to place then their can be no distinction between the universe and man, thus we should infer that the universe is inteligent, why? becasue I am a process of the universe and I am inteligent, I have an unbroken bond through the physical elements with all things in the universe, my energy is its energy, we are one and the same. The energy that I am will go right back into the universe and become something else, What distinction do you make between me and a tree or a stone or a star? we are all the same things, complex constructs of a universal function, the universe is indeed inteligent if indeed i am conected to it in the way that you speak, by the unbroken bond of physics.
There is true randomness in the universe but only at the quantum level. Evolution is not random.
please explain to me this randomness, becasue as i understand it even at the quantum level it is not truly random but only seems to be, please enlighten me. and yes you agree with me that evolution is not random but set by the laws that govern in this universe.
Humans are a natural phenomenon and there is no reason why the universe needs to be intelligent in order for humans to be intelligent. Intelligence is an evolved property, like walking upright. The smarter apes lived and reproduced, the dumber ones died.
i went over the first portion in my last statements, and i have a question for your theory,
if all the dumber ones died as you say, how did any of the one before it live? that really doesnt make any sense, you will have to state it in a differant manner. yes and indeed inteligence in an evolved property that is not random and is set in the unversal laws of the universe, it is a part of the universes plan and function.
- Login to post comments
Offline The claim that it is a scientific fact that the world is billions of years old, is just patently false. There has never been anykind of universal consensus on this subject. Second, you only believe in the old earth theory because there's an agenda to teach it in the public school system. Third, evev
if the world IS billions of years old, this doesn't threaten Christianity! lol We never officially stated that the world was young. My point is that we are open to the idea of an old world, if scientific evidence can be produced to convince us. Thus far, there has been no hard data supporting it. If you go to the Institution for Creation Research (ICR.org), they have an extensive list of scientists (biologists, geologists, astrophycists) who believe in a young earth. True, there are some science Christians that believe in an old earth. Hugh Ross (reasons.org) is one of them. I believe if you study this subject, you will see evidence for both sides.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
- Login to post comments
Offline
if all the dumber ones died as you say, how did any of the one before it live? that really doesnt make any sense, you will have to state it in a differant manner. yes and indeed inteligence in an evolved property that is not random and is set in the unversal laws of the universe, it is a part of the universes plan and function.
How do bacteria live? How about simpler organisms like worms? How does a baby know to nurse when it has no practical experience? By instinct.
Given an ape with only instinct and an ape with instinct and superior intelligence, it's obvious who will come up on top. The smarter apes will learn to make better use of the surrounding resources. They can ward off attacks of apes with lesser intelligence. This gives them a huge advantage that tips the scales in their favor.
Those who do not share these traits will be out hunted, out gathered and find themselves in short supply. As such, they cannot no longer compete with their more intelligent brethren and either die of starvation or simply do not reproduce as often. Eventually the less intellegent apes will die off.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline double post
- Login to post comments
Here is a theory for you to refute, have fun.
Evidence for God
Assumptions that I will use to put forth my case;
Universe started from a singularity
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Universal laws cannot be broken.
Universal Forces are constant when being acted upon by the universal laws.
Let us go back to the dawn of time when all matter was concentrated in the singularity before the moment of the “big bang”. The elements do not exist yet because everything is contained in a single mass. Now the laws of the universe are already set, and the amount of mass also is set, the forces of nature also will be set as soon as the big bang happens, and as energy cannot be created nor destroyed their will be a set amount of energy for all time and it is contained in the singularity.
Big bang happens and things are set into motion.
The energy is sent out along with the matter and is expanding into space, as the mass separates the forces that are acted upon it set them up into different elements, strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces form the elements as we know them from the first one being hydrogen and slowly each one is built over time. Neurons, protons, quarks, and electrons all bouncing around while being acted upon by the laws and forces of the universe.
Now as you know the forces, laws, energy, and matter levels do not change as we know from physical laws that humans have discovered, these laws are constant and unchangeable as we know it. Now as time goes on the laws and the energy forces of all kinds act in a constant manner, they do not change, they stay the same the entire time. The matter which was at the beginning begins to change though, as it is acted upon by the forces and the laws and it becomes more and more complex, first with the basic elements, then with the elements creating compounds, all of this is happening from the constant laws and forces acting upon them, soon stars form and the compounds become massive creating all sorts of complex constructs.
Now these constructs are formed merely by the constant laws and constant forces that acted upon the matter from the beginning till they were formed, or did they not? Matter was static; energy guided by the laws formed the stars and planets, eventually forming galaxies.
And eventually the compounds became so complex that they created a living organism, although basic it had the ability, if acted upon by the laws and forces set forth from the beginning to create even more complex organism and eventually it will go on to create a human being, a conscious living creature with the ability to obtain logic, as to decode the universe.
Now one of these beings that has been created by these laws and forces sits at his computer and asks you a question about your logical system of thinking and here it is.
If all matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed and the physical laws of the universe are unchanging, and the forces that these laws produce are constant, show me why the plans for humanity existing were not pre programmed into the singularity, because it is evident that it was, with the forces and laws, matter and energy, set up in the beginning as such, to produce the human being.
It is much like the equation 2+2 =4 only much more complex, the universe as we know it is a closed system much like that equation, when the universe was in the singularity all that existed was 2+2, big bang happened and = 4
Singularity + time and laws = ME
So riddle me this atheists, what proof do you have to say this is not true, that the singularity was coded from the big bang till now to produce humanity, that the laws and forces were set up for the sole purpose to create living conscious beings.
Because the evidence that it did form them is right here, its me and you.
So now show me why the singularity and the laws of this universe were not in place to create me and you, show me why it is “random mutation” when really a random mutation is under the same laws and same forces as each and every atom, electron, and quark that exists, all to the pinnacle of forming me and you.
Now if the purpose set forth from the beginning was to create conscious living beings, is that not evidence of some sort of higher intellect that governed and thought out the universe?
Explain to me why it is not.
It sounds like you are arguing for some kind of deism. Some kind of god big bangs a universe into existence with all the forces and constants tweaked to allow for life to form. Sure I can't disprove that, but you can't prove it either. Personally I don't have much beef with deists. Just don't make the jump from that to Jesus for example! That gap is really wide.
It also sounds like you think most atheists believe the history of the universe to be completely deterministic. That is if we set the big bang off again, everything would happen just the same eventually creating you there in front of your computer. Quantum events however are completely random and unpredictable. Although we can predict when a single isotope might decay over time with a certain probability, we can't in any way say exactly when it will. Einstein hated that idea, and tried to find "hidden variables" that would direct the quantum world, but so far it seems that is the way things are.
So a single cosmic ray zapping the primordial soup might have set the whole history of life going in a completely different direction. Who knows?
Finally I don't believe blindly in any of this stuff. (Big bangs, quantum theory, primordial soups...etc.) I accept these ideas as the best models we have so far until better evidence comes along. Do you have a better model? Make your case, and I might change my mind. But always remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
You clearly don’t understand the rules of engagement in a values or philosophical debate.
Since Comfort and Cameron were representing the theist camp (a monotheist camp) that wanted to put forth a premise for consideration, they square with the AFFIRMATIVE position in the debate. That means in order to support their premises and ultimately their conclusion, they needed to actually bring something to the debate table in the way of tangible evidence.
Now, the affirmative Comfort-Cameron team claimed to have evidence for the existence of THEIR god that relies on scientific principles. Their BURDEN is to present that evidence in the form of constructive speeches that outline the case for discussion. This case also includes the specific definitions that are to be used in the debate. I agree that the resolution in this case was ambiguous. I would have preferred something like “Resolved: the existence of the Christian god can be proven using current scientific evidence,” with Comfort elucidating the defined particulars such as “existence,” “proven,” “the Christian god” etc. This is a tough job, agreed, especially since no one in history has ever actually presented this evidence in any reasonable way. For the CC team, the job entailed them formulating and presenting solid evidence for their case and then having a strategy to defend this case from negative counter arguments. I agree that the lack of typical formality in this debate allowed Comfort and Cameron to hide their deception more than they could have had the resolution been spelled out clearly. So in this sense, it was kind of “retarded” to use your terminology.
The negative RRS team of Brian and Kelly also needed to prepare for the resolution as well by bringing evidence that CLASHES with the definitions and arguments that the affirmative puts forward. The negative have a tough job as well. They need to anticipate the evidence that the affirmative will bring forward and then also save some time for making a case of their own. No matter what that case might entail, their first responsibility is to clash with the case the affirmative puts forward, which is to say that clash is their primary BURDEN. They have to meet this clash before they can build their own case because a lack of clash insinuates that the affirmative case has valid points that cannot be weakened, no matter how ridiculous those points might be.
Ray never presented an argument for his side using science. There was nothing scientific to clash with, which means that all of the work the negative team did in good faith in preparing for this debate was for naught. This is a glaring violation that you and some other theists conveniently ignore. By doing this and not meeting their burden, the CC team forced Brian and Kelly to make a decision on their toes; stay the course on science alone and keep to the agreed resolution or CLASH on what was actually presented.
I agree that perhaps Brian and Kelly could have carried on with their side by assuming an affirmative position for the negative case, but then they really would have been shifting the accepted burden, something you find so disdainful. And let us not forget that this is FUNDAMENTALIST land we are dealing with, the same lot that just opened a “scientific park” with dinosaurs roaming around in the same time period with people! I can understand the dilemma they were in because any of Ray’s coke can, architect-building, windshield wiper analogies left without clash would have implied that the Christians had a case with this utter nonsense. Brian and Kelly met their burden by attacking each of these mundane, ridiculous, special pleading points in their constructive and then they obliterated the CC team in the cross ex portions of the debate (which conveniently vanished from the ABC link). This was definitely the right call for the RRS to take in my book. No matter what contortions the Christian camp comes up with in this thread or elsewhere, they can’t claim that the RRS failed in their responsibilities as a team. That dishonor rests squarely on Comfort and Cameron’s heads. And though people like yourself will no doubt hide in the misconception that the RRS didn’t make a case of their own, the fence sitter “moderate” theist with an actual clue what debate is will certainly see this as one example of a failed attempt at faith justification.
Please revisit Brian’s explanation about Ray not being able to take us to god’s universe-making factory in defending his evidence for creation in the universe. If you dismissed this explanation offhandedly the first time you heard it, perhaps you ought to rethink that position now because you clearly understand the implications where Santa is concerned. And since Santa Claus has no house and your god construct has no universe factory, you seem to be one step closer to enlightenment. That is unless you want to step back from that position given the implications that means to your dogma. Only time will tell.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
Magus' answer, among others', should have been sufficient. But I feel I must make this abuntantly clear to you, theist1;
A dictionary is not the ultimate authority of what a word means. It is a log of how it has been used. The fact that yourslf, as well as the multitudes that have this use of the word "atheist" as the belief taht there is no god, is why the dictionary cites that use. The simple fact is that actual atheists use the word to mean the lack of belief. it's broken down this way:
theist=belief in god.
a- =the negation of
therefore a-theist, or atheist, is "not a theist." In other words, not someone who believes in a god. Therefore, it is a person who lacks a belief in any gods.
Or you could look at it this way. People who call themselves atheists have many opinions about gods--many say they don't know, some say they are pretty sure there isn't one, and some others say that no god could possibly exist. The only thing that is relevant is what is common to all of them, and taht simply is the lack of belief in any gods. All other opinions about gods or belief in gods may be ideas that certain atheists employ, yet it is the mere lack of belief that glues them together.
As for 'agnostic'; everyone is agnostic about any conception of god. That is, nobody knows for sure one way or another. Sure, some epope, claim knowledge, but there are either unfamiliar with the subject of epistemology and it's intricacies, or they are talking about a specific conception of god that has logical contradictions built into the definition (like the 'omnimax' gods).
Being an atheist/theist simply answers the question of what a person believes--what they hold to be true. Thus, if you ask a person if tehy believe in god, a yes makes them a theist and a no makes them an atheist. If they say "I don't know," then they simply have not answered the question asked, but have dodged it. The question wasnot what they knew, but what they believe.
As was said above, someone who claims that some god (or any god) does not or cannot exists has taken on the burden of proof. And when you hear someone say that such-and-such a god does not exist, it is their turn to provide the evidence.
But when I say, as I do often, that there simply is no sufficient evidence to convince me any god exists, then I've made no positive claim. Thus, I cannot hold the burden of proof in such a case because I've claimed nothing that can be proven--I've claimed I'm skeptical about a claim.
No doubt you've seen some personal attacks. Nobody is perfect, we have emotions, and sometimes our lack of perfection mixed with frustration gets the best of us. I try to give the person I disagree with the benefit of the doubt and try to look past emotional attacks and see what is behind that.
Many atheists are women. In fact, many of atheism's leaders have been women, including personal friends of mine such as Margaret Downey. And we have a woman leader here at the RRS by the name of Kelly, whom I also consider a friend (I've known her for less time) and have much respect for.
What you need to understand is that the support we have here is the justified skepticism of god-belief. There simply is no rational reason to believe in god. Faith is not rational. If your cause for believing is faith, then you are holding a position for irrational reasons. I tend not to live my life based upon ideas that have no rational justification. I'll bet that outside of religion, neither do most people with most things. I'd bet you fit into that category. Why do you use faith for god but not for other things like picking out cars or what food to eat?
And don't equivocate faith; my belief that the sun will come up tomorrow or that the chair will hold my weight is a reasonable expectation based upon experience. Belief in God cannot be based upon experience in this sense because if you could experience god this way, faith would be unnecessary.
**sigh**
I don't care if you think I'm smart, I am smart, or whatever. I could be the dumbest ass in the world but my words stad for themselves. I have no desire to "lord over" anyone, but merely think that faith is a damaging part of human psychology.
I'm interested in the truth. If there is a god, I want to know, because I am more interested in truth than what I want to be the case. I have no desire to run from god, avoid his rules, or anything like that. I simply want to enjoy my life with people I love, while helping make the world around me better because then I'm more likely to enjoy it.
I want you to enjoy your life with me, and only offer honestquestions and answers. if there is a god and it can be demonstrated, I will be ready to join you in theism. So far, no sufficient evidence has been presented.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Um time and space have been proven and can be seen. You should try looking at your watch sometime. As for space well enough people have travelled there and even the church knows it's real. Your argument shows how little you know about both science and religion. I'm not trying to be insulting but you should spend some time studying both.
It was in fact my study of the bible that made me see the truth. Christians always think they know the bible because they go to church and that atheists don't know the bible. The truth is we've studied the bible better than most any church goer.
In fact I haven't read the books by Richard Dawkins or any of the other books written by atheists. I have studied the bible, the history of the bible, and yes I went to church when I was young.
I wanted to believe there was a god but rather than let some some church house minister tell me his very uninformed view of the bible, I went out and studied it myself. I wanted to know how the bible came in to being. Who wrote the books, where they were found, is there any proof that what they say is true?
If you are truly honest about what you say you believe then do some independent research. Don't take an atheists word for it but also you have to realize you can't learn about the bible in a church. They only teach you the parts of the bible they want you to know.
For instance the Catholics left many books out of their bible when they translated it from Greek. King James did the same thing to the Catholic bible. King James Second version also left out some of the books that were in the first King James bible. There is even a verse of psalms they leave out of the King James version. You should find these books and verses and read what they have to say.
Most were found in the same places as the other books that are not left out, written by some of the same people who wrote the other books, on the same papyrus paper, in the same ink, written in the same language.
The bible has been taylored to control religious followers and to keep them dependant on the church rather than the religion itself. This is why you have different bibles or versions thereof in each religion. Each religion has it's own agenda therefore they taylor the bible to their views.
This among many other things you can discover for yourself if you keep outside influence out of your investigation.
Good luck
Sara and Theist, you are way out their league. I'm sure your arguments flew right over their heads. I predict that the creators of this site will eventually convert to theism. They just need a little education in logic, epistemology, philosophy, theology, history and REAL science. They're hearing things they never heard before. I highly suggest that all atheists read and listen to everything by these scholars and scientists (there are many more however).
William Lane Craig
J.P Moreland
Gary Habermas
Norman Geisler
Greg Bahnsen
Cornelius Vantil
Craig Hawkins
Hugh Ross (reasons.org)
Institute for Creation Research
etc, etc.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
Once again, many of us have already read these authors. I personally am familiar with not as many as others (due to me never having been indoctrinated so I didn't need to study my way out of a particular doctrine), as I'm not as concerned with Christianity as the general notion of God. My specialty is philosophy, and these posters are not above my head.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Satanbitch, many people have done what you advised and come to the conclusion that theism and the Bible are true. William F. Albright was considered the worlds greatest authority on archaeology. He initially set out to debunk the Bible, but due to the overwhelming evidence he discovered, he came to believe in the Bible.
William Ramsey is another scholar who studied everything as a skeptic, and came to believe.
Simon Greenleaf is considered to be the greatest evidence lawyer who ever lived in this country. He was a non-believer. His students at Harvard challenged him to use the legal/evidential method for the New Testament. After intense research, he came to believe in the authenticity of the NT. He later wrote a book called "Testimony of the Evangelists."
There are many, many scholars, historians and scientists who have come to the same conclusion. Listing them here would be too time consuming.
Also, you have to be careful who you read. There are alot of crackpots out there. I can give you an extensive list of resources to study if you are interested.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
As for Historians and Scholars, I doubt that what you and I would call a Historian or a Scholar would be the same thing. Someone who starts off a career brainwashed by a religion is not exactly someone i would trust for an honest opinion.
For instance there is a law school out there called "Regent school of law". This is a tier 4, 3 year law school. Tier 4 is the lowest form of university there is. This law school was founded by Pat Robertson's Evengelist TV show.
Most law schools are 8 year college's where they teach law and not religion.
Why is this bad? Well it just so happens that there are 150 of these Regent graduates who now work in the Department of Justice, apointed by G. W. In fact the assistant to Gonzales, the one that resigned, was a graduate of Regent.
I would not call these people lawyers, and I would not call religious people scholars or historians. That is an oxymoron.
I did not turn to Atheists to learn about whether there is or is not a god. In fact I studied the bible. I might have gotten the atheist view if the bible hadn't proven to me to be completely false.
Your argument is much like the "Global Warming" argument. All the scientists believed the evidence until oil companies decided they needed their own scientists to claim the opposite. It has been proven that those people were paid to give a preordained opinion.
Just like your historians and scholars.
This is just sophistry, or an obtuse attempt at it. I’d be impressed if you could actually summarize any of the key arguments of the people you have suggested we read in this list. Since many of us here have actually read some or all of the books, essays, arguments etc. concerning these “prominent” people or "institutionalizations," you are now in a position to actually put up or shut up with respect to their validity.
When I cite Sam Harris for instance, I can actually tell you that it is his explanation of the “moderate theist” or his impeccably written distinction between irrational theistic practices of “spirituality” and the more humanistic and thus rational “spirituality” that can be gained through meditation for instance. I don’t just say, “Read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.”
Yes, there are others who make suggestions about what to read, particularly on things like Noah’s ark BS. A link to talk origins would suffice in this case since the people who have debunked the mythology there have done so very well. However, any discussion on these matters are welcome after one does the reading from these sites. A list of please-reads-so-I-can-feel-I’ve-contributed, absent of any content on your part, doesn’t cut it in the world of people with drivers licenses and degrees of higher learning.
Since Sara at least attempts to explicate her arguments, she has a fighting chance of proffering something that might be hard for us to challenge. You on the other hand haven’t left the realm of clichés or parroted arguemnts. I'd be surprised if Sara takes any sollace in the fact that people like yourself "whoop" from the bleachers without actually knowing why you are doing it. I can't imagine that this bodes well for any critical thinking theists who genuinely wants to impart a thought process into the discussion.
Choose any book, essay, article, debate from any of these people you have coughed up, outline the merits of the argument(s) therein, post them using citation not large cut and paste sections and then see what happens. If you can’t do that much, then I believe your integrity on the issue will be pretty well spent…if that hasn’t already happened.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
ok so the universe making factory cant be visited, hmmm well, let me think about this. well when i see a stone on the beach such as you spoke of in the video, if their is a rock then their is a rocker? i guess that was a joke becasue it totally missed the point. well say i see a stone on the beach, i pick it up and it is worn and smooth and flat, thus giving me information on where the stone has been and what forces had been acted upon it, my reasoing will show me that it has been acted on by the force of erosion, and also it tells me alot about the force of erosion is also, how smooth it is and what not, all this information i get from the stone, i mean their is so mcuh information about this stones origin and what made it this way just contained in the stone to human reasoning.
Now when i look at a human being, i see all these same things, the forces tht have been acted upon it and the origin is revealed also, what kind of forces that have come into order to assign each function to the body, it is amazing what you can see in the design of the human body, or animals or plants, what u can see from the forces and laws that govern the matter to form such things.
one of these forces and laws that i reason out that must be applied to create humans, just like the stone that must have had a light force from water or another smooth rounding substance to form it, i see in a human being the intelect that it would require, and not randomness, as those people who rely on evolution say, evolution is merely the means of the laws and forces acted upon the matter, it is in no way an end.
and as someone said above about delving into quantum mechanics, into dimensions that we cant see or even understand logically, spheres of existance where i timeless God become logical to the human mind, possibly obtained by higher leveles of consiousness.
i went off on a tangent let me read some morewow you actually went out and tried to find out the truth for yerself, i never even thought of that, damn lemme go do it right now!
Most Christians haven't.. Don't feel bad.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Except that we know the Sun was formed before the Earth.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
You should really read the "Big Bang" theory before you attempt to instruct someone else on it. The "Big Bang" theory does not claim to be the beginning of everything just of this universe. And do me a favor before you comment on that please go look up the definition of "Universe".
end quote
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
2. the whole world, esp. with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe.
3. a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe.
4. Also called universe of discourse. Logic. the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion.
5. Also called universal set. Mathematics. the set of all elements under discussion for a given problem.
6. Statistics. the entire population under study.
indeed look at the word universe isnt it amazing.
basically it means the whole of everything in a general sense which is exactly what i meant, ill use any of the definitions.
and the absence of belief doesnt constitute a belief? so i actually am an agnostic when it comes to if fairies exist?
i mean i believe that fairies do not exist, but i dont really believe it becasie im beleiving they dont exist?
makes sense to me.......
I can't offer you proof that there is no God but I can offer you proof that there is no God as described by the Christians. I'm sure other people here can also. The most obvious is that the American Christians believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. Scientific fact shows that mankind is much older than that, and that the earth is even older than that, 135 billion years I believe it is, the universe is even older than that. This among many other instances proves that the God that most Americans believe in is completely disproven. No offense but saying that God is real because it cannot be disproven is like saying Barney the Dinosaur is real because millions of children believe he is.
end quote
hmmm when did i say god is not real becasue he cant be disproven, that wouldnt make god real, god is only real if he is real, theirs no other criterion to use to judge it, not beliefs or anything so yer comparison makes no sense.
about rhe bible that really doesnt say anything to me and the bible contains alot of analogies in my opinion and also myths that contain truths so arguing it is really not a good idea.
You are correct, arguing that the bible is true is pointless. It proves itself to be false.
Preach it like you feel it brother!
As long as my feelings, observations and perceptions have meaning to me and to those I interact with, then they have meaning. There is no reason to require more meaning than this.
So do you agree that stoning disobedient children and homosexuals is what we should be doing, as God commands?
Not only does this encompass what Christ is supposed to have said, but it explains it more completely. If you have not done so, you might want to try reading the teachings of Buddha. I am not a Buddhist but I have found them superior in every way.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!