The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

 

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!

 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
i do not mispell

i do not mispell intentianally i just dont care. 

More implied I guess. Our minds are physical and a complex structure and you implied that as complex as the universe is, it must have been designed thus our minds had to be designed. So what you are trying to say is intelligence is outside of design that it can exist with the complexity and with the ability to create a design, but not in and of itself need to be designed.

it is not the complexity that leads to inteligence, it is the concept of design, i can design a simple irrigation system, even if the design is simple, i can still recognize that it is deisgned, complexity is not a prerequisite for design. i am not saying anything about this "inteligent awareness" only that the implications of the universe give us reason to contend that it exists, as I have been showing the entire time.

I am pointing out the human reason that leads us to conject that indeed the universe was designed and indeed it has a designer, like i said before, you can infer all you want about what or who this "designer" is, im merely showing you reason for his existance.

 If intelligence need not be designed why would anything else need a designing? Why is intelligence valid with out design but the universe not?

 

you are speculating about the "inteligence" that designed the universe, im not trying to do that, merely show you that, indeed inteligence is needed to design a universe through common human reasoning. go to theologyweb.com if you want to speculate about the attribute of "god". its a great site.

 Some intelligence started the process, yet that intelligence for some reason didn't need to be designed, it just was/is. So why can intelligence exist without it being designed, but the universe for some reason cannot exist without it being designed?

the inteligence didnt start the proccess, it designed the proccess, you are going onto a tangent that i am not trying to imply, why do you have to go that far when discussing the fact that the universe needs a designer? we can speculate about the designer after we have conluded that indeed the universe is designed, im not trying to show you what the designer is like, or if he is even designed, merely show you what is right in front of us is designed, the universe.

 

Like I have said before it is possible that a god exists, the ones presented however... I can make any theory I want, but unless it has some sort of substance to it that distinguishes reality from fantasy, I shouldn't believe in it.

 

the substance of my theory is human reasoning comeing to the contention through deisgn concepts that indeed the universe as it is and as we understand it, would need a designer. im not trying to show you "God" , but merely that the idea of "God" is reasonable to common human sense.

 


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Tilberian Said: Sure

Quote:
Tilberian Said:

Sure abstracts are real. They exists as neurochemical exchanges in our brains. I challenge you to show that they have any existence outside our skulls, however. They certainly don't exist as independent entities.

Well, this is sort of a restatement of the old "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" question. If no human brains existed, would the number 2 exist? The answer, in both cases, is yes.

And, not to be too redundant, but SETI agrees. Like I said, they are spending people's hard earned dollars on the hope that it does not take a human mind to understand the reality of mathematical abstracts.

Quote:
If we admit that things for which we have no evidence exist, how do we draw any boundary between fantasy and reality?

I think the evidence for disembodied minds is there, but that empiricists, like yourself, disregard it. It seems odd that you can believe that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are true (those completely lacking in empirical data like origin theories, ancestral descent based on non-existent fossils, i.e. "missing links". etc.) but require rigorous proof for an immaterial being.

How do you explain out of body experience when people claim to have heard conversations or seen people around them when they were declared clinically "dead"?

Quote:
Our senses are not non-physical. They are composed of energy and matter, just like everything else in the universe. I don't see how a very material phenomenon, like our senses, could possibly point to something immaterial.

Plus, our sensing or imagining something is very poor evidence of anything. Our senses are inexact at best and subject to all kinds of false readings. And you just have to browse the fiction section to see what our imaginations are capable of.

We are suffused with energy all the time, and we do sense energy in our cells, our environment and our heads in the form of brain activity. This, I think, accounts for our sensation that we are feeling things that are not physically there. In any case, I'm not very interested in explaining away why people feel this or that. People feel and think all kinds of crazy shit.

Wow. You've totally dug yourself in a hole with that statement. How do you know that what you think or feel about energy accounting for "our sensation that we are feeling things that are not physically there" isn't equally as "crazy" or "false" as my feeling?

Also, you are arguing in a circle. You say that we "know" our minds are physical so that proves there is no non-physical minds. You don't know anything of the sort. All you know is that when a person thinks, their brain registers activity that can be measured electrically. Its the same as saying that when a person uses a computer, the computer registers activity that can be measured electrically.

So in essence, your argument does not support causality of minds from brains, but merely points to the phenomenon of brain activity when stimulated. What causes that activity or stimulation is at the crux of the matter.

Quote:
I have a very complete theory connecting brains to minds, complete with empirical and experimental evidence, peer reviewed and unrefuted for decades now. You have nothing showing that a mind can exist independent of a brain, except a number of superstitions that predate science. The question in science is not if a brain produces a mind, but rather how exactly that happens.

Ok. So, again this does nothing to prove that brains create minds, only that they are associated from our view.

But the more interesting statement is that there's supposedly a theory that emphatically points to minds originating from brains, but that it lacks "how" that occurs....that's sort of like putting the cart before the horse wouldn't you say? If you don't know "how" it happens, how do you know it happens in the manner that you suggest?

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
just so we can all

just so we can all understand the concept of design, here is the definition.

de·sign /dɪˈzaɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-zahyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.
–verb (used without object) 7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
–noun 9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.
12. the art of designing: a school of design.
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Scottmax said: As

Quote:
Scottmax said:

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.

If all that exists is purely a manifestation of physical interactions, then your perceptions do not matter, they are illusions. If the universe is without meaning and you are a product of that universe, you have no meaning.

The fact that you insist that your life is meaningful just goes to show that a purely materialist worldview is either a.) not accurate or b.) has caused humans to develop delusional tendencies.

Quote:
So do you agree that stoning disobedient children and homosexuals is what we should be doing, as God commands?

Technically, the penalty for ALL sin is death. Expediting it through capital punishment for certain sins was meant as a deterrant to keep those sins from becoming pervasive in the nation of Israel.

While governments today have the option to use capital punishment, there is no specific command that requires its continuance in light of Christ's sacrifice. Now all people everywhere have the opportunity to repent from their sins and be forgiven.

But, just an aside, if a nation were to actually enact laws that used capital punishment as outlined in the OT, I don't think it would be a highly populated one since most of the citizens (and nearly all government officials Smiling would have to be killed.

BTW, please read my post to Gato on the subject of "children" being used in this context. They are most likely adult offspring as the terms "drunkard and glutton" imply.

Quote:

In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars as the northern quarter:--by generosity, courtesy and benevolence, by treating them as he treats himself, and by being as good as his word. [Buddha, from the Sigalovada Suttanta (Teaching of the Compassionate Buddha, p. 110)]

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.

I suppose if you remove both statments completely from their overall context, you might have a point. But I'm pretty sure that treating someone with compassion (i.e. relieving a person's suffering by teaching them how to be a Buddhist) in order to improve your own karma isn't what Christ taught.

 

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sara

Sara wrote:

Quote:
Scottmax said:

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.

If all that exists is purely a manifestation of physical interactions, then your perceptions do not matter, they are illusions. If the universe is without meaning and you are a product of that universe, you have no meaning. The fact that you insist that your life is meaningful just goes to show that a purely materialist worldview is either a.) not accurate or b.) has caused humans to develop delusional tendencies.

Hi Sara,

There is at least one more option: c.) is meaningful between the humans involved in the relationship, just not meaningful to non-conscious or immaterial objects.  And why should the meaning between two or more people be any more meaningful to the universe as a whole then it would be extrinsically meaningful to a pile of rocks?  Why must it be meaningful to the universe as well?  How can it be meaningful to the universe?  I think your misconception stems from the assumption that secular ethical systems are necessarily comprised of subjective tastes that remain in the subjective realm and necessarily lead to moral relativism.  They do not remain in the subjective realm.  If I say "I like music," then that, while originating as a subjective statement (though not necessarily without objectivity if influenced physiologically), is still an empirical fact when applied to a consensus of who does and who doesn't like music.  Those are now objective facts with meaning in, for example, a study where five people like music and five people don't.  The point is that even subjective opinions do not make facts, but they are still objective truths about the desires or beliefs of a person.  This information is usable in social science and psychology.  Are you familiar with Positive Psychology?  http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=298&article=1

Do you think that we can identify problems and weaknesses in human psychology that cause unhappiness?  Then why not strengths and traits that buffer unhappiness?

What is actually an illusion is intrinsic value- what you are proposing, because it comes in relation to an abstract being in an abstract realm.  And since we can't fully know God's nature (as Aquinas says- we can only describe God unequivocally, because God is beyond the limits of our words, like "goodness&quotEye-wink- we can't even positively determine what is from God (as opposed to from man or demons)- or what is good or bad by our standards, because we don't know what is part of His "just" side in action, what is random (as some apologists claim is why bad things happen to good people), or what may appear to be punishment, but is really just something meant to "refine us like gold" (which is a further qualification of the second).  Moral values are human desires coupled with states of affairs, and we don't know God's states of affairs.  This is more of an argument against an omni-benevolent deistic notion of god, but the situation doesn't really change much when we consider God's likes and dislikes in the bible, which can only claim to validate morality ontologically.  There is no evidence absolute morality exists anywhere in nature.  If absolute morality was ontologically sound, we would expect to see every evil action cause suffering to its perpetrator and every good action bring happiness to its actor.  Sometimes this happens, but not always.  Evil people often die happy and good people die sad and/or unappreciated.  If we consider the animal kingdom this gets much worse.  So, we have empirical evidence that a.) absolute morality does not exist, or b.) the standards of absolute morality are unknowable, because some/all of the reward/punishment is either shuffled off to another existence, or a God administers those rewards/punishments according to His will.  Either way, it doesn't sound promising for an absolute system leading to human happiness.

 

Scottmax wrote:
So do you agree that stoning disobedient children and homosexuals is what we should be doing, as God commands?

Sara wrote:
Technically, the penalty for ALL sin is death. Expediting it through capital punishment for certain sins was meant as a deterrant to keep those sins from becoming pervasive in the nation of Israel.

While governments today have the option to use capital punishment, there is no specific command that requires its continuance in light of Christ's sacrifice. Now all people everywhere have the opportunity to repent from their sins and be forgiven.

Again, the issue is not deterrence or salvation, it is the value relationships between crimes (not) fitting the punishments outlined in the OT.  Why should picking up sticks on the Sabbath require death by stoning, while a beaten slave who dies a few days later goes unpunished, "because he is his money?" 

Quote:
But, just an aside, if a nation were to actually enact laws that used capital punishment as outlined in the OT, I don't think it would be a highly populated one since most of the citizens (and nearly all government officials Smiling would have to be killed.

Well, I finally agree with you on something :~)

Sara wrote:
BTW, please read my post to Gato on the subject of "children" being used in this context. They are most likely adult offspring as the terms "drunkard and glutton" imply.

The idea still repulses me, whether it was a child or not.  There are plenty of other unjust laws that do not need to involve children to be horrendous.

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sara

whoopsy-double post


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi Flatlanderox, I hope you

Hi Flatlanderox, I hope you don't mind if I jump in on some of your points.  You always have thoughtful posts.

flatlanderdox wrote:
  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.

There is a difference between transcendental reality and unknown reality. 

Quote:
I think it is a mistake to assume: as we, so God. Who is to say what the consciousness of God is like?

I think the Cartesian Demon is not so much "as we, so God" as "so God, so another version of God."  It actually affirms the incertitude in your question, "Who is to say what the consciousness of God is like?"

Quote:
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.

Okay, but proposing presuppostionalism as an alternative to empiricism is exchanging the (supposed) "hermeneutical spiral" for a hermeneutical circle.  Judging by the advances made by empirical science in contrast to the advances made in eastern theology (mindset), I'd say that science has much more to offer humanity for it's hard work.  Whether technology is more beneficial to us as a species compared to this eastern mindset you mentioned is a whole other issue, but I would say ultimately, it is (if we can get on the same page before we destroy ourselves).  In any case, the advances in science show that we can learn, create, and build upon that learning.  To say that because there are gaps in our understanding, that the system is "illusory" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Those gaps are not necessarily transcendent, just unknown.  There is a difference.  There is no reason to or even a way to reify transcendental propositions coherently.

 

Quote:
And this is understandably difficult since there are so many different perspectives within Christianity. Speaking as a Protestant Christian theologian-in-process

 As in "Process Theology" or a theologian-in-the-making?

Quote:
Perhaps in the future I will encounter such dissonance that will demand me to more seriously examine other perspectives. But until then…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.

 I must confess, I didn't think you were a Christian.  I thought perhaps you were a Panentheist.

Quote:
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.

Another reason why I thought you were a Panentheist, because your deistic arguments usually have little or nothing to do with morality- which is fine.  If there was teleology in the universe, this would probably be closer to the truth IMHO, judging by the lack of evidence for absolute morality.

Quote:
As such, we are not surprised to find Him elusive and non-reductionistic.

Same for if He didn't exist at all.

Quote:
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.

Flatlanderox, how in the world can you not take an agnostic position if you are going to discredit the scientific method?  I mean, that's fine if you are terminally attracted to the notion that there is a transcendental reality that is somehow relevant or necessary in our lives, so you can't trust empiricism (although if it is relevant, then it is not transcendental and it is empirically determinable in some way- we just have to be more creative), but faith epistemology (based on the revelations of religious figures) has no method of determining reality from non-reality... so how do you verify evidence?  You can't have empiricism and eat your "anything goes" cake too.  If there are unknowns that transcend reality, then there is no use for tainted empiricism.  How can we know some things, as you stated, yet concede to emperically deleterious supernatural affectation?  You must have a completely determinable God in order to determine the transcendental consistency necessary to avoid upsetting the results of the emperical method or you must ditch one or the other.  I still haven't seen how you reconcile the two plausibly...  Aren't you just playing epistemological Switzerland?

Thanks for your time.  Nice post.

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
boo

after viweing alot of the posts and seeing that alot of athiets do not have a problem with deists, well chestians are diests as if we look at the christian theologic documents we come across this,

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made

written by the famous christian philosopher paul, and as you know, what he is stating is that "revelation" is not needed to understand Gods "eternal power and divine nature" so indeed if you do not have a problem with diests why have a problem with christians when they are diestic in nature.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
hfh

The idea still repulses me, whether it was a child or not. There are plenty of other unjust laws that do not need to involve children to be horrendous.

hmmmm you just stated There are plenty of other unjust laws what exaclty are you talking about "unjust" what criterion are you using to declare these laws "unjust" as i am lead to belive that you are an athiest and all "justice" is subjective am I correct? how can you label one law "unjust" without a criterion for justice? where is your source for this creterion of "justice" and if your criterion is "your own opinion" then do not say that those laws are "unjust" becasue indeed they were "just" to the people that enacted the laws, equal to your "opinion" of what is "just" or "unjust".


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Sara

Sara wrote:

Quote:
Scottmax said:

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.

If all that exists is purely a manifestation of physical interactions, then your perceptions do not matter, they are illusions. If the universe is without meaning and you are a product of that universe, you have no meaning.

We are going in circles. I don't give a damn if my life has a meaning to the universe. It has meaning for me.

I like chocolate. Eating a high quality dark chocolate has meaning for me. It doesn't have meaning for some friends of mine. This does not reduce the quality of my enjoyment of the chocolate.

Sara wrote:
Quote:

In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars as the northern quarter:--by generosity, courtesy and benevolence, by treating them as he treats himself, and by being as good as his word. [Buddha, from the Sigalovada Suttanta (Teaching of the Compassionate Buddha, p. 110)]

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.

I suppose if you remove both statments completely from their overall context, you might have a point. But I'm pretty sure that treating someone with compassion (i.e. relieving a person's suffering by teaching them how to be a Buddhist) in order to improve your own karma isn't what Christ taught.

That is beside the point. You claimed that Jesus was the first to state the golden rule in positive terms and that is demonstrably false.

Here is another:

May I do to others as I would that they should do to me. (Plato, fourth century B.C.)

Plato was obviously very well known at the time that Christ is said to have lived and preached these words.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
We are going in circles. I

We are going in circles. I don't give a damn if my life has a meaning to the universe. It has meaning for me.

please tell me what gives your life meaning so i can use it as a criterion to view the universe, what about your life "gives it meaning" maybe if you explain to me what gives something "meaning" then I can explain to you why the universe has meaning, please let me know.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: i do not

thiest1 wrote:

i do not mispell intentianally i just dont care.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it would appear that you care about asserting your claims and arguments, which necessitates their being well-formed in order to be understood - or taken seriously. In my opinion, if a person doesn't care enough about their argument to at least run it through a spell-check (never mind learning the rules of communicating effectively in writing), why should anyone care enough to read their rambling screeds?

 

thiest1 wrote:

the substance of my theory is human reasoning comeing to the contention through deisgn concepts that indeed the universe as it is and as we understand it, would need a designer. im not trying to show you "God" , but merely that the idea of "God" is reasonable to common human sense.

I'm sure someone pointed this out to you like 30 pages ago, but you're comparing man-made objects to things in the natural world (and maybe 3 pages ago "apples and oranges" were mentioned). Where you see "design" in nature is more accurately classified as "the results of adaptation."

Let me try and reply to your argument in a more simple way, because while I'm no scientist, I have observed things that lead me to certain conclusions about the world. I spend most of my weekends gardening, and I study the life and environment in my back yard in order to know what needs to be done to keep everything alive and healthy. I have observed that the life that arises on its own (i.e. I didn't plant it there) is perfectly suited to the semi-arid climate and the sandy, rocky soil here in an area that was once a river wash. I observe leaves that are shaped in such a way as to collect any rain as it occurs (precious little these days), and succulents and cacti that absorb and store whatever moisture that comes their way. In any patch of dirt, I get completely different results depending upon how much, if any, I water that dirt. No water, and I may get no plant life or just some of the native flora that will grow with just the moisture absorbed by the soil. Should I water it every day, other things start growing that obviously require more water, as is evident in studying the properties of the plants that grow under those conditions.

Similarly the backyard wildlife, from the insects all the way up to the hawks that have made their nests in the nearby electrical towers. Most of the wild birds and mammals in this huge urban environment have adapted to the destruction of their natural habitat by finding all the places where humans have tried to provide them an approximation of that habitat with food, bird baths & houses, ponds, nesting areas, etc. The squirrels who realize that by being "cute" they can get more food out of humans have a better chance of thriving in these conditions, so in many places (such as our local hospital) the squirrels trust humans enough to come in physical contact with them in order to take offered food.

It's been my observation that every life form does the best they can with what they've got, which supports adaptation rather than "design" or even "creation" by some ethereal, unnecessary "designer/creator."

 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it would appear that you care about asserting your claims and arguments, which necessitates their being well-formed in order to be understood - or taken seriously. In my opinion, if a person doesn't care enough about their argument to at least run it through a spell-check (never mind learning the rules of communicating effectively in writing), why should anyone care enough to read their rambling screeds?

all i care about is the idea being transmitted, sorry i dont follow your made up "rules", if you do not want to respond to me becasue of my spelling then dont, but apparently you yourself dont mind my spelling errors becaue you have responded. spell check doesnt add or take away from an idea, so dont act like it does.

I'm sure someone pointed this out to you like 30 pages ago, but you're comparing man-made objects to things in the natural world (and maybe 3 pages ago "apples and oranges" were mentioned). Where you see "design" in nature is more accurately classified as "the results of adaptation."

tell me the differance between this "result of adaptation" and "man made object" , what is your reasoning for saying one is differant from the other, when both are a proccess in the universal function, take man out of the universe as a procces and you will go somewhere that you would not like this conversation to go, trust me, leave man in as a procces off the universe, as what athiests contend, and then explain to me why "man made object" and "result of adaptation" is differant.

It's been my observation that every life form does the best they can with what they've got, which supports adaptation rather than "design" or even "creation" by some ethereal, unnecessary "designer/creator."

"the best they got" is a proccess of the universal function, which requires a design to apply this "best they got" , adaptation is in itself a "design", how does adapatation take away from design, it is a procces of design, you only look at the outer shell without viweing the inner egg, so you miss the entire reasoning behind "adaptation" as most athiests do.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: Perhaps I'm

thiest1 wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it would appear that you care about asserting your claims and arguments, which necessitates their being well-formed in order to be understood - or taken seriously. In my opinion, if a person doesn't care enough about their argument to at least run it through a spell-check (never mind learning the rules of communicating effectively in writing), why should anyone care enough to read their rambling screeds?

 

all i care about is the idea being transmitted, sorry i dont follow your made up "rules", if you do not want to respond to me becasue of my spelling then dont, but apparently you yourself dont mind my spelling errors becaue you have responded. spell check doesnt add or take away from an idea, so dont act like it does.

 

But that's just my point! Because of your writing "style" your ideas aren't transmitted as much more than garbled static with a few familiar words here and there to some of us. I didn't make up the rules of the English language, I just have enough respect for the people to whom I'm trying to communicate my ideas to follow them to the best of my ability, as I was taught in grade school English classes. Then again, that was 35 years ago when schools were more academically challenging, too. Any friggin' moron can graduate high school by having an 8th grade level of literacy these days. It's criminal, and it's why we have a president who can't pronounce the word "nuclear" properly, and makes up words as he goes along -- and no one calls him on it! Those who would don't have access to him and those who can either don't have the decency or the balls to correct the fool.

 

thiest1 wrote:

I'm sure someone pointed this out to you like 30 pages ago, but you're comparing man-made objects to things in the natural world (and maybe 3 pages ago "apples and oranges" were mentioned). Where you see "design" in nature is more accurately classified as "the results of adaptation."

 

tell me the differance between this "result of adaptation" and "man made object" , what is your reasoning for saying one is differant from the other, when both are a proccess in the universal function, take man out of the universe as a procces and you will go somewhere that you would not like this conversation to go, trust me, leave man in as a procces off the universe, as what athiests contend, and then explain to me why "man made object" and "result of adaptation" is differant.

 

You honestly can't see the difference? I don't see man as a "a proccess in the universal function" at all. Because the term is absolutely meaningless to me at this point. Human beings are inhabitants of the universe, not processes. The process of manufacturing a shoe, or even a shoe factory is entirely different than the billions of years of adaptations that we've observed to have occurred, and continue to occur in nature.

 

theist1 wrote:

It's been my observation that every life form does the best they can with what they've got, which supports adaptation rather than "design" or even "creation" by some ethereal, unnecessary "designer/creator."

 

"the best they got" is a proccess of the universal function, which requires a design to apply this "best they got" , adaptation is in itself a "design", how does adapatation take away from design, it is a procces of design, you only look at the outer shell without viweing the inner egg, so you miss the entire reasoning behind "adaptation" as most athiests do.

 

I truly don't understand WTF you are talking about, and I don't mean that as an insult or sarcasm. Keep in mind that I am neither philosopher nor scientist. What do you mean by "a proccess of the universal function"? What universal function, and why does it require design? Design implies a designer, and I just don't see adaptation as something that would have had to be "foreknown" in order for it to follow that it be a "process of design". There's no "reasoning behind" adaptation; it is merely a biological, natural response to significant environmental changes in order to continue the species.

Sorry, I just can't make the leap of faith it takes to see "design" in nature beyond the patterns that emerge from various species' adaptations, because it can only lead to the need for a "designer" that requires an even bigger leap of faith.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
But that's just my point!

But that's just my point! Because of your writing "style" your ideas aren't transmitted as much more than garbled static with a few familiar words here and there to some of us. I didn't make up the rules of the English language, I just have enough respect for the people to whom I'm trying to communicate my ideas to follow them to the best of my ability, as I was taught in grade school English classes. Then again, that was 35 years ago when schools were more academically challenging, too. Any friggin' moron can graduate high school by having an 8th grade level of literacy these days. It's criminal, and it's why we have a president who can't pronounce the word "nuclear" properly, and makes up words as he goes along -- and no one calls him on it! Those who would don't have access to him and those who can either don't have the decency or the balls to correct the fool.

 even if you write with using no vowels the human mind can decipher each word, so if you cant decipher my words becasue they are spelled wrong i am just going to have to call you a moron.

 

You honestly can't see the difference? I don't see man as a "a proccess in the universal function" at all. Because the term is absolutely meaningless to me at this point. Human beings are inhabitants of the universe, not processes. The process of manufacturing a shoe, or even a shoe factory is entirely different than the billions of years of adaptations that we've observed to have occurred, and continue to occur in nature.

 I can see a differance, i am a thiest, i understand that man is a supernatural being, you on the otherhand, are an athiest, someone who does not belive in the supernatural, you belive in only the material universe and that is the extent of your understanding, therefore you can make no distinction among the "inhabitants of the universe" and the other complex contructs such as worms, stars, planets, frogs, rocks, and whatevr other forms exist, to you everything is material, we are only material procceses of atoms moving about and changing positions, these atoms and theire complexity is what you call "inhabitants" so you are indeed very wrong when you say that we are differant from yer view, unless you will agree with me that man is supernatural, then you can not reason out that man is seperated from any other complex construct that the universe happens to form, sorry you can not have both be true at the same time. so tell me what is an "inhabitant of the universe" as u so call us and what is the differane between a "inhabitant of the universe" and lets say a complex construct such as a star?

 

I truly don't understand WTF you are talking about, and I don't mean that as an insult or sarcasm. Keep in mind that I am neither philosopher nor scientist. What do you mean by "a proccess of the universal function"? What universal function, and why does it require design? Design implies a designer, and I just don't see adaptation as something that would have had to be "foreknown" in order for it to follow that it be a "process of design". There's no "reasoning behind" adaptation; it is merely a biological, natural response to significant environmental changes in order to continue the species.

if you really want to know what a universal fucntion is go back and read all my posts, i already explained it. adaptation is in itself a design, it "adapts" to its enviroment through its design, go back and look at the post for the definition of design, then look at the procces of adaptation, it takes its enviroment and used it to form itself, that is the deisgn of adaptation.

 

it is merely a biological, natural response to significant environmental changes in order to continue the species.

you already know the design process of adaptation as you just explained it in this sentence.

 

Sorry, I just can't make the leap of faith it takes to see "design" in nature beyond the patterns that emerge from various species' adaptations, because it can only lead to the need for a "designer" that requires an even bigger leap of faith.

it is by no means a "leap of faith" but a logical inferance, so no need to have faith in it, it is reasoned out by the logical procces of reasoning.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Well, this is

Sara wrote:

Well, this is sort of a restatement of the old "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" question. If no human brains existed, would the number 2 exist? The answer, in both cases, is yes.

And, not to be too redundant, but SETI agrees. Like I said, they are spending people's hard earned dollars on the hope that it does not take a human mind to understand the reality of mathematical abstracts.

I disagree. The sound is not a sound until it's picked up by ears. Until then, it's a displacement of air with a set of perfectly indeterminate characteristics. It is Schrodinger's cat, neither alive nor dead. It's an uncollapsed quantum waveform. I consider this level of existence to be a technicality only. For all practical purposes, there is no sound.

As for the number 2, it is possible that aliens never found any particular use for dividing the universe up into units, then adding the units back together. Who knows? At any rate, I certainly don't base my opinion of abstract concepts on what SETI chooses to spend money on.

However, I won't be surprised if aliens do turn out to share many of the same concepts we have. Why? Because we share the same universe. We are all measuring the same matter and energy. You see, it is the matter and energy that are real and constant, not the concepts we attach to them. 

Sara wrote:

I think the evidence for disembodied minds is there, but that empiricists, like yourself, disregard it. It seems odd that you can believe that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are true (those completely lacking in empirical data like origin theories, ancestral descent based on non-existent fossils, i.e. "missing links". etc.) but require rigorous proof for an immaterial being.

Oh dear. I can't believe you're going to try to question evolution. I really thought you were smarter than that. Please please please just go to some reputable science websites like Scientific American or Nature and search for some articles on evolution before you say such silly things. Please.

What you will find is that the evidence for evolution is complete and totally compelling. It is simply the only theory that fits the evidence we have. Gaps in the fossil record SUPPORT the theory of evolution and the theories for how fossils are formed.

Your accusation that we're demanding more evidence for immaterial beings than we demand for evolution is a complete reversal of the facts. Evidence for evolution comes from every branch of science concerned with life. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers and dozens of books have been written showing different ways that evolution works and expanding on the theory. Evolutionary theory has made predictions that later discoveries have confirmed as true. We have observed evolution actually happening, in living creatures, in multiple cases. Evolution has stood up to probably more scrutiny and more attempts to tear it down than any other theory in the history of science. It is something that we don't want to believe, but are compelled to by the facts. We can recreate evolution in labs and with computer models. Plus, we can defend evolution logically as the only possible outcome of natural selection and transfer of genetic material. I could go on.

Our evidence for immaterial beings? Nothing that counts as evidence. Stories, fairy tales and hoaxes. Pictures that turn out to be doctored, or are subject to any number of conflicting interpretations. Events that occur only in the mind of one person and cannot be collaborated by anyone. Naked assertions or tenuous connections based on faulty logic. My cancer got better therefore God exists. Claims of powers and abilities that cannot be repeated in any experiment deserving of the name. Testimony tainted by prejudice, peer pressure, ignorance, political agendas and profit motive.

If there were even 1/100th the evidence for immaterial things that there is for evolution, I'd be an enthusiastic paranormal researcher. But there's just nothing there for an objective person to believe in. 

Sara wrote:

How do you explain out of body experience when people claim to have heard conversations or seen people around them when they were declared clinically "dead"?

A number of possible ways:

- The people weren't as dead as others thought they were

-  They made some logical guesses about who might be in the room or what was being said and got close to the truth

-  They heard later about the event that took place while they were unconscious then "remembered" hearing or seeing it

- People's brains have some ability to process and store information even at very low levels of activity

All more plausible explainations than the incoherent concept of an immaterial soul. 

Sara wrote:

Wow. You've totally dug yourself in a hole with that statement. How do you know that what you think or feel about energy accounting for "our sensation that we are feeling things that are not physically there" isn't equally as "crazy" or "false" as my feeling?

Because your theory rests on added assumptions about the existence of immaterial things and mine does not. We know that energy exists. We have no evidence for immaterial entities at all.

Sara wrote:

Also, you are arguing in a circle. You say that we "know" our minds are physical so that proves there is no non-physical minds. You don't know anything of the sort. All you know is that when a person thinks, their brain registers activity that can be measured electrically. Its the same as saying that when a person uses a computer, the computer registers activity that can be measured electrically.

No, I'm saying that we have a theory for non-physical minds that does not require unproven elements like immaterial souls, and completely explains all the phenomena we observe around minds. Your theory of immaterial minds requires elements for which we have no evidence and that beg a number of thorny additional questions.

I don't think there's any fundamental difference between the way our brains function and the way computers work. It's all transfer of information from input to memory to output via electrical signals.

Sara wrote:

So in essence, your argument does not support causality of minds from brains, but merely points to the phenomenon of brain activity when stimulated. What causes that activity or stimulation is at the crux of the matter.

Tell me why you think that the mind is separate from brain activity, or in any way different from it. When you answer, keep in mind that we can observe that when brain activity stops, the mind goes away. 

Sara wrote:

Ok. So, again this does nothing to prove that brains create minds, only that they are associated from our view.

All you are doing here is ignoring all the evidence and science that shows that brains produce minds and asserting that we don't have proof because we don't yet know enough to give a complete, step-by-step description of how the brain does it. This is a "soul of the gaps" arguement - a straight arguement from ignorance. "We don't know how brains create minds, therefore a soul did it."

The simplest explanation for the data we have about minds is that brains create them using the matter and energy of this universe. Let's hear your competing theory that doesn't add fantasical elements.  

Sara wrote:

But the more interesting statement is that there's supposedly a theory that emphatically points to minds originating from brains, but that it lacks "how" that occurs....that's sort of like putting the cart before the horse wouldn't you say? If you don't know "how" it happens, how do you know it happens in the manner that you suggest?

1. We have never observed a mind without a brain.

2. If a brain is destroyed or rendered inert, the mind goes away.

3. If a brain is affected in some way, we see corresponding changes in the mind.

4. We have complete theories for how brains can produce every form of behaviour that we consider to be evidence of a mind (speech, reactions, memory etc)

Remember, Sara, you have to do more than pick holes in my theory. You have to show why your theory is better and more parsimonious before we should logically accept it. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: The idea

thiest1 wrote:
The idea still repulses me, whether it was a child or not. There are plenty of other unjust laws that do not need to involve children to be horrendous. hmmmm you just stated There are plenty of other unjust laws what exaclty are you talking about "unjust" what criterion are you using to declare these laws "unjust" as i am lead to belive that you are an athiest and all "justice" is subjective am I correct? how can you label one law "unjust" without a criterion for justice? where is your source for this creterion of "justice" and if your criterion is "your own opinion" then do not say that those laws are "unjust" becasue indeed they were "just" to the people that enacted the laws, equal to your "opinion" of what is "just" or "unjust".

Hello theist1,

If you want to have a discussion about absolute/relative/objective/subjective morality (and realize that they are all differEnt, then please see my many posts in this thread about it and respond to my objections already made.  They answer your post above and your inference that secular morality must lead to moral relativism.  Instead of asking me why I chose the word "unjust," why didn't/don't you give us a plausible extrabiblical reason why the example I've already submitted (e.g. death for Sabbath breakers, yet no punishment for beating one's slave to death if he lives a few days before he dies, "for he is his money&quotEye-wink is not unjust?  Would you adhere to this qualification as the punishment fitting the crime today?  Why or why not?  (Please don't mention Jesus negating the law, because that is irrelevant to the issue of value relation qualification here.) Because someone wrote it down thousands of years ago does not make morality absolute any more than it would if we write it down now.  Don't conflate absolute law with objective law- they are differEnt.  And for pity's sake, please don't confuse moral "law" with the laws of physics.  Thanks.

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: after

thiest1 wrote:
after viweing alot of the posts and seeing that alot of athiets do not have a problem with deists, well chestians are diests as if we look at the christian theologic documents we come across this, For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made written by the famous christian philosopher paul, and as you know, what he is stating is that "revelation" is not needed to understand Gods "eternal power and divine nature" so indeed if you do not have a problem with diests why have a problem with christians when they are diestic in nature.


Where did you get the idea that I (or anyone else for that matter) accept the concept of a deity? I certainly don't recall a stating that.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote:

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:
Designers of Shoe factories change the factory so it products different styles of shoes. Car manufactures change the production line to manufacture different models. Why can't the universe factory designer change the universe factory?


Can the designer of the universal function change the universe factory? sounds to theological of a question for athiests, lets stick to the realm of reason and human observations.



Asking you why the designer of the universe factory would change the function would be a theological question. However, you specifically said the universe function could not be changed.

Assuming the designer of the universe created the universe factory in exactly just the right way so it would unfold to produce this very moment of reality, the designer of the universe could alter the universe's parameters in just the right ways so it would unfold to create some other result than what we see now. As with car and shoe factories, this could happen at any time. This would imply he contestants of the universe wouldn't necessarily constant as the designer would be free to change them at any time.

In other words, if an intelligent entity designed the universe factory, releasing a book might cause it to fall up or it might fall down. We simply can't be sure the parameters will remain constant.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


How does which posts I choose to respond have anything to do with answering the question I posed?

When you claim that God exists and played a role in our creation, you imply that God has a purpose. In fact, the mere existence of God would imply he has some purpose, even if we couldn't comprehend it. If purpose equates design and God has a purpose, then your reasoning implies that God needs a designer. So who is this designer?


im not claiming anything, i am theorizing, if i was claiming God exists i would say, God exists, but i am not, i am giving opinions on the subject of God existing, and i am wondering does anyone else follow maya's train of thought here? casue it sounds like billy madison trying to answer a economics question, makes no sense, you are obviously to smart for me, so please ask me the question in a simple manner, i do not see how yer senteces before "so who is the designer" even remotely infer to that question, please ask plainly.


If you theorize a tree branch has an inherent purpose because it can be used as a walking stick, you're implying it has a purpose merely because it can be utilized. Since I could also use a tree branch as a club to kill someone or to build a house, it's purpose transcends an specific utilization. In other words, even if it does nothing more than take up space, you're implying it has an intrinsic purpose. It's mere existance implies a purpose. In your terms....

thiest1 wrote:

...becasue under the universal function all things have part in the design, so all things have elements of design.


If you propose the universe was designed, and we can see the results of this designer's work all around us, then this designer would need to exist and would have a purpose. If purpose equates design and the universe's designer has an intrinsic purpose then your reasoning implies this designer needs a designer. So who designed the designer of the universe?

 My post about the function of components in the universe mathmatical function was in regards to this post. Still haven't seen a satifactory answer to this question. 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


gatogreensleeves
gatogreensleeves's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It's interesting that this

It's interesting that this entire thread has been mostly arguments for mere deism/teleology/higher power/etc. (even if posted by theists), and there have been no arguments for the radical jump from deism to Christian theology.  If there is anyone here who can't ditch that gut feeling that the universe has teleology behind it, but are becoming disenchanted with Christianity, please check out this great free online book by a deist who feels the same way.  It's called God Vs. The Bible.  http://www.godvsthebible.com/index.htm

Again, he's a deist, so most of the arguments here do not apply to his view... worth a read.

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
So Brian, Kelly, any word of

So Brian, Kelly, any word of a rematch between you guys and the way of the master? I much prefer the debate format to the bickering and fighting that goes on in forums. I think the message gets accross much better in the debate format.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote: Yes, you're

Sara wrote:
Yes, you're right Theists do give more attributes. But my first post addressing this shows how I could derive those attributes from looking at the natural world and it's contents without appealing to the bible. 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.


The urethra in men goes straight through the prostrate gland. This glad tends to swell over age 60 and can make urination difficult. Would you attribute this as the work of a all knowing and all seeing entity? I certainly do not.

Just because we can't currently perceive other universes, does that mean they are supernatural? We cannot perceive ultraviolet light with our naked eyes. Since many stars emit such light, does that mean they were supernatural until such time as we gained the ability to perceive them?

Sara wrote:
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.


Right. However, you're approaching these laws with the assumption that man was explicitly created and therefor must exist. I don't have this presumption. It's possible that we simply would not exist if the universe did not have these properties. However, we would not be able to observe this scenario since we would not exist. Therefor, we cannot observe any other set of parameters other than those which happen to result in our existence.

Sara wrote:
Exactly. Math is a concept that is used to describe universal properties. But where the connection is missing is in seeing how those universal properties imply a Designer (think again about the computer programmer analogy.)


There will always be "things" in the universe. As such, there will always be a specific number of these "things" which can be counted. Even if there was nothing in the universe, this would still imply a count of zero. How does this require a designer? Life forms that see the value of counting such things (or the lack there of) are potential targets for contact because we see this value as well.   

Sara wrote:
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.


If the universe is the product of natural process, the only global meaning things have are based on our existence and survival. If we value life, it would be part of our natural instinct to survive. Any additional meaning we derive is from our local experiences and concepts we've formed though consciousness.

Sara wrote:
Experiencing physical pleasure is obviously real, but I am speaking more along the lines of emotional and mental experiences and whether or not they have any ultimate intrinsic value from an evolutionary standpoint.


You're implying that sexuality does not have a mental or emotional component. This does not match what we observe in human behavior as we can become sexually aroused without physical stimulation.

Sara wrote:

If a “love” center was discovered in some portion of our brains that was pre-wired to either like or dislike certain personalities, then you better believe this would be disturbing. But this is exactly what “evolution” would predict.
 


Why would you find this disturbing? As I mentioned earlier, our sexually has roots in our survival instincts, why couldn't love? This sort of statement indicates that your world view would be adverse to identifying a physical source for love even if it were found to be physical. We can clearly see that our conciseness is highly dependent on our physical mind

I'm proposing that we are wired to love based on global survival instincts. Anything specific beyond this basic instinct is based on our local concepts and experiences. People that have traits which we locally consider "good" would define what personalities we like or dislike.

Sara wrote:


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.
 


Right. Did you "decide" to fall in love your husband? Do you have control over the love you feel for him? I'd guess that the answer to both of these questions would be "no". I'd also guess you couldn't simply change your mind and fall in love with someone else.

Sara wrote:

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.


You've invented these problems. First, if we have become conscious though evolution, this implies a physical change in the mind which is responsible for conciseness. No separation is necessary. Second, we are indeed resisting our own genetically motivated impulses. Using sex again as an example, I'm hardwired to reproduce as often as possible to ensure the transmission of my genes. While this was beneficial in the early days of man due to the high infant mortality rate, it's no longer necessary or socially acceptable in today's world. As such, I resist the sexual impulses I experience on a daily basis. This is a drain on my energy and I resist these impulses based on logical conclusions that would result if I did not. Also, you seem to be under the impression that evolution will always result in highly efficient properties. It does not. Natural selection only chooses solutions that are more efficient that others. Efficiency is relative not absolute.

Sara wrote:
I’m not sure what evil is supposed to teach us, other than to abhor it. I don’t think that learning lessons from evil is supported biblically either (Please cite a verse if you have one). 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.


No Biblical support is implied. However, the concept of learning from evil is rampant in Christian media circles. In most cases they reference various Old Testament stories of tribulation.

If God explicitly designed man and the universe down to laws of physics and last quark, then the ability to rebel against God was designed by God. There would be no other source to acquire this ability. Had God not given man free will, rebellion would not be possible. As such, God would have been explicitly involved.

Sara wrote:
God’s omniscience never negates free will. I have heard this argument given repeatedly and I cannot figure out how people formulate this conclusion. Knowledge of an event or choice is quite different from causing an event or choice. To illustrate, think of the person with whom you have the closest relationship and know the best. Given a certain scenario you can probably predict with great accuracy how your friend or loved one will react. Now, if you know what the outcome will be, does that mean you caused it? Absolutely not. So accusing God of causing a person to commit evil and be damned eternally because He wills it to be so is not only unsupported biblically, but is entirely against His nature.


Let's say I created an aircraft that was totally automated and used artificial intelligence that I personally wrote and tested to take off, navigate and land. Let's also say that instructed said aircraft to avoid flying in specific airspace to avoid colliding with air traffic I knew it could not safely avoid. I then let this aircraft cary passengers to and from any destination. If the artificial intelligence software I wrote ignored my instructions, flew into the airspace I instructed it not to and crashed - causing the deaths of 200 people - would I not be ultimately responsible? I might claim it wasn't my fault since the plane ran into unexpected input, which I was not aware of and could not have foreseen.

However, no such claim can be made in regards to God. Not only does the Bible claim that God make man and instructed him not to eat of the tree of life, it claims that God created everything around him. Unexpected input is not possible. God is omniscient so nothing is a surprise. Again, you don't need to be all knowing and all seeing to realize that, when given a choice, some will not choose God.

Sara wrote:

On the contrary, it is His will that everyone be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). The fact that people do not follow the will of God and choose salvation shows that people DO have free will.


If you claim that God is omniscient, he would have known some would not follow the will of God while others would.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. "
John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."
Romans 9:18 "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
This doesn't sound like free will to me. Nor would I be alone in making this interpretation as predestination is found in many different sects of Christianity and Islam.
Sara wrote:


That is an interesting train of logic. But there are some problems. First, we experience evil because this world is fallen and full of evil so we really have no choice but to have encounters with it. God can use it to bring good in many cases, but I don’t see experiencing evil as being “critically important” to our eternal life. What seems to be more important, according to the bible, is being obedient to Christ and being conformed to His likeness in the face of evil and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21). 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.


Again, if God is sovereign, then he can allow anyone to be saved regardless of their works or belief. This would be within his power and choice as he is claimed to do with unborn children. Anything else would be limiting God's power, which is in conflict with the Biblical version of God.

Sara wrote:

So this seems to argue against your previous statement that we have a consciousness. If notions of morality are an illusion, how do you know your consciousness isn’t? 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.


Let's take death, for example. If someone is in the final stage of a terminal disease, they may be suffering. Unless there is a chance they could be cured, this suffering could be needless. If this someone is ready to pass on, they should be free to end their own suffering. However, Christianity looks down on this as a sin due to an absolute moral position on life. This position appears to be based on utility as deciding when people should allow themselves to die is more difficult than simply saying that you can't commit suicide for any reason. Also, claiming that no one but God can decide when to take a life seems to be a side effect of using God to explain something we did not have the answer to.

Again, if God was omniscient, then he would have known the hearts of the Canaanite would be evil. Any other position limits the power of God. If you claim that God chooses to ignore this knowledge, how can be be loving?  If he can make himself forget something he knew, he is not omnipotent.

Sara wrote:

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.


That's a highly oversimplified version. There are several steps between microbe and man which occur over a extremely large range of time. Also, the matter that changes is limited to the set of instructions used to build future life forms. These changes cause the actual structure to change when the revised instructions are used to build a new organism. Environmental factors induce a state change, not a structural change. (A car that runs of out fuel or crashes is still the exact same model of car.)

Sara wrote:
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.
Quote:


Efficiency is relative to competing organisms. It's not absolute efficiency.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya wrote: Veils

Veils of Maya wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:
thiest1 wrote:

...becasue under the universal function all things have part in the design, so all things have elements of design.



If you propose the universe was designed, and we can see the results of this designer's work all around us, then this designer would need to exist and would have a purpose. If purpose equates design and the universe's designer has an intrinsic purpose then your reasoning implies this designer needs a designer. So who designed the designer of the universe?

My post about the function of components in the universe mathmatical function was in regards to this post. Still haven't seen a satifactory answer to this question.

I think it is supposed to be because God doesn't have to follow any rules. (special pleading)


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
asas

Instead of asking me why I chose the word "unjust," why didn't/don't you give us a plausible extrabiblical reason why the example I've already submitted (e.g. death for Sabbath breakers, yet no punishment for beating one's slave to death if he lives a few days before he dies, "for he is his money&quotEye-wink is not unjust?

 I am not saying they are just or unjust, you are, so just answer the question I just posed you, what is your criterion for judging "justice".

 Would you adhere to this qualification as the punishment fitting the crime today?

 

does it really matter if i want to "adhere" to this law today? does everyone agree with capital punishment? yet people must "adhere" to it if they commit a crime punishable by this law. I do not makes laws such as your example from the bible, and the ones we have enacted today, so really it makes no differance what I would "adhere" to or not. 

 

And for pity's sake, please don't confuse moral "law" with the laws of physics.

 

when did i do this, for pitys sake. 

 

Because someone wrote it down thousands of years ago does not make morality absolute any more than it would if we write it down now.

 

another wrong assumption you make of me, do not know where you got this.  

 

 

 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Where did you get the idea

Where did you get the idea that I (or anyone else for that matter) accept the concept of a deity? I certainly don't recall a stating that.

 

go back in the thread and you will see people that post their opinions on diesm, they state they dont have a problem with it as compared to chrstianity, thats why i stated it, everything in the forum is not directed directly at you, maybe you should read what i wrote again to clarify 

 

seeing that alot of athiets do not have a problem with deists

 

is that directed at you? also you might want to go look up diesm cause i have a feeling you do not even know what it is. i was pointing this out becasue as i noted christians are diestic in nature, they view the forms the universe has formed and it reflects the creator, thats diestic.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Asking you why the designer

Asking you why the designer of the universe factory would change the function would be a theological question. However, you specifically said the universe function could not be changed.

 

Yes as we view the universe it can not be changed from our perspective, it is theological because we would have to be speculating about the actual "inteligent awareness" that created the function, our physical knowledge of the universe contends that the function can not be changed, if you want to speculate about the possibilites of the designer then we can speculate what the designer could do such as changeing the function.

 

In other words, if an intelligent entity designed the universe factory, releasing a book might cause it to fall up or it might fall down. We simply can't be sure the parameters will remain constant.

 

like i said this is a speculation about the possibilites of what "god" is capable, it isnt based on an observation, such as we can base theories of design on the design concept within the forms of the universe that we can actully observe. 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
If purpose equates design

If purpose equates design and the universe's designer has an intrinsic purpose then your reasoning implies this designer needs a designer. So who designed the designer of the universe?

 

Do you not know how to read? i have already spoken about this in posts before this,  why do we have to speculate about the actual "designer" do I need to know who designed something to understand that it was designed? Design as a concept does not require that you know exactly who designed it, We can recognize design without know who or what the designer is like, we cqn make inferences about the nature of the designer from the actual design, but it is not needed to understand that it was designed, so yer question does not really hold anything against my theory that the universe was designed.

Who did design the designer? if indeed he was designed, i could theorize that he is an infinitum, such that he deisgned himself in an infinite circle, but that would be a theological speculation, not a logical inference based upon an observation, so lets not go their. 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
asd

It's interesting that this entire thread has been mostly arguments for mere deism/teleology/higher power/etc. (even if posted by theists), and there have been no arguments for the radical jump from deism to Christian theology.

 

Christians are deists also, and after they have observed the truth of deism, they then use prophecy to prove christian theology, it isnt hard, christianity is really based in the "faith" of prophecy, becasue if indeed the prophecies are true, then they can rely on the truth of the words of the prophet.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I will list my comments

I will list my comments about the debate at the end of this post. But first I have a general question for both Brian and Kelly.

I know of many analytic philosophers and logicians who are theists. For example, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, and several more.

These theists have devoted their lives to rational thought, scientific and logical inquiry, and the pursuit of truth. They are well-respected in the contemporary philosophical scene as rational thinkers. So my question is: what definition of rationality is RRS employing, such that according to that definition, RRS can legitimately claim that the theists above are, despite appearances to the contrary, actually irrational. As representatives of RRS, you two have claimed for quite some time now that theism is irrational. So you should have no problem clarifying this claim.

Asking you to get at the nature of rationality is, of course, unfair; nobody has completely figured that out yet. That's why my request is modest: just provide the rough definition you work with when you suggest that theists are irrational. That's to say, fill in the blank of the following schema:

A person's belief in some proposition p is irrational if and only if, roughly: _______________________________________________________________.

 

After you've provided your rough definition, there is another related issue that I think needs some clarification. What exactly do you mean by a "mind disorder"? You claim that theism is not merely irrational, but it's a mind disorder. Now, I'm a theist, and I've not had any history of mental disorders; to my knowledge, my mental activity is fairly sane and rational. So naturally it came as a surprise to me, upon visiting your site, to learn that I nevertheless do suffer from a mental disorder, according to you guys. Perhaps your statement is not to be taken literally? Then what does it mean exactly? Do you mean to say that all theists have a mental disorder to the extent that they believe in a God of some sort? Do the philosophers I listed above, then, have mental disorders on your view? What precisely is the nature of this mental disorder? Has it been recognized by professional psychologists? I'm looking forward to your answers.

My comments on the debate. It was interesting, and I think that you two beat Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They were not adequately prepared, and they didn't always answer your questions directly. It's unfortunate that you two did not get the chance to debate somebody who has studied the issues a little more carefully. Anyway, congratulations on your success!

 

Best,

-Gavagai

 

 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: Veils of

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Asking you why the designer of the universe factory would change the function would be a theological question. However, you specifically said the universe function could not be changed.


Yes as we view the universe it can not be changed from our perspective, it is theological because we would have to be speculating about the actual "inteligent awareness" that created the function, our physical knowledge of the universe contends that the function can not be changed, if you want to speculate about the possibilites of the designer then we can speculate what the designer could do such as changeing the function.


You've already speculated about the ability of the designer. If the ability to implement a design is not present in the designer you propose, then all you'd have is a design with no implementation. If the designer you propose could not understand how the properties of the universe factory contributes to  what the factory creates, then the current state of the universe is not "designed", but based on chance.

thiest1 wrote:


Veils of Maya wrote:

In other words, if an intelligent entity designed the universe factory, releasing a book might cause it to fall up or it might fall down. We simply can't be sure the parameters will remain constant.

 
like i said this is a speculation about the possibilites of what "god" is capable, it isnt based on an observation, such as we can base theories of design on the design concept within the forms of the universe that we can actully observe.


Again, if you propose the universe we observe was designed, than said designer must have been able to select the correct properties for a particular outcome and implement them. This implies the the designer would have the capacity to choose and implement a different set of properties to generate different results.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: Veils of

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


If purpose equates design and the universe's designer has an intrinsic purpose then your reasoning implies this designer needs a designer. So who designed the designer of the universe?


We can recognize design without know who or what the designer is like, we cqn make inferences about the nature of the designer from the actual design, but it is not needed to understand that it was designed, so yer question does not really hold anything against my theory that the universe was designed.


Now you're not making sense. The entire basis for your presumption that our universe is designed is based on your presumption that purpose equates design. If the results of the design is something we can observe, then this implies purpose. Otherwise, there would be nothing for us to observe.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:

Gavagai wrote:

I know of many analytic philosophers and logicians who are theists. For example, Nicholas Rescher, Bas van Fraasen, Timothy McGrew, John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, and several more.

These theists have devoted their lives to rational thought, scientific and logical inquiry, and the pursuit of truth. They are well-respected in the contemporary philosophical scene as rational thinkers. So my question is: what definition of rationality is RRS employing, such that according to that definition, RRS can legitimately claim that the theists above are, despite appearances to the contrary, actually irrational.

Welcome to the debate Gavagai. 

I can't speak for Brian and Kelly but if you listen to their free show "Theism is irrational" you will hear them discuss this with Richard Carrier. The claim is not that theists are lacking in all rationality or that theists are incapable of rational thought. Rather it is often a problem of compartmentalizing. I am not familiar with the gentlemen you listed above but I did have a look at the links. Many of the papers seem to deal with pure logic and philosophy. It is possible to argue completely rationally about concepts such as these while holding onto completely irrational ideas about God. It might be interesting to read some of the papers that deal with theology, although it is hard to imagine a "new" rational defense for Pascal's Wager.

Reggie Finley has been talking lately about how it is fully possible to use rational arguments for any worldview once you have accepted that worldview as true. I think he is absolutely correct. I see this a lot in Catholic writings. Most Catholic apologetics I have seen are not aimed at proving that Catholicism is true with regard to atheism, but rather with regard to Protestantism. The arguments are very logical but they assume Christianity is true and then argue the fine details.

What I would like to see is a rational defense for an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God who would create the universe we see around us today with carnivores, parasites and prey, and with natural disasters that kill indiscriminately. I never thought about these issues until long after I became a non-believer but I can see no way to reconcile these ideas rationally. I have read many attempts but all had pretty horrible problems of logic. Many simply redefined "good" to mean "whatever God feels like".

Gavagai wrote:

A person's belief in some proposition p is irrational if and only if, roughly:

I'll take a shot at this but I am not a philosophy major. But I'd prefer to define rational rather than irrational. Irrational is everything that does not fit this description. I may have to refine this definition if you find holes, however.

A person's belief in some proposition p is rational if and only if all propositions supporting that belief are non-contradictory and all objections proposed for that belief can likewise be answered without contradiction.

The Judeo/Christian God seems to clearly fail this test on both the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Unnecessary Suffering. A vague deistic god can be made to work rationally. I do not believe in a deistic god because it seems unnecessary but a rational, coherent argument can be made for an uninterested creator.

Gavagai wrote:
What exactly do you mean by a "mind disorder"? You claim that theism is not merely irrational, but it's a mind disorder.

Hmm, this is harder to explain. I agree with RRS on this. Let's try this approach. If you look at folks who claim they are victims of alien abduction, it seems pretty clear that they are suffering from a mind disorder. You can call it delusion, although it may be simply a misunderstanding of night terrors. Even some psychologists seem to get sucked into this mind disorder, it is so compelling. But to those of us on the outside with sufficient knowledge, it is clear that these people are not being abducted by aliens.

Now imagine if 80% of the people in the world were certain that alien abductions were real. Imagine that the ideas were taught from parent to children as the most obvious thing in the world. It would still be a mind disorder, but it would seem absurd to call it that since the ones leveling this accusation are clearly in the minority.

To those of us outside the circle of belief, we can see the logical knots that theists must tie themselves up in just to make the beliefs make sense. This might sound arrogant but I really don't mean it to. Most of us here have been in the bubble of belief. I was and the idea that I was deluding myself is one that I probably would have rejected out of hand. But eventually, I started straightening out the lines of logic and faith evaporated like the remnants of a dream.

Anyway, the point is that those under a delusion have a great deal of trouble discerning the fact under any circumstance. If the majority of the people you know share your delusion, it is a couple of orders of magnatude more difficult still.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
You've already speculated

You've already speculated about the ability of the designer. If the ability to implement a design is not present in the designer you propose, then all you'd have is a design with no implementation. If the designer you propose could not understand how the properties of the universe factory contributes to  what the factory creates, then the current state of the universe is not "designed", but based on chance.

dude, rephrase yer question, trying to follow your logic is like watching a pinball machine, just give me the plain question without jumping 5 times from conlusion to conlusion, such as

 

 If the ability to implement a design is not present in the designer you propose, then all you'd have is a design with no implementation

 wtf is this question asking me? or what are you trying to say? casue it doesnt lead to this.

If the designer you propose could not understand how the properties of the universe factory contributes to  what the factory creates, then the current state of the universe is not "designed", but based on chance.

rephrase the questions one at a time, dont garble them together. you are not making sense, i dont see any logic to yer premise and its eventual question, please rephrase. what yer saying in these questions isnt even what im proposing,copy and paste what i said then state yer question about what i said, then i can answer you. also yer speculating on the designer, not observing something, then conluding it is designed.

 

Again, if you propose the universe we observe was designed, than said designer must have been able to select the correct properties for a particular outcome and implement them. This implies the the designer would have the capacity to choose and implement a different set of properties to generate different results.

 

this is theological speculation and is a possbility, so i do not see why you are saying it, i already said that thological speculation is possible, but that we do not need to speculate about the designer, only conclude that what we observe is designed, then we can speculate through the designed forms the nature of the designer.

 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
asd

The entire basis for your presumption that our universe is designed is based on your presumption that purpose equates design

when was this my "entire basis" , i used it in one example of the breast and the baby bottle, it has nothing to do with my factory anology let alone my thoughts on the universal function that lead to it, so no it is not the "enitre basis" of my theory but merely an example i was using to illustrate a point.

 

If the results of the design is something we can observe, then this implies purpose. Otherwise, there would be nothing for us to observe.

 

can anyone else understand what this guy is trying to say, yer name suits you well becasue all of your writing is veiled in some sort of strange garbled logic. someone else read that above sentence and explain his premise and why it leads to his conclusion casue im not seeing it.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I think it is supposed to

I think it is supposed to be because God doesn't have to follow any rules. (special pleading)

 i already answered his question when someone else asked the same thing, if you were actually reading the posts you would know this,funny, go back and read my posts, not even half of my questions have been answered, they just get passed over, how convenient.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
It is possible to argue

It is possible to argue completely rationally about concepts such as these while holding onto completely irrational ideas about God.

which ideas about God are these, please go into more detail.

 

What I would like to see is a rational defense for an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God who would create the universe we see around us today with carnivores, parasites and prey, and with natural disasters that kill indiscriminately.

 how do you know the kill indisciminantly and is not part of a devised plan by the "creator" of the universe, you jump to this conclusion with no premise for it.

 Many simply redefined "good" to mean "whatever God feels like".

 

how do you know it is not?  where do you get your definition of "good"?

 

The Judeo/Christian God seems to clearly fail this test on both the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Unnecessary Suffering

i do not see a problem with evil, you remove light you get darkness, its simple, if you choose to block out the light then you will be in the dark, goes for all humanity in the physical universe, and the annology for "light" being goodness has existed for millenia. unnecessary suffering? wouldnt that be a judgement call? tell me how you know their is unneccasarry suffering and why you know it is "unnecassary"", tell me your criterion for judging the neccesatie of suffering.

 

Hmm, this is harder to explain. I agree with RRS on this. Let's try this approach. If you look at folks who claim they are victims of alien abduction, it seems pretty clear that they are suffering from a mind disorder. You can call it delusion, although it may be simply a misunderstanding of night terrors. Even some psychologists seem to get sucked into this mind disorder, it is so compelling. But to those of us on the outside with sufficient knowledge, it is clear that these people are not being abducted by aliens.

how do you know they were not abducted by beings that have lived on another planet and travelled here in ships much like our spaceships? theirs no way you can no this. where is this "sufficiant knowledge" tht you have to "know" that noone has been studied by alien beings from another galaxy that have reached the technological advances to travel from galaxy to galaxy, your example does not support your theory.

 


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: i already

thiest1 wrote:

i already answered his question when someone else asked the same thing, if you were actually reading the posts you would know this,funny, go back and read my posts, not even half of my questions have been answered, they just get passed over, how convenient.

Yes, I do pass right over your posts. Usually it is difficult to determine who wrote what in your posts and when I can tell what part you wrote, it is often hard to make out. You didn't even spell your forum name correctly. Trying to read your posts is very inconvenient so I stopped.

Also, I have not seen where you have actually spelled out what you do believe and I'm not interested in trying to piece the puzzle together.

If you want me to read your posts, you might want to:

  1. Learn to use the quote mechanism
  2. Do a basic spell check
  3. Clearly describe what sort of deity you believe in
  4. Engage in rational and cordial debate rather than just snipping at people for misunderstanding your cryptic position.
Now you may have done #3 at some point, but I stopped reading your posts long ago. I prefer to have respectful conversations with Sara, flatlanderdox and REVLyle, all of whom engage my intellect and challenge me to clarify my own position.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Can you tell the difference

Can you tell the difference between a breast and a bottle? If you look at a living organism and a man made object, can you tell that one is an organism and the other manufactured? I imagine that you can. That is because they fall into clearly different realms. One is organic and the other built, molded, pressed, etc.

 

why do they fall into differant realms? they are both molded pressed and built, over time, by forces and laws that are constant in the universe, and as i have already argued, what differance are you implying between a "man made object, and a object formed by nature, both are natural forces under the same laws and physics as you contend being an athiest,  their is only the material world remember, we are merely a complex construct formed by the universe and we are not seperate from any other complex construct, we all exist by the same physical laws, so i will need you to show me the differantation between the 2 things, the man made object and the organism, becasue they are both forms that came about from the universal proccess, based on your athiest materialistic perspective.


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
scottmax wrote:Hmm, this

scottmax wrote:

Hmm, this is harder to explain. I agree with RRS on this. Let's try this approach. If you look at folks who claim they are victims of alien abduction, it seems pretty clear that they are suffering from a mind disorder. You can call it delusion, although it may be simply a misunderstanding of night terrors. Even some psychologists seem to get sucked into this mind disorder, it is so compelling. But to those of us on the outside with sufficient knowledge, it is clear that these people are not being abducted by aliens.

Now imagine if 80% of the people in the world were certain that alien abductions were real. Imagine that the ideas were taught from parent to children as the most obvious thing in the world. It would still be a mind disorder, but it would seem absurd to call it that since the ones leveling this accusation are clearly in the minority.

To those of us outside the circle of belief, we can see the logical knots that theists must tie themselves up in just to make the beliefs make sense. This might sound arrogant but I really don't mean it to. Most of us here have been in the bubble of belief. I was and the idea that I was deluding myself is one that I probably would have rejected out of hand. But eventually, I started straightening out the lines of logic and faith evaporated like the remnants of a dream.

Anyway, the point is that those under a delusion have a great deal of trouble discerning the fact under any circumstance. If the majority of the people you know share your delusion, it is a couple of orders of magnatude more difficult still.

Good explanation but Instead of Aliens I might have used a different comparison.

Let's say we all live in Nazi Germany(we sorta do). %80 of the puplic believes that the white race is superior to other races. They believe that the bible tells them this. They spread hate for Gays and Jews, in our case gays and liberals. They start to take away peoples civil rights and when you try to speak out about what you've seen wrong you have your patriotism called into question.

Now the Christians (Nazi's) get control of the government and they start forcing their beliefs on your children. They intend to turn your children into gay hating, liberal hating murderers and do it all in the name of morality and patriotism.

That's pretty much where we are now in america. You already have presidential candidates saying we should deny gay americans the right to have a job. Anyone who disagrees with the right wing are called unpatriotic.

I'll leave you with a few quotes from some famous Nazi's and other famous people from that time.

Hermann Georing - Quoted from the Nuremburg trials: 

 "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Goering - "Education is dangerous - every educated person is a future enemy."

Richard Goldstien - not a nazi - "To subject an artist’s work to a litmus test of political probity -- and to punish institutions that will not carry out the mandate of the state -- is to traffic in the thought control that gave us Stalinism and Nazism..."

Adolf Hitler - "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

Adolf Hitler - "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Herbert Hoover - "Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains."

Dr. Joseph Mengele - "The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it."

Reverend Martin Niemoeller - "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

Is any of this starting to sound familiar to you guys?


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
boo

Yes, I do pass right over your posts. Usually it is difficult to determine who wrote what in your posts and when I can tell what part you wrote, it is often hard to make out. You didn't even spell your forum name correctly. Trying to read your posts is very inconvenient so I stopped.

Also, I have not seen where you have actually spelled out what you do believe and I'm not interested in trying to piece the puzzle together.

If you want me to read your posts, you might want to:

  1. Learn to use the quote mechanism
  2. Do a basic spell check
  3. Clearly describe what sort of deity you believe in
  4. Engage in rational and cordial debate rather than just snipping at people for misunderstanding your cryptic position.

Now you may have done #3 at some point, but I stopped reading your posts long ago. I prefer to have respectful conversations with Sara, flatlanderdox and REVLyle, all of whom engage my intellect and challenge me to clarify my own position.

again, how convenient. please show me where i am being cryptic, is it the language or what, please explain, or will you conveniently not do this either. i asked you simple questions, if you cant answer them thats fine. and as you are so wanting "respectful" conversations, i see you are a member of this site, a gold member or something, this site directly insults thiests and you are a member, so no you are not wanting "respectful" conversations when you become a member of this site, its based on a direct insult to an entire group of people (theism a mind disorder), so no, no need to be respectful when no respect is deserved, you also associate yor self with the ringleaders of this site sapient and kelly, who as we know from their behavior at the debate are not respectful, did he call someone a "nimrod" at the debate? i see they are very respectful, so i will deploy the same respect upon the members of this site.


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
What he's trying to say is

What he's trying to say is us the "quote" hyperlink rather than the "reply" hyperlink. When you don't use the quotes no one knows where what you are saying starts and what someone else said begins.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: dude,

thiest1 wrote:

dude, rephrase yer question, trying to follow your logic is like watching a pinball machine, just give me the plain question without jumping 5 times from conlusion to conlusion, such as


You're proposed universe factory hypothesis can be broken down into three parts.

01. The designer of the universes factory

This is the source of the design you propose. The designer must exist if the universe we observe is designed.

02. The universe design (the mathematical function you describe)

To use your shoe factory metaphor, factories must have a design before they can be constructed. This design must take into account what types of products will be created by the factory. If I lack knowledge of the equipment, materials and process required to make shoes, then I can't design a factory that builds shoes. Even if I know exactly what kind of shoe I want to create, If I don't know exactly how the process of creating shoes works, then I can't tune the manufacturing process to get the exact kind of shoes I want.

If the evolution of life is part of the universe's design, as you propose, then whatever designed the universe must know how to tune the physical laws (your mathematical function) to generate the exact state of the life and physical surroundings we experience right now. If the designer does not have this capacity, then what we observe could not have unfolded from the universe in the way you claim. We'd observe something else instead.

03. The universe itself (the implementation of the function you describe)

This is the implementation of the physical laws based on the designer's design. Someone had to build the shoe factory before shoes could be manufactured, observed and worn. No shoe factory, no shoes. If something didn't build the universe using the design created by the designer, then we couldn't observe the things that you claim are designed. All you'd have is a design with no implementation. As such, you imply that the designer must be able to implement it's design.

If the designer knows how to tune physical laws to create a particular outcome and can implement these laws in a universe that created everything we see down to the last quark, then there is no reason why the physical laws of the universe could not be changed by the designer to end up with some other result.

In addition, the act of designing and implementing the universe must have occurred if this design can be observed. This implies purpose, which by your definition, implies design. 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
You're proposed universe

You're proposed universe factory hypothesis can be broken down into three parts.

01. The designer of the universes factory

This is the source of the design you propose. The designer must exist if the universe we observe is designed.

02. The universe design (the mathematical function you describe)

To use your shoe factory metaphor, factories must have a design before they can be constructed. This design must take into account what types of products will be created by the factory. If I lack knowledge of the equipment, materials and process required to make shoes, then I can't design a factory that builds shoes. Even if I know exactly what kind of shoe I want to create, If I don't know exactly how the process of creating shoes works, then I can't tune the manufacturing process to get the exact kind of shoes I want.

If the evolution of life is part of the universe's design, as you propose, then whatever designed the universe must know how to tune the physical laws (your mathematical function) to generate the exact state of the life and physical surroundings we experience right now. If the designer does not have this capacity, then what we observe could not have unfolded from the universe in the way you claim. We'd observe something else instead.

03. The universe itself (the implementation of the function you describe)

This is the implementation of the physical laws based on the designer's design. Someone had to build the shoe factory before shoes could be manufactured, observed and worn. No shoe factory, no shoes. If something didn't build the universe using the design created by the designer, then we couldn't observe the things that you claim are designed. All you'd have is a design with no implementation. As such, you imply that the designer must be able to implement it's design.

If the designer knows how to tune physical laws to create a particular outcome and can implement these laws in a universe that created everything we see down to the last quark, then there is no reason why the physical laws of the universe could not be changed by the designer to end up with some other result.

In addition, the act of designing and implementing the universe must have occurred if this design can be observed. This implies purpose, which by your definition, implies design. 

indeed what you are stating here is correct, you agree with my theory then? you described it quite nicely (with some misunderstandings, such as my implications of design, does not only include purpose, as i already steted previously). now where is your refutation of the theory, the one you just described to me in this paragraph, I saw no question to be answered, only a statement. 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
 What he's trying to say

What he's trying to say is us the "quote" hyperlink rather than the "reply" hyperlink. When you don't use the quotes no one knows where what you are saying starts and what someone else said begins.

how i quote has nothing to do with respect. if you can not deduce that the italic bold writing is a quote and the regular unitalized and unbold is my writing i question your  deductive reasoning.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: indeed what

thiest1 wrote:


indeed what you are stating here is correct, you agree with my theory then? you described it quite nicely (with some misunderstandings, such as my implications of design, does not only include purpose, as i already steted previously). now where is your refutation of the theory, the one you just described to me in this paragraph, I saw no question to be answered, only a statement.



01. You said the laws of the universe could not be changed. This contradicts with the idea of a designer that can design and implement a universe such as ours. In fact, based of the properties the designer must have, the very foundation of our universe could change at any time, just as car factories change to manufacture different models of cars.

02. The designer plays an active role in the universe's creation. As such this shows purpose. You stated that purpose implied design. So you're universe designer needs a designer. If this is not the case, then clarify your stance of purpose.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
dee

If this is not the case, then clarify your stance of purpose.

 

pur·pose      /ˈpɜrpəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-puhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.

–noun
1.the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2.an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3.determination; resoluteness.
4.the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5.practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.
–verb (used with object)
6.to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself.
7.to intend; design.
8.to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically.
–verb (used without object)
9.to have a purpose.
10.on purpose, by design; intentionally: How could you do such a thing on purpose?
11.

to the purpose, relevant; to the point: Her objections were not to the purpose.

 

Here is the definition of purpose, go ahead and get the concept from here, where i also get my concept of purpose. does this not clarify what i mean by purpose? if not theirs not much that can be done for you.

 

 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
In fact, based of the

In fact, based of the properties the designer must have,

 

what ones are those maya?

 

You said the laws of the universe could not be changed.

 

based upon our knowledge that is observable

 

The designer plays an active role in the universe's creation. As such this shows purpose.

 

why does an active role show purpose? purpose would be shown in the object of observation, not in the active role of the being that was implying it, example  "the breast has purpose" or " the baby bottle has purpose"

 

why are you trying to theologically speculate so far, its simple concept, you can recognize design, thefore you infer a designer, whats so hard about that maya?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
thiest1, Please use the

thiest1,

Please use the quote function because the display may not show up the same in all browers.  The difference in text may be slight or non-existent, depending on the browser, just as colored text does not display well in all cases.

There is a tutorial here.   

Thank you.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Nadja
Nadja's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
huh?

I'm sorry. So are you confirming you are an accident? What part of their argument was wrong? Be precise. Also, if we are accidents, what is the point in telling everyone we are? Who cares? Do you find some sort of sick "meaning" in telling us we are accidents?

In short, if we are accidents, why spend all this time and money - and emotional energy, in telling us we are?  It's not logical.  For instance, if those who believe in God are wrong, we are all going to the same place anyway.  Why are you so concerned?

If you really believe we are accidents, you shouldn't care about spreading "the word".  The fact that you do, makes me think that you think a bit more about your existence than you lead on.

Ultimately, being an accident, you should have your own fun and not care.  Think of all the fun you can have!!  Why are you sitting on your butt?  Stop being a victim!  Stop trying to find meaning!!

If you really care about what the truth is, you will find it.  Don't blame others if you choose not to.

Examine all things