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!

 


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

The source you mention takes verses out of context. That's not scholarly, but I'm sure it's entertaining. Anyway, if you got rid of the eyes and tongue, you'd probably be quite sharp looking.

Examine all things


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Nadja wrote:

Nadja wrote:
The source you mention takes verses out of context. That's not scholarly, but I'm sure it's entertaining. Anyway, if you got rid of the eyes and tongue, you'd probably be quite sharp looking.

Nadja, who were your last two posts addressing? This is a huge thread so it's hard to keep individual comments/replies straight.

If you could use the Quote function (just click quote instead of reply) it would be helpful.

Thanks!

{edited for spelling} 

 

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


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Nadja wrote: I'm sorry. So

Nadja wrote:

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.

One reason we feel the need to point out that theists have no rational basis for their beliefs because many, many theists are trying to insert those beliefs into politics, education and other areas of public discourse. We also note that some theists are finding motivation in their beliefs to fly planes into buildings and to blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces. So we can definitely see some upside to pointing out that these beliefs are wrong.

Another reason that we feel the need to point out the flaw in theistic beliefs is because we care about knowledge and correct understanding of the universe as valuable things in and of themselves. In other words, it is our love of truth that motivates us. 

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


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

Susan wrote:

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.

 

 

yeah when i used this thing without having mozzilla firefox the quote box was completely differant so i had to get used to not unsing it, it was confusing with all sorts of ({[< and it was easier to copy and paste, then the site basically forces you to download mozzila by constanly making it pop up at the top of the screen and totally messing up my post, so when i finally downloaded it i was already used to copying and pasting, now that you have mentioned it and i looked at quote again, it is alot easier then copy paste, so thanks for showing me the tutorial.


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: What he's

thiest1 wrote:

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.

So what you are saying is that you intend to argue about everything even when they are trying to help you and you intend to do it in a way that no one can understand you. But when someone points out that they cannot understand you because you refuse to use just a few brain cells to figure out how to make a forum post and then you intend to whine like a little girl when someone complains about it?

I'm guessing you are 12 years old..


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Susan

Susan wrote:

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.

He's been told that many times. What he has to say is pretty unintelligible anyway just ignore him.


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:


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

 


what ones are those maya?

 


You're proposed designer must have the knowledge of which particular contestants are required to cause the universe to "manufacture" a particular set of results. It also must be able to implement these constants in our universe to actually produce it's design. If your designer does not have these properties, then we could not observe the things you claim are designed. You would observe something else or nothing.

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


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

 


based upon our knowledge that is observable



Claiming the laws of the universe could not be changed is thological. You're simply assuming that your designer would choose not to change the constants because it didn't want to.

Obviously, the designer would have the knowledge and capacity to tune the laws of physics to obtain a particular result. Otherwise, we could not observe the things you claim are designed. Therefore, under your proposed universe factory, the laws of physics could change at any time.

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


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"



I'm a man. Do I not have breasts? What purpose do they serve? None. As such, your proposed definition of purpose seems to hinge on utilization, not just the appearance of design. Your designer must have had both the potential and ability to be utilized to design and create the universe. Otherwise you could not observe the things you claim are designed.

thiest1 wrote:


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?



If you recognize the universe as a factory, then you infer this factory had a designer and a builder who's purpose was to design and build the universe. Therefore, your designer needs a designer.

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
Nadja wrote:

Nadja wrote:


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?



If you're counting on retirement benefits that really didn't exist, wouldn't you want to know that they did not exist? Or would you'd rather be blissfully ignorant?

Nadja wrote:


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 someone was about to jump out of an airplane and you knew their parachute didn't work, wouldn't you tell them? Theists make decisions in this life based on their belief that they are not accidents. Since they believe that God created them, they believe that God has some special knowledge of what's right for them. They even claim to know what's right for me. These claims simply cannot be substantiated. Instead, I rely on practical, historically proven systems to make decisions.

Nadja wrote:


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.



I am a conscious being. I experience pain, sadness, joy and love. This happens whether I am an accident or not. How I came into existence does not change this. However, people are blowing themselves up due to their belief that they were not an accident and will be rewarded in heaven. Their delusion of grandeur makes them think they have a divine purpose and parachute that will save them.

Nadja wrote:


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!!



This sort of reasoning is an artifact of your belief that morality and meaning is linked to God's creation of man. Non-theists do not have such a belief. As such, we are free to choose our own moral systems and meaning. If God does not exist, then the entire Bible is nothing more than a system of morals made up by man.

Nadja wrote:

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


I could say the exact same thing to you. Your choice to believe in God could be because you don't want to know that we were an accident. If fact, you said "what is the point in telling everyone we are [an accident]? Who cares?" If the truth was that we were an accident, it appears you wouldn't want to know. With this sort of outlook, how can you claim to make objective observations of the world around you? Can you really say you care about finding the truth?

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


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
i am on a computer that does

i am on a computer that does not have firefox so i will not be using the quote function on this post.

You're proposed designer must have the knowledge of which particular contestants are required to cause the universe to "manufacture" a particular set of results. It also must be able to implement these constants in our universe to actually produce it's design. If your designer does not have these properties, then we could not observe the things you claim are designed. You would observe something else or nothing.

the designer does not cause the universe to manufacture them, he manufactured the universe. the designer does not have to "input" the constants into the universe as the designer designed the enitirity of the universe as a whole, baed on the factory annalogy ( a human being designs the entire factory and designs the constants that go into the factory, he doesnt input them into a already existing factory)

Claiming the laws of the universe could not be changed is thological. You're simply assuming that your designer would choose not to change the constants because it didn't want to.

hahahahahha cliaming the universal laws can not be changed is theological hahahahha, its scientific, we can observe the unchanging laws, its called gravity and theories like reletivity, jeez man where do you come up with this stuff.

wtf am i assuming abou the designer? i only assume that the designer would be intelligent, equally as i infer a designer of a factory to be intelligent, your off your rocker man.

Obviously, the designer would have the knowledge and capacity to tune the laws of physics to obtain a particular result. Otherwise, we could not observe the things you claim are designed. Therefore, under your proposed universe factory, the laws of physics could change at any time.

yeah this designer could change the laws of our universe at any time, whats the big deal? do you have a problem with that, can not a shoe factory designer change the design of a shoe factory and make it produce cars or bombs or any other thing, as you have already stated.

I'm a man. Do I not have breasts? What purpose do they serve? None. As such, your proposed definition of purpose seems to hinge on utilization, not just the appearance of design. Your designer must have had both the potential and ability to be utilized to design and create the universe. Otherwise you could not observe the things you claim are designed.

1. no you do not have breasts, you not having a use for a breast does not take purpose away from a breast.

2. i posted the definition of purpose, it is where i get my concept of purpose, i do not just "make it up"

3. yes a designer needs potential and ability, just like a factory designer.

4. your an idiot.

If you recognize the universe as a factory, then you infer this factory had a designer and a builder who's purpose was to design and build the universe. Therefore, your designer needs a designer.

1. who says the designer doesnt have a designer, i didnt (even though your premise in this does not lead to that conclusion)

2. refer to 4 in the above paragraph.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Scottmax

Scottmax,

Thank you for your interest. Yes, I'd prefer if Brian and Kelly speak for themselves and answer the question directly. While we’re waiting for them to answer, we might as well discuss some of the issues you brought up. First, it's difficult to take seriously your suggestion that the philosophers I listed may be rational with respect to science, logic, and philosophy, yet suddenly irrational just when it comes to their belief in God. You claim that "it is often a problem of compartmentalizing". For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this claim. Even so, it's not at all obvious that the analytic philosophers I listed have this problem; far from it, their philosophical work and their theistic inclinations are deeply integrated. And again, they represent but a mere fraction of analytic theists. There are others: Alexander Pruss, Peter Forrest, Michael Bergmann, William Vallicella, Lynn Rudder Baker, Robert Koons, Douglas Groothius, Hud Hudson, Richard Davis, Eleonore Stump, Robin Collins, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, Keith Derose, Michael Sudduth, and hundreds more.

Are you really prepared to claim that all of those theistic philosophers coincidentally manage to suffer from this "compartmentalizing" problem? What textual evidence in their work can you point me to that would verify their tendency to “compartmentalize” their beliefs? If you can’t point to any, then how exactly do you know that they have the problem? Do you know any of them personally enough to say with confidence that they have the problem?

And does RRS really expect us to believe that these thinkers are utterly irrational -- that they are malfunctioning somehow -- to the extent that they believe in God? Does this not seem arrogant in excelsis? What about figures in history who accepted some form of theism, like Aristotle, Plato, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkeley, Whitehead, Gödel, Cantor, etc.? Are they also irrational qua theists? What insight into rationality do you and RRS have that hundreds of the most brilliant minds throughout history and up to the present unfortunately missed out on? Have you or RRS taken the time to read most -- or for that matter, even a small portion -- of the work done by the contemporary philosophers above? Seems not (at least, you haven’t). So what is your basis for the sweeping generalization that their theistic beliefs are manifestly irrational? Even if I grant you that, say, a dozen of them are irrational, what about all the rest?

Moreover, why should we believe that these thinkers all suffer from full-blown mental disorders? What relevant psychological research have you and the members of RRS conducted to arrive at this conclusion? When it comes to you personally, it turns out: none at all. Your only basis for claiming that theists have a mental disorder is that it seems to you, now that you are a nonbeliever (how convenient), that they tie themselves in “logical knots”. This is a flimsy basis for such a controversial claim, and one wonders what you mean by “logical knots” (more on this below). RRS hopefully has more to offer than mere personal perspective. RRS wants everybody to believe that they extol the virtues of science; if they are really scientifically responsible, then surely they have the relevant scientific evidence for their claim that theism is a “mind disorder”. I have thus far been unable to find any living psychologists who have been led from long-term research, using widely accepted research methodologies, to the conclusion that theism is a mental disorder. Perhaps RRS did the work themselves? How long did their research last, did it take place in a controlled environment, how many subjects were involved, and was everything recorded and well-documented? Would the methodology behind their research be accepted by working psychologists? If not, then isn’t it scientifically irresponsible of RRS to claim that theism is a mental disorder?

Many neuroscientists and philosophers of mind, both theists and naturalists, believe that there are certain areas of the brain that contribute to a variety of religious experiences. But none of them, from my reading, classify this process as a full-blown “mental disorder”. This is partly why I ask that RRS clarify their claims.

You say you would like to see a "rational defense" of theism, so the obvious question is what your standards of a "rational defense" amount to. As it turns out, your understanding of rationality is not too strict (I suspect Brian and Kelly will have much higher standards). Basically, you think a person S is rational in believing p if and only if there is no contradiction to be found in the set of S's beliefs that support p. By "support" I take you to mean logical support. For two beliefs B1 and B2, B1 logically supports B2, let’s say, if and only if (roughly) B2 can be validly inferred from B1 either deductively, inductively, or abductively. So much for the fist clause of your definition. Your second clause involves the idea of S being able to answer objections against p, should they arise, without thereby engaging in formal contradiction. Assuming standard first order propositional logic, a formal contradiction is a proposition of the form p and ~p. I will accept your definition, for the sake of argument.

Based on your definition of rationality, then, to "rationally defend theism" a theist must defend her belief in God against objections without collapsing into contradiction (i.e. without having of a belief of the form p and ~p). She must not support her belief in theism with any contradictory beliefs.

I volunteer. I'll be glad to rationally defend my theistic beliefs against your objections. Feel free to raise them in your next post. If you find no contradictions (and you won't) lurking in my defense, what will you do? Will you concede the point that one can be rational in believing theism? Will you tweak your definition of rationality? It'll be interesting to find out. (You’ve already alluded to “the” problem of evil; please state the exact version you have in mind, with numbered premises and conclusions, since there are many floating around now. Are you referring to the traditional logical version, or Rowe's evidential version, or Draper's, or what?)

Getting back to your defense and clarification of the idea that theism is a “mind disorder”. Why exactly do you think this? What does it mean? Well, you say, you can just see “the logical knots that theists must tie themselves up in just to make the beliefs make sense”. So your basis is unscientific; it amounts to personal opinion, absent of any ancillary psychological case studies. But let that pass. Now, you obviously haven’t read a sufficient amount of the work done by the philosophers above to support your claim that they all suffer from mental disorders (if you have, then feel free to quote and exposit the portions of their work where they "tie themselves in logical knots&quotEye-wink. I doubt you know them personally. So it turns out that your claim doesn’t have a lot going for it.

Best,

W. Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Been on vacation over the

Been on vacation over the long weekend, seems I have a bit of catching up to do...

thiest1 wrote:

 

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.

 

Is your designer designed? His existence now your designer has a gender? You mean your reason leads "you" to infer that indeed the universe was designed. You are jumping to a conclusion that the universe is designed. Can you give me an example of something you can clearly say isn't designed, just so I know your qualifications of not designed.

thiest1 wrote:

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.

Isn't intelligence a process that in and of itself needs some sort of values to even exist, kind of like how the universe needs the natural law? I guess I would ask how your "designer" acquired these properties or this intelligence? I ask this because I need some ground into understanding what exactly can be done without design in your mind.

thiest1 wrote:

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.

Isn't intelligence a process? How did you designer have this process without it in and of itself without being designed? I see you on your most resent post said "How said the designer doesn't have a designer... This is the paradox I was talking about, a recursive loop. Designed designed by designer who is designed by a designer, ect... Or at some point something didn't need design. For right now the only things we have to go on is the natural laws... If I can find a designer or process that created those natural laws I will change my perspective. I shouldn't assume there is more, unless I have an idea on how to determine such.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I realize that this was

I realize that this was addressed to Scottmax, but I'd like to take a couple swipes at some of this stuff. 

Gavagai wrote:
First, it's difficult to take seriously your suggestion that the philosophers I listed may be rational with respect to science, logic, and philosophy, yet suddenly irrational just when it comes to their belief in God.

There are few other conclusions to draw when it is well established that belief in God does not rest on rational grounds. Major Church theologians have admitted this, including heavyweights like Aquinas and Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church understands that belief in God is matter of faith, not reason...why don't you?

Gavagai wrote:

You claim that "it is often a problem of compartmentalizing". For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this claim. Even so, it's not at all obvious that the analytic philosophers I listed have this problem; far from it, their philosophical work and their theistic inclinations are deeply integrated.

Please support this statement. As Scottmax pointed out, he couldn't see anywhere where the thinkers you mention presented a rational proof of God. As for compartmentalization, we are as being as charitable as we can toward people that we acknowledge are rational in all other things. We could come right out and accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, but that's a harsh charge on no evidence.

Your lists smack of an appeal to authority. Even as an appeal to authority, they somewhat lack weight unless we are directed to actual writings where these wonderful analysts provide a rational defence for belief in God. 

Gavagai wrote:

Are you really prepared to claim that all of those theistic philosophers coincidentally manage to suffer from this "compartmentalizing" problem? What textual evidence in their work can you point me to that would verify their tendency to “compartmentalize” their beliefs? If you can’t point to any, then how exactly do you know that they have the problem? Do you know any of them personally enough to say with confidence that they have the problem?

You first. You are the one claiming that these men held/hold rationally founded beliefs in God. Either show us evidence that this is true, or admit that we don't know why they believe in God. Again, compartmentalization is something we throw out as a plausible theory because we know from psychology that people can do this. All we are saying is that we don't understand any better than you how these otherwise rational men could hold the irrational belief in God.

Gavagai wrote:

And does RRS really expect us to believe that these thinkers are utterly irrational -- that they are malfunctioning somehow -- to the extent that they believe in God? Does this not seem arrogant in excelsis? What about figures in history who accepted some form of theism, like Aristotle, Plato, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkley, Whitehead, Gödel, Cantor, etc.? Are they also irrational qua theists? What insight into rationality do you and RRS have that hundreds of the most brilliant minds throughout history and up to the present unfortunately missed out on? Have you or RRS taken the time to read most -- or for that matter, even a small portion -- of the contemporary philosophers above? Seems not (at least, you haven’t). So what is your basis for the sweeping generalization that their theistic beliefs are manifestly irrational? Even if I grant you that, say, a dozen of them are irrational, what about all the rest?

You can stop trying to beat us down with your constant appeals to the authority of these wonderful thinkers. Unless you can show where they specifically addressed the issues, their names alone aren't going to impress us. I for one don't mind appearing arrogant as long as I'm right. 

You are also presenting a strawman when you ask us if we think these men are irrational overall. It is their God belief which is irrational, not the men themselves.

You may also wish to be cautious in appealing to ancients like Aristotle and Plato. They were simply labouring under a condition where they had so little data about the world that it is hardly surprising that they came to flawed conclusions. Most of the scientific thought of these thinkers has been disproven, and their utterances regarding God should suffer the same fate.

You are also on shaky ground claiming, with certainty, that pre-20th century thinkers were definitely theists. It is only in the last 100 years or so that people have been able to be openly atheist without prohibitive social or even physical consequences. Many people simply went to church, observed the rites of their family's religion and kept their private opinions to themselves. And it is often irrelevant to point to a person's theism when religion is not their field of study. Lots of very intelligent people just go along with the herd and claim membership in a religion because it is the default position and they really haven't bothered to apply themselves to the questions involved.

Gavagai wrote:

Moreover, why should we believe that these thinkers all suffer from full-blown mental disorders? What relevant psychological research have you and the members of RRS conducted to arrive at this conclusion? When it comes to you personally, it turns out: none at all. Your only basis for claiming that theists have a mental disorder is that it seems to you, now that you are a nonbeliever (how convenient), that they tie themselves in “logical knots”. This is a flimsy basis for such a controversial claim, and one wonders what you mean by “logical knots” (more on this below). RRS hopefully has more to offer than mere personal perspective. RRS wants everybody to believe that they extol the virtues of science; if they are really scientifically responsible, then surely they have the relevant scientific evidence for their claim that theism is a “mind disorder”. I have thus far been unable to find any living psychologists who have been led from long-term research, using widely accepted research methodologies, to the conclusion that theism is a mental disorder. Perhaps RRS did the work themselves? How long did their research last, did it take place in a controlled environment, how many subjects were involved, and was everything recorded and well-documented? Would the methodology behind their research be accepted by working psychologists? If not, then isn’t it scientifically irresponsible of RRS to claim that theism is a mental disorder?

The RRS is presenting an opinion, not a peer-reviewed paper for the journals. One source of support is Dawkins (a guy who knows more about such things that either of us) who likens the propagation of the idea of religion in the mind to the propagation of a virus in the DNA code of a cell.  Read the God Delusion for more about the theory.

The fact is that we call people with irrational beliefs insane, in every arena except religion. If you had no awareness of religion, what would you make of a man on the street, waving around a book claiming that it was authored by an invisible being who was going to judge you after you were dead? And, further, that this being had turned himself into a human so that he could be tortured to death as punishment because other people broke the laws he made? It's a garden variety paranoid delusion.

Gavagai wrote:

Many neuroscientists and philosophers of mind, both theists and naturalists, believe that there are certain areas of the brain that contribute to a variety of religious experiences. But none of them, from my reading, classify this process as a full-blown “mental disorder”. This is partly why I ask that RRS clarify their claims.

I'd only say it becomes a disorder when it drives a person to irrational beliefs and behaviour. Our brains also have centres that provide sexual feeling, but we don't call that a disorder either until someone starts obsessively stalking members of the opposite sex.

Gavagai wrote:

You say you would like to see a "rational defense" of theism, so the obvious question is what your standards of a "rational defense" amount to. As it turns out, your understanding of rationality is not too strict (I suspect Brian and Kelly will have much higher standards). Basically, you think a person S is rational in believing p if and only if there is no contradiction to be found in the set of S's beliefs that support p. By "support" I take you to mean logical support. For two beliefs B1 and B2, B1 logically supports B2, let’s say, if and only if (roughly) B2 can be validly inferred from B1 either deductively, inductively, or abductively. So much for the fist clause of your definition. Your second clause involves the idea of S being able to answer objections against p, should they arise, without thereby engaging in formal contradiction. Assuming classical logic, a formal contradiction is a proposition of the form p and ~p. I will accept your definition, for the sake of argument.

Based on your definition of rationality, then, to "rationally defend theism" a theist must defend her belief in God against objections without collapsing into contradiction (i.e. without having of a belief of the form p and ~p). She must not support her belief in theism with any contradictory beliefs.

Blah blah blah whatever. We all know what a rational defence is.

Gavagai wrote:

I volunteer. I'll be glad to rationally defend my theistic beliefs against your objections. Feel free to raise them in your next post. If you find no contradictions (and you won't) lurking in my defense, what will you do? Will you concede the point that one can be rational in believing theism? Will you tweak your definition of rationality? It'll be interesting to find out. (You’ve already alluded to “the” problem of evil; please state the exact version you have in mind, with numbered premises and conclusions, since there are many floating around now. Are you referring to the traditional logical version, or Rowe's evidentiary version, or Draper's, or what?)

No, no, no, no. No shifting the burden of proof allowed. You tell us why you think there is a God and then we'll present our objections.

Gavagai wrote:

Getting back to your defense and clarification of the idea that theism is a “mind disorder”. Why exactly do you think this? What does it mean? Well, you say, you can just see “the logical knots that theists must tie themselves up in just to make the beliefs make sense”. So your basis is unscientific; it amounts to personal perspective, absent of any psychological case studies. But let that pass. Now, you obviously haven’t read a sufficient amount of the work done by the philosophers above to support your claim that they all suffer from mental disorders. I doubt you know them personally. So it turns out that your claim doesn’t have a lot going for it.

It turns out that you are overly eager to call a lot of people stupid and uneducated when nothing could be further from the truth. I think you'll find that many, many people on this site know a lot more about this stuff than you do. Your ridiculous assertion that belief in God can be arrived at through rational means is proof enough that you are out of your league. Disagree? Then show us what you've got.

Why do you believe there's a God? 

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


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai, I encourage you to

Gavagai,

I encourage you to post your rational defense of theism on these forums...but not here.

This thread has grown excessively large, and a new discussion should be posted at the Atheist vs. Theist board or the Kill 'em with Kindness, in order to seperate it from this long discussion.

Thanks, and I'll be looking forward to the discussion.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
magus said,

magus wrote:

Is your designer designed? His existence now your designer has a gender? You mean your reason leads "you" to infer that indeed the universe was designed. You are jumping to a conclusion that the universe is designed. Can you give me an example of something you can clearly say isn't designed, just so I know your qualifications of not designed.

 

is the designer designed? how do i know, how many times does it take to explain a simple fact, i can not infer into something i do not observe, i can only infer from that which i observe, so again, i observe that the wing of a bird is designed, then I infer the designer, please explain what is so hard about that to understand?

im sorry but while the shoe is inside of the shoe factory everything around him is designed, i can not point you to something that is not designed becasue the entire universe is designed, i can show you a design, you will agree that the wing of the bird is designed will you not? or the wing of a 747 jumbo jet? ill show you a human heart and then ill show you a robotic artificial heart, as you can see they are all designed, we can recognize design using the abstract reasoning of our brain, much as we can also understand the concept of time.

No, i am not "jumping" to a conclusion that the universe is designed, do you "jump" to the conclusion that the artificial heart is designed, or the wing of the jumbo jet, how about the artificial heart, are you "jumping" to conclusions that their is an inherent concept within the item that indeed makes it designed?

and why do you need to know my qualifications for something that is "not designed", hmmmm, why is an example of something designed not good enough for you?

how can i show you something which does not exist, such as also you can not show me that God does not exist.

I do not know the designer personally so i dont know if it is a he, she, it, them, or whatever, sorry i used "he" it is a common mistake when reffering to something as such i used it earlier to refer to all intellectuals, saying "men of reason" well i also meant woman, and girls and boys and children, so, i was not stating that the designer is a "he".

 

gotta head to the pool right now, ill answer the rest of yer post when i get back later, magus.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes and removed white space at end of post]


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Gavagai. Tilberian gave

Hi Gavagai. Tilberian gave a pretty good answer to the bulk of your message. I agree with everything he said so I won't bother covering the same points.

Gavagai wrote:

First, it's difficult to take seriously your suggestion that the philosophers I listed may be rational with respect to science, logic, and philosophy, yet suddenly irrational just when it comes to their belief in God.

Why should this seem odd? Many people might consider me quite irrational in my belief in the singular virtues of my wife and children. To me they are the most extraordinary people on the planet. My son is the most creative kid I know, my daughter the most thoughtful and my wife is the most charming. I am not inclined to think poorly of them and I might resent you if you pointed out flaws in their characters, although I would struggle not to.

Most Christians I have seen love their God as a member of the family and are, if anything, more loyal to God.

Gavagai wrote:
What textual evidence in their work can you point me to that would verify their tendency to “compartmentalize” their beliefs?

Since I wasn't actually able to see any samples of their work, I have none. I spent about 40 minutes looking over the links that you sent to no avail. I'll read what they say if you will do the legwork and find links to actual writings.

But I would be much more interested in responding to your rational defence of God. You have apparently read the writings of these men so condense it down for us. What are the best arguments? I have read a number of defences of God and I haven't seen anything new in quite awhile. I would love to have new arguments to contemplate.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
magus, contemplating deeply

 (the quote thing isnt working for some odd reason)

magus, contemplating deeply says,

Isn't intelligence a process that in and of itself needs some sort of values to even exist, kind of like how the universe needs the natural law? I guess I would ask how your "designer" acquired these properties or this intelligence? I ask this because I need some ground into understanding what exactly can be done without design in your mind.

is intelligence a "process", i do not think so, it is more of an "attribute" of awareness. what do you mean without a "design" in my mind, Why do I need a design in my mind, take the example of stonehenge, we do not know who designed it but we can infer things about the people that did design it by its design, they obviously were studiers of astrology for instance. who says that the "designer" of the universe does not have value to exist, that would be jumping to conclusions that you can not observe from your perspective. please explain deeper the concept you have with "designer in mind" I am not really getting what yer trying to say, so it is hard to answer the question of "what can be done" without a "designer in mind"

[Magus contemplating deeply replies,] 

 Isn't intelligence a process? How did you designer have this process without it in and of itself without being designed? I see you on your most resent post said "How said the designer doesn't have a designer... This is the paradox I was talking about, a recursive loop. Designed designed by designer who is designed by a designer, ect... Or at some point something didn't need design. For right now the only things we have to go on is the natural laws... If I can find a designer or process that created those natural laws I will change my perspective. I shouldn't assume there is more, unless I have an idea on how to determine such. 

I do not assume a designer, it is logically inferred, their is a big differance, I do not understand why you can not fathom this simple concept, what exactly am I "assuming" , its all about logic, "the wing of the bird is designed" therfore " their is a designer", im not "assuming" their is a designer. and about the loop, how do you know that it is not as you say it is, a recirsive loop of designs and we are the center point of their designs, as we design no universe, if I can show you the end of the design proccess, which is this universe, why can you also not infer that it could have a beggining.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: Magus

thiest1 wrote:

Magus wrote:

Is your designer designed? His existence now your designer has a gender? You mean your reason leads "you" to infer that indeed the universe was designed. You are jumping to a conclusion that the universe is designed. Can you give me an example of something you can clearly say isn't designed, just so I know your qualifications of not designed.

thiest1 wrote:

is the designer designed? how do i know, how many times does it take to explain a simple fact, i can not infer into something i do not observe, i can only infer from that which i observe, so again, i observe that the wing of a bird is designed, then I infer the designer, please explain what is so hard about that to understand?

Did you read this before you posted. "I can not infer into something I Do not observe ... I infer the designer" You have only seen something that to you appears to be designed and have never witnessed the designer.

You inferred that their is a designer, yet you have not observed it. All you can really say is it seems intelligently designed to you. Anything beyond that is speculation and should not be believed until it presents itself. You infer their is a designer, but never take the time to realize what that means. You like most theist I know, stop at god did it. You say the universe has to be designed, but then you deny questioning it further. Why not question it further? Is it too hard for you to grasp this idea that at some point something just had to be. Right now I know the universe exists so until something can be demonstrated further, that is the thing that had to be. If you can prove beyond it please do so. Prove the universe to be something more than self assembling system.

thiest1 wrote:

im sorry but while the shoe is inside of the shoe factory everything around him is designed, i can not point you to something that is not designed becasue the entire universe is designed, i can show you a design, you will agree that the wing of the bird is designed will you not? or the wing of a 747 jumbo jet? ill show you a human heart and then ill show you a robotic artificial heart, as you can see they are all designed, we can recognize design using the abstract reasoning of our brain, much as we can also understand the concept of time.

I agree the birds designer is evolution, an unintelligent unthinking process acting on self assembling entities. The wing of a 747 while still within nature doesn't have an unthinking process. We are designers intelligent things are designers, but as I have stated intelligence is a design, intelligence to exist it must come from intelligences.

thiest1 wrote:

No, i am not "jumping" to a conclusion that the universe is designed, do you "jump" to the conclusion that the artificial heart is designed, or the wing of the jumbo jet, how about the artificial heart, are you "jumping" to conclusions that their is an inherent concept within the item that indeed makes it designed?

and why do you need to know my qualifications for something that is "not designed", hmmmm, why is an example of something designed not good enough for you?

how can i show you something which does not exist, such as also you can not show me that God does not exist.

The only jumping is when you say it is intelligent. Sure under certain vague definitions everything can be considered designed. That does not make it's designer intelligent or efficient it just makes it a process.

You can't show me something that does not exist and that is my point. You won't allow people to question your "designers" design for who know what reason.... yet you have already stated everything needs to be designed. The paradox I have been talking about the designers, designers, designers.... The only escape from this creation circle is to have something just be a process kind of like our universe.

thiest1 wrote:

I do not know the designer personally so i dont know if it is a he, she, it, them, or whatever, sorry i used "he" it is a common mistake when reffering to something as such i used it earlier to refer to all intellectuals, saying "men of reason" well i also meant woman, and girls and boys and children, so, i was not stating that the designer is a "he".

gotta head to the pool right now, ill answer the rest of yer post when i get back later, magus.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
gatogreensleeves

gatogreensleeves said:

Quote:
The experiment was "tainted?" What they showed was that it was not sound to begin with, because, if you read it through, (and obviously you didn't), even random proccesses have a tendency to multiply order exponentially. This is why, as Mark Perakh showed in "Unintelligent Design," that we can find all kinds of "order" in random strings of numbers, and/or "codes," and "meaning" in random strings of letters ( or even non-random strings [e.g. Moby Dick]). I'm assuming that you propose that when a computer- or whatever (flip coins, cards, etc.) creates a random string of numbers, that when we find 1,2,3 in there or 5,5,5, that that is God amongst the chaos?

The typing monkeys scenario was in regard to DNA, which is unquestionably ordered and non-random. Thus Perakh's "reading" order in random sequences where it does not exist is an absurd analogy in relation to the genetic code.

Quote:
We have meaning in our lives without theology- THAT is what is really quite simple.

It doesn't matter where you think you derive your meaning from, the point is that you DO feel your life has meaning even though the materialist implication is that meaning does not exist. That is quite telling. It is also a major inconsistency for that world view.

Quote:
Because God is omniscient and I am not. You are ignoring the fact that the bible proclaims that God did not learn anything vicariously through humans as you suggest ("Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, and informed Him of the way of understanding?" (Is. 40:13-14). Are you saying that God learned something from the sins of humans/Satan/whoever? That is not eternal omniscience. I agree with you that humans can learn something about evil vicariously, but even still, only to a limited extent without the experience of actually committing the act. Knowing some act is wrong is not complete knowledge of the act. Are you saying that there is no knowledge in experience?

My example was merely to point out that omniscience alone does not negate free will, in the same way your knowing the outcome of some event does not make you responsible for it.

As for humans (or God) needing to experience evil as a perpetrator before understanding it, I couldn't disagree more. Ravi Zacharias made a very good point when he alluded to the fact that it is not the rapist who understands the depth of evil in the act he commits, but the one who is raped.

In other words, the victim of the evil understands the horrors far more intimately than the person who commits the act. And as I stated before, Jesus experienced the evil from that vantage point. Thus He has a far better understanding of it than anyone.

Quote:
Assumptions of personhood. Next...

You answer that as if you do not have to devote any of your intellectual energy to determining whether or not a "fetus" (which, btw is the latin term for OFFSPRING or INFANT), is really a person.

I think Dr. Seuss put it best when he said "A person's a person no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who.

Quote:
Sara said:

Doing something out of selfishness is generally not a good thing.

Gato: Generally? Explain why you chose "generally."

I personally can't think of any instances where selfishness is seen as a virtue no matter what the outcome. If you can, please elaborate. So I used the word generally because there can be exceptions to the rule.

Quote:
You're missing the point- several actually. The relationships proposed in the OT for how "the crime fits the punishment" is un unavoidable qualification. Aren't some sins more offensive to God than others? If they were all the same (I'm not talking about the smallest sin is enough for damnation- I'll concede that for now) why are there different punishments? For example, God decided that working on Sabbath was more evil (requiring death) than if a slave is beaten, but lives for a few days before he dies (requiring a fine- Ex. 20:20-21), and so on. These qualifications have been deemed injust over time (that you disagree has frightening implications for the world you think should exist). The Law in itself is not perfect (though Psalm 19:7 disagrees)- it is not even humane in many instances (e.g. requiring death for more trivial crimes, instead of fines) and the requalifications of the relationship between the crime fitting (or not fitting) the punishment are evidence enough of that.

Defiling the Sabbath day was in essence blasphemy against God and the resulting penalty was death, this has not changed. Likewise, beating a slave with the intent to kill was punishable by a penalty to be determined by the Judges.

The second instance, though, seems to be describing a case where the intent was not to kill the slave thus the owner would not be punished since the loss of the slave was deemed penalty enough.

As to the overall justice of the institution of slavery and whether or not it was "ethical" for Israelis (or anyone else) to own slaves requires more thought. During that period in the Ancient Near East, slavery for Israelis was both an option (i.e. to keep from falling into severe poverty) and sometimes a requirement (as in the case of a not being able to repay a debt.) But the fact that there were laws set up to ensure that slaves were not killed without impugnity was an ethical way to guard against abuse of your fellow man. Eventually, Israeli slaves could redeem themselves or choose to remain a slave. So it seems that this particular system more closely paralleled an employer/employee relationship than the system of slavery we are familiar with.

As for American slavery, this was a different animal all together. Not only did the slave traders "steal" people from various lands (a direct violation of Leviticus 20:16 where the offenders would have been put to death), but owners were not punished at all for harming slaves.

As to whether or not God views certain sins as being more or less evil, like I said, all sin is deserving of death. To hasten that death in response to certain sins is certainly God's perrogative. Since He is able to see the far reaching consequences for the various sins, it would make sense that He could assign varying degrees of punishment. If a particular sin would cause exceeding harm to the nation in general (as in the case of Blasphemy), then it should receive the swifter punishment.

Quote:
I am well aware of Paul's harmonization of how the law should be viewed. It was just a trial run to show us that we couldn't do it. It escapes me why for thousands of years, "righteous" OT characters were without a functional salvation plan (why were some of the OT characters even considered righteous? Did they go to heaven? I know "there are none righteous, no not one" blahblahblah- but they were also called righteous) in order to teach future generations something. Why did it take so long? In fact, why didn't omniscient God create a "Jesus plan" for the original perpetrators, Adam and Eve, right then and there (or shortly thereafter)?

The 3rd Chapter of Galatians and also the 4th chapter of Romans addresses what makes a person righteous. As Paul states: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness...But to him who does not work but believes on [God] who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin." (Romans 4:3-8)

So all Old Testament saints who put their trust in God were declared righteous because, by their faith, their sins would be covered by Christ's sacrifice in the future. Thus the timing of Christ's first advent did not preclude anyone who lived prior from receiving salvation.

Quote:
Again, the more important issue is that these laws were put in place because these particular acts are offensive to an unchanging God and to Jesus who was right there with Him since the beginning (and on the flip side, the smell of burning bullocks will forever create a pleasing smell unto the Lord). The qualification of the supposed evil inherent in some of these "sins" is what is at issue, not whether or not they are binding for salvation.

You've left quite a few other questions unanswered there... such as epistemological qualifications as to which laws are rituals and which are moral and why a ritual law is not in itself pleasing or displeasing to God. Why is the Sabbath Commandment in the so called "Ethical" Decalogue if it is a ritual made for man?.

Ritual laws are moral laws in the sense that by maintaining ceremonial cleanness a person was showing reverence to God. When the perfect sacrifice occurred (i.e. Christ's sacrifice) believers are declared "clean" by their faith in Him.

The OT rituals were merely a shadow of the sacrifice that was to come, so even though they were part of an overall system in which sins were "covered", they could not remit sins completely. Only Jesus' death could accomplish that.

As I said above, the Sabbath was ethical in the since that man showed his faith in God and His providence by obstaining from work. Essentially, it had a double purpose: 1.) for man to rest and 2.) to show he trusted God.

Quote:
This is a non-sequiter. The birth of consciousness introduces elements (like empathy) that affect our decisions. That a car has limits on the speed it can go, does not determine how fast (or how reckless) the driver will drive the car within those limits.

Well, again, your statement is arguing for some sort of dichotomy between the brain and the mind, which is what I've been maintaining all along. If the brain is the "car" and the mind is the "driver" that can "control" the car, then you have only proved my point, not yours.

 

Quote:
LOL. Okay, if you cannot see the requalification of who is and who isn't innocent that you made inherent in your very post ("now when I say murder...&quotEye-wink, there's nothing more I can say...

Adding a qualifier does not affect whether or not a law is absolute, it simply ensures that the offender will be clearly identifiable.

Quote:
I just knew you would say that about gerbils! I don't have to tell you that this is just one piece of evidence from a much larger group of evidence- you know that, but you said that anyway... You would not go on one piece of evidence either, so mentioning the shark/camel issue belies the rest of the evidence of why these issues do not equally apply to both examples. No one makes claims based on one piece of evidence. The fact is that that broken gene is exactly the kind of thing that we would expect to see if humans and chimps share a common anscestor in their (anthropologically) recent lineage. You may choose to rule out inductive reasoning, but given your theological position, I would doubt it. Now in relation to Christian theology, God creating humans with a broken Vit. C gene does not make sense. Why should humans, monkeys (and gerbils) not be able to synthesize Vit. C, yet the rest of the animals can? Are we well designed? There are many examples of bizarre genetic predispositions in animals that make no sense from the standpoint of creationism: horses with the gentic ability to make toes, chickens with teeth, etc. Why would God put this info in the DNA Sara? Seriously, you have to step back and consider this.

O.k. you are trying to make a point from the "post fall" perspective. God made humans and everything else perfect from the beginning, however when man chose to rebel against God and remove himself from God's provision, that is when man became subject to death and imperfection. So the vitamin C gene in humans and apes was probably functional at one time, but now is not. Everything is in a state of decay now, not only bodily or physically, but genetically. As Romans 5:12 says "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:". Likewise all of creation was subjected to the same through Adam's rebellion (Romans 8:20).

So making the argument "why did God design things so poorly" really isn't very compelling once you understand that the imperfect state we observe is not the way it was originally intended to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you think "horse toes" and "chicken teeth" are supposed to prove other than the fact that scientist's have a biased interpretation of animal structures.

  

 

Quote:
Order is multiplied exponentially within randomness when energy is present.

Yes, but order is due to the inherent abilities placed in the animal or plant via its DNA, not from "random" factors.  Which brings us back to square one where we are haggling over whether or not God is responsible for the formation of DNA or the unlikely alternative that DNA formed itself.

Quote:
I'm saying why not eliminate the mystery element. What purpose does it serve in a salvation plan based on moral choice? Your view of what is "enough" evidence is not enough for me- but that doesn't even matter, because God knows exactly how much evidence each one of us needs and could present that while keeping a salvation plan based on moral choice still in tact.

You are exactly right. God does know how much evidence you need. Maybe even if you were presented with all the evidence in the world, you would still choose to rebel against God, that's why He doesn't give you more.

But I like to think that perhaps you are still in the process of gathering that evidence as we speak and will come to believe at a later date. Call me an optimist Smiling.

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
Magus Replies, [Did you

Magus Replies, 

[Did you read this before you posted. "I can not infer into something I Do not observe ... I infer the designer" You have only seen something that to you appears to be designed and have never witnessed the designer. ]

Like I said, the manner which you are inferring and in whcih I am stating that I did not observe is Action of the Designer, to infer a designer, you only need to see the design, as I showed you with the observations of design within natural proccess of evolution and then within the procces of man (which are both proccess of the Universal Function)  You are inferring beyond your scope of any possible logical reasoning as it is beyond the logical walls of our universe, did you not undnerstand, I observe the design, this observation that I observed  only logically leads to one place, you can not escape it, it is logic, take out inference it is not needed, sorry that I used "infer", Logic says this, "if something is design-ED: their is a design-ER " , then you falsely contribute evolution to be the designer, evolution is the proccess of design, not a designer, when did evolution ever design anything? Procceses do not design, they are the subject of a designer. So just take out "infer", now what you are trying to do is infer things about the unobserved designer, not use logic to conclude that their is indeed a designer, so like i have said before, if you want to speculate and theologically discuss the possibilities of the designer, then indeed lets do that, but this is not the place, theologyweb.com woulc be a better forum, here we must only prove by logic that theism is indeed rational.

MAgus Says,

(You like most theist I know, stop at god did it. You say the universe has to be designed, but then you deny questioning it further.)

as i have stated this isnt the place to go into the unobservable realm of the designer, we can only go on what we observe, if you want to speculate about the "science" of the "designer" lets do it elsewhere. To say I stop trying to reason out at "the designer did it" which is evident, i do much theorizing on the subject, but in this forum we schould not go beyond the observable universe.

magus says,

 (but as I have stated intelligence is a design)

please show me the logic behind this statement, intelligence is an attribute of awarenes, it is not a design, show me the design of my intelligence if indeed my intelligence is designed.

Magus Says, 

(Prove the universe to be something more than self assembling system.)

Show me the evidence that the universe is a self assembling system, thats your assumption.

 magus says,

(That does not make it's designer intelligent or efficient it just makes it a process. )

Proccesses do not design things, like a said, designers do. Processes are the subjects of designs, not the other way around.

magus says,

(The only jumping is when you say it is intelligent. Sure under certain vague definitions everything can be considered designed. That does not make it's designer intelligent or efficient it just makes it a process.)

Does it ake intelligence to design a jet? tell me whats the differance when you look a a bird? use your own reasoning to answer this question, design requires intelligence. And as a stated procceses do not design things, designers design proccesses which produce "things", its a logical proccess.

magus says,  

(You can't show me something that does not exist and that is my point. You won't allow people to question your "designers" design for who know what reason.... yet you have already stated everything needs to be designed.)

did u understand what i was saying, I can not show you something that is not designed becasue it does not exist in this universe, the entire universe is designed, the example of the lego house will work well to show you, imagine that the periodic table is replaced with legos, if i build a lego universe out of the legos and put poeple in it, their entire universe will be designed, they can not point to something and say " it is not designed, casue the entire universe they exists in is designed. I think if you read platos "allegory of the cave" you will know what im saying, he explained this precept exxcelently. if you read that allegory I think you will better understand what I am trying to let you understand.

and no I did not Say "everything needs to be designed", that would be an assumption out of my realm observable knowledge, I said, the universe as a whole is designed.

 magus says

(The only escape from this creation circle is to have something just be a process kind of like our universe. )

I am not trying to "escape from any circle", you created the circle, you can escape from it, it is your assumptions that lead you in a circle. 

please explain to me the logical "proccess of our universe". 

after you explain to me the logical "proccess of the universe" just apply this "logical proccess of the universe" to the designer and you have escaped the circle that you claim exists.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
There are multiple

There are multiple discussions going on in this thread which have veered sharply from the original intent of this thread.

Since everything is intermixed, it is impossible for the mods to split out the posts and start new threads in the appropriate forums.  (When individual posts are moved, it's more than likely going to move posts not associated with the individual topic.)

Could the participants please start new threads in the appropriate forums and take the discussions there?  You can always post a link at the end of this thread so interested parties can find it.

Thank you. 

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


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: There are

Susan wrote:

There are multiple discussions going on in this thread which have veered sharply from the original intent of this thread.

Since everything is intermixed, it is impossible for the mods to split out the posts and start new threads in the appropriate forums.  (When individual posts are moved, it's more than likely going to move posts not associated with the individual topic.)

Could the participants please start new threads in the appropriate forums and take the discussions there?  You can always post a link at the end of this thread so interested parties can find it.

Thank you. 

 

please explain the intent of the thread. im doing exaclty what the thread says to do, "evidence for God"


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian and

Tilberian and Scottmax:

Thanks for your replies. We'd probably all agree that the burden of proof is usually on the one pushing a positive claim.  Let me review the exchange so far. Scottmax, along with RRS, make the following claim.

 

Claim: theists are irrational to the extent that they believe in God.

 

I pointed out several analytic theist philosophers who believe in God. Now, since the burden of proof usually falls on the one who advances a positive claim, and since Scottmax and RRS made the claim above, I asked that they (1) clarify their claim, and (2) support their claim by pointing out the irrationality of these philosophers’ theistic beliefs.


To be perfectly clear, then, I’ve not come here claiming a la Comfort that I can provide "proof" of God’s existence. My project is modest and reasonable. I’ve merely come here asking you guys to articulate and defend your claim that theism is irrational. (Thus, the issue was never about me or anybody else providing a rational “proof” of theism, contrary to Tilberian’s interpretation of the exchange. Moreover, my purpose in providing those lists of theistic philosophers was not to argue from “here are philosophers who are rational and who believe in God” to “therefore, theism is rational”; I agree with Tilberian that if I had done that, I might have been verging on some sort of appeal to authority. But I’ve not done that. I’ve asked for Scottmax and RRS to support their claim by showing me how those philosophers are irrational. I think at most I've suggested that they're brilliant and that they are respected in the philosophical community as rational thinkers, and certainly that much is true.)

Scottmax is apparently having difficulty locating articles where those philosophers express their belief in theism. Fine, let's spare ourselves some time and make it easy: I believe that God exists. So Scottmax, you think I am irrational as a result. Recall your definition of rationality. As follows: 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.

So as I say, I believe in God. In reporting my belief, I have not asserted any formal contradiction.  Nor is it clear that there is some contradiction on which I must rely to hold my belief in God. Nor have I contradicted myself when defending my belief in God against various objections. (This last remark is true simply in virtue of the fact that you've not raised any objections yet.) So far, then, I have satisfied the conditions in your definition. 

Of course, this doesn’t mean God exists. It’s possible for one to be rational in believing some proposition even though the proposition in question is false. I hope the issue is clear now. It’s not about whether God in fact exists, nor have I ever said that I will provide a “proof” of his existence in this thread; it’s about whether one can be rational in believing that God exists. This distinction is uncontroversial. In fact, it is accepted by most philosophers of religion. And epistemologists in general accept the distinction between the truth value of a proposition and one's belief in a proposition.  I’ve merely reported my belief in God. And it appears to conform to Scottmax’s definition of rational belief. Of course, he might have some reasons to think that my belief is actually irrational. I await such reasons.

 

Cheers,

 

Gavagai

 

P.S. Tilberian, attentive readers will notice that I never once claimed (implicitly or explicitly) that the members of this forum are "stupid" and/or "uneducated". You seem to think I have, though. So I apologize if anything I've said has offended you personally. 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Susan,  Sorry, I just

Susan,

 Sorry, I just noticed your request to start new threads. I will start one in my next reply. 

Cheers,

 W. G.
 

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: i am on a

thiest1 wrote:
i am on a computer that does not have firefox so i will not be using the quote function on this post.

Firefox has nothing to do with the Quote function. If had actually clicked on the tutorial link that has been given to you many times you would have seen that. 

thiest1 wrote:
4. your an idiot.

Someone went to all the trouble to create a tutorial to teach even the simplest of minds how to use the Quote function and you can't figure that out but you are calling someone else an idiot?

Theist is spelled "T h e i s t". You can't spell Theist and you are calling educated people idiots. This is what I was saying about the Christian Nazi's. They fear education. If this person was educated he would not have been so easily brainwashed.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Satan's Bitch

Satan's Bitch yells,

 

         (If had actually)

 

This is not a proper sentence, I just wanted to let you know, becasue maybe to you it was not obvious, becasue you check each post you make for any sort of critical grammer error to seem like yo are smart.

 

Good bye. 

 

 


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Now that the mods have

Now that the mods have stepped in and are requesting that the numerous tangential discussions be taken to other threads, I would like to reiterate some questions about the debate that I'd asked earlier.

Is any of the following likely to be made available at this or some other site in some convenient format?

Video - yes I saw it at ABC's site, but it came in awkward pieces

Audio

Transcript


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:


You're proposed designer must have the knowledge of which particular contestants are required to cause the universe to "manufacture" a particular set of results. It also must be able to implement these constants in our universe to actually produce it's design. If your designer does not have these properties, then we could not observe the things you claim are designed. You would observe something else or nothing.


the designer does not cause the universe to manufacture them, he manufactured the universe. the designer does not have to "input" the constants into the universe as the designer designed the enitirity of the universe as a whole, baed on the factory annalogy ( a human being designs the entire factory and designs the constants that go into the factory, he doesnt input them into a already existing factory)



We can observe how the properties of the universe have influenced everything around at this moment. We can observe stars being formed in the cosmos based on known chemical reactions. On this point I agree. However, for this moment and everything in it to have been designed just so, your designer must have designed the universe factory's properties with future knowledge in how to bring this exact moment about. Otherwise, the universe is not a factory as it would produce nothing.

To quote you...

thiest1 wrote:
Part of the universal [function] of "evolution" includes the planning of creatures to go from one form to the other...


We can see and predict how life has and will evolve on our planet with great accuracy. This is because we can observe how life has evolved though the process of mutation and natural selection. Man didn't just appeared in the form you claim is designed. As such, the entire process of chemical reactions, mutation and natural selection must be part of the design of the factory you propose. Otherwise, we would not be designed. In other words, if a designer designed the universe, he didn't design the finished product, he designed a factory that would eventually manufacture man. Again, this implies that the designer...

01. Has a final design in mind

02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design

03. Build the factory using this design

Otherwise, your whole universe as a factory metaphor doesn't make any sense.

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:

Obviously, the designer would have the knowledge and capacity to tune the laws of physics to obtain a particular result. Otherwise, we could not observe the things you claim are designed. Therefore, under your proposed universe factory, the laws of physics could change at any time.


yeah this designer could change the laws of our universe at any time, whats the big deal? do you have a problem with that, can not a shoe factory designer change the design of a shoe factory and make it produce cars or bombs or any other thing, as you have already stated.


So you agree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. Let's all cross our fingers in hope that your designer doesn't decide to change the properties of the universe to create something other than our current reality.

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:

I'm a man. Do I not have breasts? What purpose do they serve? None. As such, your proposed definition of purpose seems to hinge on utilization, not just the appearance of design. Your designer must have had both the potential and ability to be utilized to design and create the universe. Otherwise you could not observe the things you claim are designed.


1. no you do not have breasts, you not having a use for a breast does not take purpose away from a breast. 2. i posted the definition of purpose, it is where i get my concept of purpose, i do not just "make it up" 3. yes a designer needs potential and ability, just like a factory designer. 4. your an idiot.


I don't have breasts? Perhaps you should take an anatomy class (or at least check your facts before posting.) Men have fully formed breast tissue and glands that, by your standards, is designed, However, I can't feed an infant. They serve no practical use. The are simply not active in men.

The female breast and hormonal system has evolved to provide a method to feed it's young. This is exactly what evolution would predict. However, if human beings were explicitly designed by an intelligent designer then why do both male and females have fully formed breasts? Why does the urethra in men go though the prostrate gland when this gland swells after 60 years of age? This simply doesn't apear to be the the work of an intellegent designer. Just because we intentionally design things to mimic structures found in nature, doesn't mean these natural structures are designed by an intelligent designer. This is simply a unsubstantiated observation on your part.

Our DNA is essentially a set of instructions that are use to create human beings. It's a blueprint that is passed on though reproduction and is randomly mutated and naturally selected based on the properties of the universe. But why is this mutation necessary if the designer knows exactly what it wants? Why design for a factory that creates intermediate steps to an ultimate design? What reason would there be for evolution at all?

And if we continue to evolve, then we are not the final design. Unless the designer has created some kind of safety valve in the universes factory that shuts down evolution a the right time, then there is no final design as our structure would always be changing.

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


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
My discussion with Scottmax

My discussion with Scottmax has been moved here:  

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7547

 Thanks, Tilberian.

 

- W. Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Maya Says, (We can see and

Maya Says,

(We can see and predict how life has and will evolve on our planet with great accuracy. This is because we can observe how life has evolved though the process of mutation and natural selection. Man didn't just appeared in the form you claim is designed. As such, the entire process of chemical reactions, mutation and natural selection must be part of the design of the factory you propose. Otherwise, we would not be designed. In other words, if a designer designed the universe, he didn't design the finished product, he designed a factory that would eventually manufacture man. Again, this implies that the designer...

01. Has a final design in mind

02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design

03. Build the factory using this design

Otherwise, your whole universe as a factory metaphor doesn't make any sense. )

Yes you are learning my brother, keep up the contemplation.

Maya Says,

(So you agree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. Let's all cross our fingers in hope that your designer doesn't decide to change the properties of the universe to create something other than our current reality. )

Indeed, but crossing your fingers will probably not do anything, maybe show some love for the “designer”?

Maya Says

(I don't have breasts? )

If you really want to have breasts like a woman you can have an operation, otherwise you do not have woman’s breasts.

Mays Says

(Perhaps you should take an anatomy class (or at least check your facts before posting.) Men have fully formed breast tissue and glands that, by your standards, is designed, However, I can't feed an infant. They serve no practical use. The are simply not active in men.

The female breast and hormonal system has evolved to provide a method to feed it's young. This is exactly what evolution would predict. However, if human beings were explicitly designed by an intelligent designer then why do both male and females have fully formed breasts? Why does the urethra in men go though the prostrate gland when this gland swells after 60 years of age? This simply doesn't apear to be the the work of an intellegent designer. Just because we intentionally design things to mimic structures found in nature, doesn't mean these natural structures are designed by an intelligent designer. This is simply a unsubstantiated observation on your part. )

As I have already answered this question to dadvocate I will not repeat it again, if you want the answer go read the post. Tell me Maya, is an artificial heart designed? Is a Bird designed? If I clone a human being, who designed the human being that I cloned? Unsubstantiated? Tell me why a jet wing is designed, then tell me why a birds wing isn’t, I am waiting for your response.

Maya Says

(Our DNA is essentially a set of instructions that are use to create human beings. It's a blueprint that is passed on though reproduction and is randomly mutated and naturally selected based on the properties of the universe. But why is this mutation necessary if the designer knows exactly what it wants? Why design for a factory that creates intermediate steps to an ultimate design? What reason would there be for evolution at all? )

Wow, you have discovered it!!! You need to call Boeing Airlines this instant and tell them the good news, you know how to make jets with no factory!!! You can just makes things in their final form and no need for a process to do it!!! Its so logical, you are making so much sense to me now!!! I am sure you can answer this question on your own Maya but you might need to use your brain.

Maya Says

(And if we continue to evolve, then we are not the final design. Unless the designer has created some kind of safety valve in the universes factory that shuts down evolution a the right time, then there is no final design as our structure would always be changing. )

See theirs that brain working for ya again, just needed a jump start I guess.


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
My response to theist1's

My response to theist1's universe hypothesis is continued here...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7556

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


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

thiest1 wrote:

Maya Says,

(We can see and predict how life has and will evolve on our planet with great accuracy. This is because we can observe how life has evolved though the process of mutation and natural selection. Man didn't just appeared in the form you claim is designed. As such, the entire process of chemical reactions, mutation and natural selection must be part of the design of the factory you propose. Otherwise, we would not be designed. In other words, if a designer designed the universe, he didn't design the finished product, he designed a factory that would eventually manufacture man. Again, this implies that the designer...

01. Has a final design in mind

02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design

03. Build the factory using this design

Otherwise, your whole universe as a factory metaphor doesn't make any sense. )

Yes you are learning my brother, keep up the contemplation.

How you think VoM's comments support you is beyond comprehension.

thiest1 wrote:

Maya Says,

(So you agree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. Let's all cross our fingers in hope that your designer doesn't decide to change the properties of the universe to create something other than our current reality. )

Indeed, but crossing your fingers will probably not do anything, maybe show some love for the “designer”?

That would, if I read the Bible correctly, mean prayer... which is equally as effective as finger-crossing. I'll stick with that.

thiest1 wrote:

Maya Says

(I don't have breasts? )

If you really want to have breasts like a woman you can have an operation, otherwise you do not have woman’s breasts.

You didn't say "women's breasts," and even with surgery, no man will ever lactate. I'll also throw in that there are many women whose breasts don't function properly; you'd think their "designer" wouldn't make such small, but significant, mistakes.

thiest1 wrote:

Mays Says

(Perhaps you should take an anatomy class (or at least check your facts before posting.) Men have fully formed breast tissue and glands that, by your standards, is designed, However, I can't feed an infant. They serve no practical use. The are simply not active in men.

The female breast and hormonal system has evolved to provide a method to feed it's young. This is exactly what evolution would predict. However, if human beings were explicitly designed by an intelligent designer then why do both male and females have fully formed breasts? Why does the urethra in men go though the prostrate gland when this gland swells after 60 years of age? This simply doesn't apear to be the the work of an intellegent designer. Just because we intentionally design things to mimic structures found in nature, doesn't mean these natural structures are designed by an intelligent designer. This is simply a unsubstantiated observation on your part. )

As I have already answered this question to dadvocate I will not repeat it again, if you want the answer go read the post. Tell me Maya, is an artificial heart designed? Is a Bird designed? If I clone a human being, who designed the human being that I cloned? Unsubstantiated? Tell me why a jet wing is designed, then tell me why a birds wing isn’t, I am waiting for your response.

No need to be rude.

Humans with technology mimicking what's found in nature does not substantiate your claim that the universe is designed, but it's obviously what you believe. You have faith and an opinion, but neither of those things are evidence.

thiest1 wrote:

Maya Says

(Our DNA is essentially a set of instructions that are use to create human beings. It's a blueprint that is passed on though reproduction and is randomly mutated and naturally selected based on the properties of the universe. But why is this mutation necessary if the designer knows exactly what it wants? Why design for a factory that creates intermediate steps to an ultimate design? What reason would there be for evolution at all? )

Wow, you have discovered it!!! You need to call Boeing Airlines this instant and tell them the good news, you know how to make jets with no factory!!! You can just makes things in their final form and no need for a process to do it!!! Its so logical, you are making so much sense to me now!!! I am sure you can answer this question on your own Maya but you might need to use your brain.

As an aside, your analogies are, to be kind, baffling. But I'll try to work with this one. When Boeing designs a jet they plan to put into production, they build that jet - the end result. The factory must then be set up to get it built. If Boeing is analogous to your designer, then they'd have to build every earlier version of flying machine (including those that failed) before that jet rolled off the line.

thiest1 wrote:

Maya Says

(And if we continue to evolve, then we are not the final design. Unless the designer has created some kind of safety valve in the universes factory that shuts down evolution a the right time, then there is no final design as our structure would always be changing. )

See theirs that brain working for ya again, just needed a jump start I guess.

"There's" - it's a contraction of "there is." And you're being rude again. 

Again I'll ask how VoM's comment supports your assertion. Can we observe a safety valve that will shut down evolution? I know for sure we can observe how some forms of life (or biological/physical systems) have evolved which have deleterious effects on various species' chances of survival; including human beings, who are assumed to be the crowning achievement of a "designer." And some mutations that we observe are either a help or hindrance depending on where or when that population is. Sickle Cell Anemia kept people from dying of malaria when the mutation occurred, but now it creates negative health consequences for those with the trait. That seems about as far from evidence for design as I can imagine.

You have yet to provide evidence that the natural world is designed by some sort of otherwordly sentience, rather than simply arranged in recognizable patterns that emerge as one studies the form and function of the things around them. We know Stonehenge was designed because we know human beings were capable of such things at that time. We can't possibly say the same for the universe or even any small part of it when the empirical, observable, falsifiable evidence points elsewhere.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Obnoxiousbroad says, (How

Obnoxiousbroad says,


(How you think VoM's comments support you is beyond comprehension.)


I was admiring his contemplation about the possibilities of the designer, that is how you come to understand abstract truths about the universe, through contemplation, although his theory had one major mistake and flaw. He said in point 2 that

(02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design)

Where in the analogy did this occur? Because in the analogy the Design would be manufactured abstractly in the mind of a human, not in a factory, he makes no sense, why would I design a factory to then design the design for an airplane, its ridiculous what he asserts, but as I said I am admiring his use of contemplation.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

That would, if I read the Bible correctly, mean prayer... which is equally as effective as finger-crossing. I'll stick with that.


What crack did you smoke? Who the hell is talking about the bible? Are you obsessed with the bible? Do you filter all of your knowledge through the bible to see if it is acceptable or not? don’t even bring up the bible during this conversation, its ridiculous. We should go by the rules of the original debate between Kirk and Sapient, so please do not refer to the bible again.


Obnoxiousbroad says

(You didn't say "women's breasts," and even with surgery, no man will ever lactate. I'll also throw in that there are many women whose breasts don't function properly; you'd think their "designer" wouldn't make such small, but significant, mistakes. )


Do you know the designer personally? Does he not make imperfections? Wow, I didn’t know you knew so much about the “designer” to actually know that he is perfect, wow, hook me up with his phone number dude.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

(No need to be rude.
Humans with technology mimicking what's found in nature does not substantiate your claim that the universe is designed, but it's obviously what you believe. You have faith and an opinion, but neither of those things are evidence.)



Just returning the favor to the RRS, I would insist that you do the same for me, but don’t worry I wont call you a “nimrod” if we ever have a formal debate on national T.V.

Just answer the questions that I posed, It is “evident” that an artificial heart is designed, it is also evident that a human heart is designed,  Tell me what the difference is? Because if something is “evident” I can use it as “Evidence” can I not?



Obnoxiousbroad says

As an aside, your analogies are, to be kind, baffling. But I'll try to work with this one. When Boeing designs a jet they plan to put into production, they build that jet - the end result. The factory must then be set up to get it built. If Boeing is analogous to your designer, then they'd have to build every earlier version of flying machine (including those that failed) before that jet rolled off the line.


See you also can contemplate, but I guess you can not recognize sarcasm……..


Obnoxiousbroad says,

There's" - it's a contraction of "there is." And you're being rude again.
Again I'll ask how VoM's comment supports your assertion. Can we observe a safety valve that will shut down evolution? I know for sure we can observe how some forms of life (or biological/physical systems) have evolved which have deleterious effects on various species' chances of survival; including human beings, who are assumed to be the crowning achievement of a "designer." And some mutations that we observe are either a help or hindrance depending on where or when that population is. Sickle Cell Anemia kept people from dying of malaria when the mutation occurred, but now it creates negative health consequences for those with the trait. That seems about as far from evidence for design as I can imagine.
You have yet to provide evidence that the natural world is designed by some sort of otherwordly sentience, rather than simply arranged in recognizable patterns that emerge as one studies the form and function of the things around them. We know Stonehenge was designed because we know human beings were capable of such things at that time. We can't possibly say the same for the universe or even any small part of it when the empirical, observable, falsifiable evidence points elsewhere.


Again, I was admiring his ability to contemplate upon the possibilities of the design, and the designer,

That’s a nice opinion that you have on the design, but as usual not supported by any logic, its just your opinion, as I have said before, Evolution is a “process” do you understand that word?
A Process does not design things, a “Design-ER” does, a Process is the subject of a “Design-er” to “produce” the “item” that was “design-ed“.  So who “Design-ed” the human heart obnoxious?


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
thiest1

thiest1 wrote:
Obnoxiousbroad says,


(How you think VoM's comments support you is beyond comprehension.)


I was admiring his contemplation about the possibilities of the designer, that is how you come to understand abstract truths about the universe, through contemplation, although his theory had one major mistake and flaw. He said in point 2 that

(02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design)

Where in the analogy did this occur? Because in the analogy the Design would be manufactured abstractly in the mind of a human, not in a factory, he makes no sense, why would I design a factory to then design the design for an airplane, its ridiculous what he asserts, but as I said I am admiring his use of contemplation.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

That would, if I read the Bible correctly, mean prayer... which is equally as effective as finger-crossing. I'll stick with that.


What crack did you smoke? Who the hell is talking about the bible? Are you obsessed with the bible? Do you filter all of your knowledge through the bible to see if it is acceptable or not? don’t even bring up the bible during this conversation, its ridiculous. We should go by the rules of the original debate between Kirk and Sapient, so please do not refer to the bible again.


Obnoxiousbroad says

(You didn't say "women's breasts," and even with surgery, no man will ever lactate. I'll also throw in that there are many women whose breasts don't function properly; you'd think their "designer" wouldn't make such small, but significant, mistakes. )


Do you know the designer personally? Does he not make imperfections? Wow, I didn’t know you knew so much about the “designer” to actually know that he is perfect, wow, hook me up with his phone number dude.


Obnoxiousbroad says,

(No need to be rude.
Humans with technology mimicking what's found in nature does not substantiate your claim that the universe is designed, but it's obviously what you believe. You have faith and an opinion, but neither of those things are evidence.)



Just returning the favor to the RRS, I would insist that you do the same for me, but don’t worry I wont call you a “nimrod” if we ever have a formal debate on national T.V.

Just answer the questions that I posed, It is “evident” that an artificial heart is designed, it is also evident that a human heart is designed,  Tell me what the difference is? Because if something is “evident” I can use it as “Evidence” can I not?



Obnoxiousbroad says

As an aside, your analogies are, to be kind, baffling. But I'll try to work with this one. When Boeing designs a jet they plan to put into production, they build that jet - the end result. The factory must then be set up to get it built. If Boeing is analogous to your designer, then they'd have to build every earlier version of flying machine (including those that failed) before that jet rolled off the line.


See you also can contemplate, but I guess you can not recognize sarcasm……..


Obnoxiousbroad says,

There's" - it's a contraction of "there is." And you're being rude again.
Again I'll ask how VoM's comment supports your assertion. Can we observe a safety valve that will shut down evolution? I know for sure we can observe how some forms of life (or biological/physical systems) have evolved which have deleterious effects on various species' chances of survival; including human beings, who are assumed to be the crowning achievement of a "designer." And some mutations that we observe are either a help or hindrance depending on where or when that population is. Sickle Cell Anemia kept people from dying of malaria when the mutation occurred, but now it creates negative health consequences for those with the trait. That seems about as far from evidence for design as I can imagine.
You have yet to provide evidence that the natural world is designed by some sort of otherwordly sentience, rather than simply arranged in recognizable patterns that emerge as one studies the form and function of the things around them. We know Stonehenge was designed because we know human beings were capable of such things at that time. We can't possibly say the same for the universe or even any small part of it when the empirical, observable, falsifiable evidence points elsewhere.


Again, I was admiring his ability to contemplate upon the possibilities of the design, and the designer,

That’s a nice opinion that you have on the design, but as usual not supported by any logic, its just your opinion, as I have said before, Evolution is a “process” do you understand that word?
A Process does not design things, a “Design-ER” does, a Process is the subject of a “Design-er” to “produce” the “item” that was “design-ed“.  So who “Design-ed” the human heart obnoxious?

 All I heard was blah blah blah.. The truth is this guy is so angry because he knows he's wrong. Go deal with your anger issues then come back when you something to say in a way that others can understand. Say around puberty...


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Satansbitch wrote: All I

Satansbitch wrote:

All I heard was blah blah blah.. The truth is this guy is so angry because he knows he's wrong. Go deal with your anger issues then come back when you something to say in a way that others can understand. Say around puberty...

He also fled from me rather than answer my points. 

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


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm tilberion I am now

Hmmm tilberion I am now assuming that you do not even bother to read the posts, becasue I already responded to anything you directed at me, either you are not reading the posts (becasue surely you would notice your own writing if you were reading it) or you are an idiot. This little tidbit is from page 33, I was still waiting for your response, toodles.

Tilberion says 

Um, no you can't theorize that. Because you don't know enough about quantum mechanics and multidimensional theory. Neither do I. However I do the smart thing and listen to the people who have given us these theories. They certainly aren't admitting the possibility that human souls could be hiding in higher dimensions.

Since you can't present any real theory of how this happens, and neither has anyone else, it is time for you to admit that when you say "dimensions" you really mean "magic."

wow i didnt know that you were the authority on what I could theorize about? you do the smart thing and listen to them, so what have they said about quantum mechanics? tell me some basics that you have learned so I can use it in my theory. and you will have to define "magic" because I am not theorizing about "magic" im and theorizing about the possibilites of a multidimensiaonal universe and its implications that it can have on awareness.

Tilberion says 

that does indeed make the universe intelligent, as we are,

so you agree with me that the universe is inteligent, thanks.

 

Tilberion says 

True randomness does exist at the quantum level because it is impossible to know the exact position of a particle relative to any other particle due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, even when it looks like some effect causes some particle to move, we cannot be sure that it did except within some margin of error. Therefore, all the laws of physics are really just probability at the quantum level. It is not certain that my pen will drop when I release it in the air, it is only very very very probable once you add up all the quantum events.

it is impossible to know

yer right you do not know, and just becasue humans can not predict the place of a particle does not make it random, give me a link to some information on this, becasue you are arguing from ignorance which is not a good position.

 

Tilberion says, 

Just because humans are intelligent and, at some level, connected to the rest of the universe, does not mean that the entire universe can act intelligently

why is this true, please explain it, do not just state it, show me the reasoning train.

p.s. buhdda says wasssup.


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

thiest1 wrote:


I was admiring his contemplation about the possibilities of the designer, that is how you come to understand abstract truths about the universe, through contemplation, although his theory had one major mistake and flaw. He said in point 2 that

(02. Designed a factory to manufacture this design)

Where in the analogy did this occur? Because in the analogy the Design would be manufactured abstractly in the mind of a human, not in a factory, he makes no sense, why would I design a factory to then design the design for an airplane, its ridiculous what he asserts, but as I said I am admiring his use of contemplation.


The factory doesn't design anything, the factory manufactures the thing that is represented by the design.

thiest1 wrote:


...as I have said before, Evolution is a “process” do you understand that word?
A Process does not design things, a “Design-ER” does, a Process is the subject of a “Design-er” to “produce” the “item” that was “design-ed“. So who “Design-ed” the human heart obnoxious?


The word 'design' is also a noun, which is a plan or set of instructions that are used to build something. The process of random mutation changes the design to produce different organisms. The process of natural selection chooses the design that results in organisms which work best. This is why the human heart has the structure we see.

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


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote:


 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I did try to post a

I did try to post a response to this but apparently something went wrong... 

thiest1 wrote:

wow i didnt know that you were the authority on what I could theorize about? you do the smart thing and listen to them, so what have they said about quantum mechanics? tell me some basics that you have learned so I can use it in my theory. and you will have to define "magic" because I am not theorizing about "magic" im and theorizing about the possibilites of a multidimensiaonal universe and its implications that it can have on awareness.

Multidimensional universe theory has no implications for awareness.  

thiest1 wrote:

Tilberion says

that does indeed make the universe intelligent, as we are,

so you agree with me that the universe is inteligent, thanks.

If you want to break down all boundaries between objects. Do you really want to do that? Because then there is no frame of reference at all and everything you think and say is irrelevant. 

 

thiest1 wrote:
yer right you do not know, and just becasue humans can not predict the place of a particle does not make it random, give me a link to some information on this, becasue you are arguing from ignorance which is not a good position.

No, I said we CAN'T know the position of the particle. As in, the information doesn't exist. As in the particle occupies a random position within a probability field. 

 

thiest1 wrote:

Tilberion says,

Just because humans are intelligent and, at some level, connected to the rest of the universe, does not mean that the entire universe can act intelligently

why is this true, please explain it, do not just state it, show me the reasoning train.

p.s. buhdda says wasssup.

Because we can observe that not everything in the universe has the same characteristics. I am intelligent. The beer bottle on my desk isn't. Therefore we have no reason to believe that the universe is an intelligent entity unless we see it acting as such. We haven't.

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


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Maya says,The factory

Maya says,

The factory doesn't design anything, the factory manufactures the thing that is represented by the design.

No shit sherlock.

Maya says, 

The word 'design' is also a noun, which is a plan or set of instructions that are used to build something. The process of random mutation changes the design to produce different organisms. The process of natural selection chooses the design that results in organisms which work best. This is why the human heart has the structure we see.

haha "the proccess" haha this is so funny, you attribute "choosing" to the "process", foolishness, sicne when did a "process" "choose" something??? show me an example of this, procceses choose nothing, they are implemented, they do not have a choice to make, read the definition, then ponder the concept, Designers choose which process to use then they implement the process, the "design-er" would be the one "choos-ing" any given order for the process to form.

haha so hard you try to defy logic, why do you go to such ends? to protect what little grasp on reality you have?  Your theory for why the human heart has a design is laughable, it is extremely interesting how you will not use the word "design" when referring to the human heart, why not? becasue although it is apparent to you that indeed their is a design inherent to the object that exists within the heart, you fear the logic that it will lead you to. 


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I did try

Tilberian wrote:

I did try to post a response to this but apparently something went wrong... 

thiest1 wrote:

wow i didnt know that you were the authority on what I could theorize about? you do the smart thing and listen to them, so what have they said about quantum mechanics? tell me some basics that you have learned so I can use it in my theory. and you will have to define "magic" because I am not theorizing about "magic" im and theorizing about the possibilites of a multidimensiaonal universe and its implications that it can have on awareness.

Multidimensional universe theory has no implications for awareness.  

thiest1 wrote:

Tilberion says

that does indeed make the universe intelligent, as we are,

so you agree with me that the universe is inteligent, thanks.

If you want to break down all boundaries between objects. Do you really want to do that? Because then there is no frame of reference at all and everything you think and say is irrelevant. 

 

thiest1 wrote:
yer right you do not know, and just becasue humans can not predict the place of a particle does not make it random, give me a link to some information on this, becasue you are arguing from ignorance which is not a good position.

No, I said we CAN'T know the position of the particle. As in, the information doesn't exist. As in the particle occupies a random position within a probability field. 

 

thiest1 wrote:

Tilberion says,

Just because humans are intelligent and, at some level, connected to the rest of the universe, does not mean that the entire universe can act intelligently

why is this true, please explain it, do not just state it, show me the reasoning train.

p.s. buhdda says wasssup.

Because we can observe that not everything in the universe has the same characteristics. I am intelligent. The beer bottle on my desk isn't. Therefore we have no reason to believe that the universe is an intelligent entity unless we see it acting as such. We haven't.

 

i dont want you to think i am ignoring you, i am tired and do not feel like typing, i will respond to you tommorow after work.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey theist1, the mods want

Hey theist1, the mods want these off-topic discussions off this thread. Instead of replying here, copy my last post into a new thread on the Atheist vs Theist forum and reply there (and PM me with the thread title).

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


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:


The factory doesn't design anything, the factory manufactures the thing that is represented by the design.


No shit sherlock.



So, why play dumb when you knew exactly what I was referring to? Again, you keep waffling back and forth between man being created in final form and evolution being part of the design of the factory that eventually creates man. Make up your mind.

thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


The word 'design' is also a noun, which is a plan or set of instructions that are used to build something. The process of random mutation changes the design to produce different organisms. The process of natural selection chooses the design that results in organisms which work best. This is why the human heart has the structure we see.


haha "the proccess" haha this is so funny, you attribute "choosing" to the "process", foolishness, sicne when did a "process" "choose" something??? show me an example of this, procceses choose nothing, they are implemented, they do not have a choice to make, read the definition, then ponder the concept, Designers choose which process to use then they implement the process, the "design-er" would be the one "choos-ing" any given order for the process to form.


Again, make up your mind. Do you agree that evolution is responsible for the current state of life on our planet or not? If you agree, then why would the designer design a factory and a process to eventually manufacture man? It's completely unnecessary.

And, from what we observe, much of nature certainly lacks the qualities one would expect from intelligent entity who can intentionally tune the properties of our universe to create a specific deign. Clearly, it would be an incredibly complex feat to encode the entire outcome of the universe we see around us, down to the very last detail, in the laws of physics of the universe. Yet, we see men with breasts and all sorts of organically evolved features that are predicted by a natural, non-intellegent section process instead.   

thiest1 wrote:

haha so hard you try to defy logic, why do you go to such ends? to protect what little grasp on reality you have? Your theory for why the human heart has a design is laughable, it is extremely interesting how you will not use the word "design" when referring to the human heart, why not? becasue although it is apparent to you that indeed their is a design inherent to the object that exists within the heart, you fear the logic that it will lead you to.


Can't you read?  I used the word design several times - as a noun. The heart has a design as defined by DNA. The question is how this design evolved to become a human heart. Unless you have some kind of proof that your designer INTELLIGENTLY designed the universe to manufacture male humans, over the process of millions of years, with the specific intention of having breasts that do not work, then your just making observations that cannot be substantiated.

You're simply pointing to definitions of words and claiming they imply your designer was sentient and intelligent without any proof.

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


Satansbitch
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian

Tilberian wrote:
Satansbitch wrote:

All I heard was blah blah blah.. The truth is this guy is so angry because he knows he's wrong. Go deal with your anger issues then come back when you something to say in a way that others can understand. Say around puberty...

He also fled from me rather than answer my points. 

Yeah I don't mind debating religion but arguing with some brainwashed kid is not doing anyone any good. I feel sorry for him that he was never given the choice to decide for himself.


thiest1
Theist
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
im at work so i will wait to

im at work so i will wait to respond to your posts tilberion and maya, because i want to get home first before i deconstruct your assertions, for now i just wanted to post something for you to ponder.

An artificial heart is Design-ED through the process of manufacturing

Who is the design-ER?

The Human Heart is design-ED through the process of Evolution

Who is the design-ER?

All things design-ED require a design-ER.

Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design,

Therefore they can not be the design-ER.

The designer of the artificial heart is “man”

The designer of the Human heart is “God”.

I can define man as the "design-er" of the artificial heart.

Therfore I can define “God” as the “Design-er” of the Human heart.

Prove my theory wrong with the use of LOGIC and not OPINION, because it seems that both of you do not understand the differance.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
thiest1 wrote: im at work

thiest1 wrote:
im at work so i will wait to respond to your posts tilberion and maya, because i want to get home first before i deconstruct your assertions, for now i just wanted to post something for you to ponder. An artificial heart is Design-ED through the process of manufacturing Who is the design-ER? The Human Heart is design-ED through the process of Evolution Who is the design-ER? All things design-ED require a design-ER. Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design, Therefore they can not be the design-ER. The designer of the artificial heart is “man” The designer of the Human heart is “God”. I can define man as the "design-er" of the artificial heart. Therfore I can define “God” as the “Design-er” of the Human heart. Prove my theory wrong with the use of LOGIC and not OPINION, because it seems that both of you do not understand the differance.

LOL If this is the level of discourse you're bringing, theist1, don't bother making that thread for me to respond because I'm really not interested in talking to you. 

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
gatogreensleeves

gatogreensleeves wrote:

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?

theist1 wrote:
 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".

Psychologically: happiness.  Physiologically: the propogation of species.  We appeal to both.  Your turn to answer my questions extrabiblically.

 

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

theist1 wrote:
does it really matter if i want to "adhere" to this law today?

Of course it does.  It's in your "good book" with the qualifier that it is an "instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:15)

theist1 wrote:
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. 

What we are determining here is the qualification of crime fitting the punishment between God's laws.  You are ignoring this issue.

"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
thiest1

Theist1, at the request of the moderator, I've joined Veils of Maya and will continue any replies to you in your own personal forum here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7556

"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: An

   

thiest1 wrote:
An artificial heart is Design-ED through the process of manufacturing


And you're calling me and idiot?

The artificial heart was designed by Dr. Robert Jarvis, not though a process of manufacturing. The design comes first, the process of manufacturing the thing that was designed comes second. I can observe that Dr. Jarvis exists and that he is intelligent. If you were to look at the design of the artificial heart, you would see it contains explicit reference to Dr. Jarvis as the designer. Dr. Jarvis did not design the factory that manufactures artificial hearts, he designed the end product.

thiest1 wrote:
The Human Heart is design-ED through the process of Evolution. Who is the design-ER? 


Did you actually read this before posting? You just said that evolution designed the human heart. Therefore, the thing doing the designing is evolution. You've answered your own question and the answer conflicts with your hypothesis.

thiest1 wrote:
Prove my theory wrong with the use of LOGIC and not OPINION, because it seems that both of you do not understand the differance.


I don't have to. You just did it for me.

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
Hi Sara, at the request of

Hi Sara, at the request of the moderator, I will reply to your last post and further posts at a forum created by Inspectormustard here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6852

Thanks.

"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
Tilberian wrote:thiest1

Tilberian wrote:

thiest1 wrote:
im at work so i will wait to respond to your posts tilberion and maya, because i want to get home first before i deconstruct your assertions, for now i just wanted to post something for you to ponder. An artificial heart is Design-ED through the process of manufacturing Who is the design-ER? The Human Heart is design-ED through the process of Evolution Who is the design-ER? All things design-ED require a design-ER. Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design, Therefore they can not be the design-ER. The designer of the artificial heart is “man” The designer of the Human heart is “God”. I can define man as the "design-er" of the artificial heart. Therfore I can define “God” as the “Design-er” of the Human heart. Prove my theory wrong with the use of LOGIC and not OPINION, because it seems that both of you do not understand the differance.

LOL If this is the level of discourse you're bringing, theist1, don't bother making that thread for me to respond because I'm really not interested in talking to you. 

indeed i am home now and I did put the wrong words into the definitional theorum, which i will restate, but I think you might have missed the point of the theorum.

The universe is a concrete reality, God is an Abstract reality, therefore, to understand and define God we must "link" the abstract reality to the concrete reality, I was actually trying to give you the definition of "my God", as you can see I should have used the word produced in the first part of the theorum, not designed, i was at work and wasnt paying alot of attention. here is the proper definitional theorum for the definition of my God.

The artificial heart is designed, it is produced through the proccess of manufacturing.

who is the designer?

The human heart is designed, it is produced through the process of evolution.

who is the designer?

 All things designed require a desiger.

 Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of design, Therefore they can not be the designer.

The designer of the artificial heart is man.

The designer of the human heart is "My God"

The Human Heart exists, therefore "My God" exists.