Something did not come from nothing

Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Something did not come from nothing

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2564

The Invisible Ocean
 An Atehist's answer to philosophically based religions, Deists, and Agnostics.

Matter is eternal. The big Bang is the start of measurable time only but not existence.

Face it the world and all life on it was not created in six or seven days by a magical being. People may agree or disagree with this; some may believe in a personal god or conventional god. As for the people who literally believe in magical gardens, my words are lost on you and you need not read any further.  


          Conventional gods are easily dismissed with a little bit of history or science. After all, Gods come and go from Set and Sin to Zeus and Athena, to Apollo, to Allah, and Yahweh. Religions come, reform, and eventually die. There have been many religions made up through out the world, some are large and popular like Islam, and some are always small like the Tao.


          Organized religoins do not go very far with even a drop of skepticism or critical thinking. They must rely heavily on faith because there is no other way to convince people with reason how they could possibly be true.  One with an open mind, does not have to look far to see the inconsistencies, tragedies, mistakes, shortcomings, and often laughable absurdities in each. 


        Most people claim to be a 'such and such', but with a little questioning one discovers that they actually have a personalized god that they reformed from the religion they were brought up to believe. For example a lot of Catholics I know are actually Protestants because they don’t believe in the Pope. They merely call themselves Catholics because that’s what their parents told them they were. Apparently they didn’t give it much thought. Likewise most Protestants can not even tell you what separates their sect from another Protestant sect. Sure some can, but it is still interesting how little investigation goes into religious thought for many. 


Some people may reject specific texts but maintain that something IS out there and that religions are all just worshiping the same thing under different titles. A huge hole in this argument is that not all religions have a god(s). Plus, after enough reduction aren't you really a Deist rather than part of a particular creed? This brings us to personalized gods.


           What about the personalized gods? These gods or even forces seem to be born out of philosophies or seemingly logical deductions. These gods and their arguments are then too often kidnapped by the conventional religion promoters. These kinds of religions based on philosophy rather than on fear or dogmatism are far more respectable than the more fairytale like fantasies. It is important then to have a discussion to address these more moderate religious beliefs. So let’s look at one of the puzzles that seems to get a lot of people, even the agnostics.


          The age old question, “Where did it/we all come from?” People think, that there had to be a beginning to matter and since (they assume) it all had to come from somewhere, and there must be a kind of god that 'Made' everything. So god must be real. For the god-thing it is acceptable to not have a start b/c it is somehow magic and above that rule. I think everyone may have asked and answered this question of themselves when they were a young child. There a few things wrong with this.


          Well, "Where did it/we all come from?"  (Why would it have to come from anything) Within this question are two assumed truths, that being had to come from something rather than being that something. And that nothingness existed at some point, because anything that is not nothing is something.


        Now, why is nothingness assumed as the default setting? Is it because religious texts say 'in the beginning all was void'? Somethingness and nothingness do not have to come from each other. (in fact they logically could not) Each has equal claim to always being. In fact, because one can not come from the other, existence has always been. One can ask, where does nothingness come from? People seem to think that nothingness doesn't have to come from anything, that it just always is. But is it not equally as reasonable to ask how nothingness was made from somethingness, as it is to ask the reverse?


         What one can question is the assumption of a nothingness. An old Taoist saying goes, "Fish do not know they are in the water." Humans do not see space as a thing (out side of a fabric for motion and an area for gravity) but it is very possible that nowhere is there nothing. The words on this screen have space between them but there is still the screen. Space is like the grid we are all subject to. The Higgs field particle is on its way if predictions are correct, we are about to discover our own invisible ocean.


         For somthingness to come from a previous something, the previous something would be part of the continued existence of existence thus just as nothingness does not come from nothingness, nothingness just is, somethingness does not have to come from something it just is as well. The difference and the confusion lies in that somethingness can change. As a 'new' something comes from a previous something, this is a measure of change we call this time. Existence does not ‘come from’ existence; existence is what is, it is being. Time is a measure of change within the being but not a measure of being itself. All measurements are parts of infinity, like all numbers are parts of a possible infinity. Nothingness simply remains nothing and somethingness, though it can change, always remains not nothing i.e. somethingness. Therefore you either believe in the eternity of nothingness or somethingness or both. Unless you make up a god and say it made either the nothing or the something, but even a god can not have neither. The god idea however is not necessary, at least not for that reason. The only religion around it might be Pantheism which holds that the somethingness is god. But to be realistic my audience is mainly moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


          “What about the big bang? What came ‘before’ the big bang?” This is another typical question and a reasonable question too. Again the word before implies time and we know now, in large part because of Einstein, that time is a physical thing, (much like motion is physical-esk. Motion is a movement, but there still must be a thing doing the moving.) Before this physical universe moved, our reality and time were not. (Unless there is a multiverse which is a different can of worms. Smiling To ask "what came before?" implies again the English languages obsession with location metaphores, 'going to' and 'coming from'. There is no 'Before' until there is time. There is also no coming in the coming before since this in fact would be the start. The start is the start, if you keep gong back you just get a new start, but it is still the start and there is no 'coming' before it,  there is not even a 'before'. It was also never nothing. Time does not really Exist. Capital E on exist. Time is a concept of our memories.


    The past is not real, that is, it does not exist, only our memories exist. This moment, right now, is all that is actual. The present is eternal in existence. Time does not exist outside of existence. Time is the measure of change in objects from one point in the now to another point in the now. But really, time is some concept out of the memory. Time applies to changes but not to existence. For every action there is a thing doing the act. The action cannot predate the things. There is no time until there is existence. There are no changes until there are things to be changing. So you see there is no such thing as before existence if it has always been. It's like saying what was nothing before it was nothing. The answer is simply still nothing. So the answer what was before the big bang? Well everything was. "What was everything doing?" Is a better question. When you say the word was do you mean what happend i.e. events or what existed i.e. subjects. And there can be no events without subjects. So there is no before existence.


        That’s one answer and it does not even require a bigbang. Now, folks in the M-theory camp can give you yet another explanation, the question is, is M-theory even still science or philosophy? Wait, was not science once called natural philosophy? Newton did not call what he did science, but philosophy. Is science not lead by imagination, by science fiction, by philosophies, and then later 'proven' (within a paradigm) by the most current empirical data? The history of our future is a philosophy of the past.

And there was light...


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet everything you have

Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA. Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain. This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain. Even more so where did the information come from for this mind to create dna, even more so to create this mind, as this mind just didn't rise naturally, it had to be created some how, so what created this immaterial mind with all it's information........I guess we are just going to wait on Angelo to answer this one. Don't hold your breath.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet everything you have

[double post, keyboard gremlin I guess]


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Yet

latincanuck wrote:

Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA. Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain. This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain. Even more so where did the information come from for this mind to create dna, even more so to create this mind, as this mind just didn't rise naturally, it had to be created some how, so what created this immaterial mind with all it's information........I guess we are just going to wait on Angelo to answer this one. Don't hold your breath.

 

Seems to be a pointless process doesn't it.  When you look at a flower you are not seeing half of the information it is presenting. On the ultraviolet side of the spectrum the flower might have lines that act as runways seen by only certain insects that pollinate better than other species. A liver horse si a parasite that lives in a rabbits liver. When it lays its eggs the rabbit leaves its fecal pellets around where ants eat the pellets and the liver horse eggs.  The eggs hatch inside the ant. The parasite crawls up into the the ants brain and eats away just the right area that causes the ant to crawl to the end of a leaf and bite it. It then hangs on to that leaf programmed as it were by the process until a rabbit comes along and eats the ant off the leaf. And the cycle continues. Look at all the information processing. Where's a mind involved? Is the immateral mind a power that emerges from the rabbit, liver horse, ant and leaf as well as the cycle of behavior? 

An ant has very few neurons so to speak. Yet put a group together as a colony.  They will harvest and plant fungi in chambers underground, Some heard beetles into chambers where they milk them and present the milk to the queen. They will as group clean their colony of trash laying trash on one end and dead ants on the furthest other end of the colony.  Is the mind some hovering entity above the colony? If so then should I be concerned about a super-mind hovering above a group of humans???? maybe I should posit god as the mind that hovers over all the planets humans.  Another god hovers over those aliens on alpha bobo. Oh then there is the great mind that hovers over the universe.  How bout instead we look at the behavior of an ant colony having spontaneously originating behavior that evolves and continues if it helps a species reproduce and survive. by natural selection... theme and variation.  Enoguh examples.  Interesting natural coding ain't it.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:So you have it

TGBaker wrote:

So you have it wrong. Even with human consciousness information creates mind and not vice versa.

Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

So you have it wrong. Even with human consciousness information creates mind and not vice versa.

Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?...

To have the life you have to imitate art.  Art imitates life for me to be serious for a moment (unusual for me I know).  Life can be artisit on the other hand. Look at the way it speciates into some really funky looking birds, the colors, behaviors....

The latest pattern I've noticed emerging in myself, is finding myself increasingly asking the question " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

 

They ain't playing.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 I respectfully disagree. 

 I respectfully disagree.  For these reasons. 

1. The "past" cannot be given a human trait as existing.  There are many things that exist, some are aware, some are unaware. But an event, or a record of an event is not a living organism, even thought the past contains living matter, the past is a recording of an event, just like time is a measurement of life span.

2. Your memories are stored in your brain.  The brain being a DNA based computer of sorts.  You experienced and event, so you remember it.  By saying your memories prove the past exists, does that mean the things that happened in your life that you cannot recall never happened?

3. Saying the words "the past exists" is an oxymoron. Just like "bright darkness".    Exists is a word that is used as a real time example. Dodo Birds existed many years ago.  Meaning at that time they inhabited the planet.  Fast forward to today.  See any dodo birds lately.  If your "past" exists sir, then by all means make it materialize.....That is something you cannot do.  Notice how I said "at that time" a measured recording of events. 

4. If the past existed we would be able to change or manipulate it, because it would be made of matter to be real.  We can manipulate matter with our current technology to alter it how we see fit.  We do not have complete control over matter or anti-matter yet, but im sure we could fuck the past up real well if given the chance.

5.  Last but not least, the past cannot exist because it has no control over what some people would call the future.  No matter what has happend, what will happen cannot be forcasted in any way. It would be nice to speed things up, or slow them down, or even reverse them. 

   Time, being a measurement isn't a living organism, having no matter, it technically cannot fall under "existing". Time exists no more than God does in my book. Something else that we made up in order to explain to us what time we need to leave the house to get to work on time. Or for reminding friends that it is your birthday to get presents.  heh.

 

Your past events certainly happened.  But that was then,    by using the word exist, it must be used as a present tense.  It is irrational and contradictory to be under the belief that your past currently exists. Existence being classified as something that can be observed via the five senses of the brain, or the realization of the interpretation of self-awareness. " I exist" or "It exists", and can even be used as a documentation of the past such as "It existed", meaning at the present tense of a past event. Example. Dinosaurs existed some millions of years ago.  Just because I see a T- Rex at the Natural History museum does not mean I will run into a live on on the street. 

 

thanks for letting me share. sorry for being so critical, and check this out......i could very easily be wrong, because time travel would kick ass.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Angelo,please take what we

Angelo,

please take what we say a bit more seriously, and try to be a little less arrogantly dismissive of anything we say that shows weaknesses in your theories.

First, the information theory 'arguments' are total fallacies. Random processes generating variations in an elementary self-replicating system combined with an environment favoring certain codes over others are all that is needed to 'generate' literally any sequence. This is independent of how significant any variation is in terms of being important for some function such as life.

You will then legitimately raise the objection that it would take totally ridiculous amounts of time to have a reasonable chance of coming up with any particular sequence which is important for life.

This would be true if there was no other process happening but the equivalent of your million monkeys typing away in the hope of coming up with Hamlet.

But this is not what happens in evolution. It is an iterative process, generation by generation, with selection for the best system at each stage.

It would be like giving each of a much smaller number of monkeys a copy of a random initial text, then getting each of them to hit a few keys which either changed a letter, erased one, or inserted one, then test the results against some standard, discard all but the top few best matches, make enough copies of those to issue to the whole team, and get them to make another few changes, and repeat. This will get a character or so closer to the desired result each time, so the time will be a linear function of the length of the intended result, not an explosive factorial function.

The remaining legitimate concern is how did the first replicating system arise? It does not need to be anywhere near as complex as modern vertebrate cells, and there are a number of current versions of what may have been the first self-replicator, and they are discussed on the Wikipedia page on Abiogenesis. This is science, and progress is being made. We can debate that if you like.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yet everything you

Quote:
Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA.

where does the problem rely in your view ?

Quote:
Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain

how do we know that ?

Quote:
, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain.

thats just a baseless assertion. Near death experiences just evidence the oposit :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

Quote:
This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain.

see above :=))

Quote:
Even more so where did the information come from for this mind to create dna, even more so to create this mind, as this mind just didn't rise naturally, it had to be created some how, so what created this immaterial mind with all it's information........I guess we are just going to wait on Angelo to answer this one. Don't hold your breath.

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html

Question: "Who created God? Where did God come from?"

Answer: A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Angelo, please take

Quote:
Angelo,

please take what we say a bit more seriously, and try to be a little less arrogantly dismissive of anything we say that shows weaknesses in your theories.

Bobspence

the one being arrogant until now was you, name calling me.
Why do you point your finger at me, instead of at yourself ? My arguments are well based, scientifically correct, and no atheist so far has been able to defy it. Why do YOU arrogantly dismiss it ?
You have not shown any weakness so far in my basic argument.
As soon as you can show codified information that has not a mind as origin, you win the argument. If you cannot, why do you not admit it ?
I tell you why. Because your world view is not based on reason and science, but on emotion. On wishful thinking. On preconceived bias. That is pretty clear. Otherwise you would change your mind.

Quote:
First, the information theory 'arguments' are total fallacies.

prove it. So far you have not.

Quote:
Random processes generating variations in an elementary self-replicating system combined with an environment favoring certain codes over others are all that is needed to 'generate' literally any sequence.

i have shown you how remotely small that chance is. Wann see it again ? i show it to you :

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)

10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10-50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'.

Quote:
But this is not what happens in evolution. It is an iterative process, generation by generation, with selection for the best system at each stage.

answered that already.

what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Quote:
It would be like giving each of a much smaller number of monkeys a copy of a random initial text, then getting each of them to hit a few keys which either changed a letter, erased one, or inserted one, then test the results against some standard, discard all but the top few best matches, make enough copies of those to issue to the whole team, and get them to make another few changes, and repeat. This will get a character or so closer to the desired result each time, so the time will be a linear function of the length of the intended result, not an explosive factorial function.

lets assume, it would be statistically possible , the DNA code to arise by chance :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

Quote:
The remaining legitimate concern is how did the first replicating system arise? It does not need to be anywhere near as complex as modern vertebrate cells, and there are a number of current versions of what may have been the first self-replicator, and they are discussed on the Wikipedia page on Abiogenesis. This is science, and progress is being made. We can debate that if you like.

i doubt you will accept the evidence against abiogenesis. You don't want to aloud your cardhouse to fall.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:Yet

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA.
where does the problem rely in your view ?
Quote:
Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain
how do we know that ?
Quote:
, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain.
thats just a baseless assertion. Near death experiences just evidence the oposit : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
Quote:
This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain.
see above :=))
NDE's still have a living brain involved. So they may be used by some to suggest that there is mind without a brain. But they certainly show a brain is associated with the event!!!!! SO I would suggest that that is still an area of research that is undetermined.  Can you produce evidence of a mind that has no living brain?

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil how do we know

angelobrazil how do we know that ?
Quote:

Because to date there is no evidence to suggest the contrary, you still have yet to present any evidence to the contrary.

[/quote wrote:

thats just a baseless assertion. Near death experiences just evidence the oposit : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
Quote:

Yet in all of this, one it is not verifiable, 2 the man still has a brain, 3 it has been proven that people in coma's can still be aware of what is going on around them he wasn't brain dead, but in a coma, it still does not prove at all what so ever that the mind existed without the brain, the man still has a brain that functions. So what is the point of this story? Nothing you haven't proven mind can exist without a brain.

see above :=))
Quote:

I have, see above for the error in your story, you haven't proven squat.

.

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html Question: "Who created God? Where did God come from?" Answer: A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right? The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

that's nice that you use other websites but you still suck at debating. The evidence still suggests that DNA arose naturally without and external mind/god/deity.

Even more so your the one claiming that information cannot just spontaneously rise, and that it requires intelligence to happen, yet when it comes to your immaterial mind you are saying that it doesn't require another mind, IN OTHER WORDS you are special pleading which is what you have to resort to for your absurd claim. No matter what we say, yours can violate your requirements. Aww well Angelo it's something I figured you would do in the end and thank you for proving me right back in post #62. 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:angelobrazil

TGBaker wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA.
where does the problem rely in your view ?
Quote:
Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain
how do we know that ?
Quote:
, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain.
thats just a baseless assertion. Near death experiences just evidence the oposit : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
Quote:
This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain.
see above :=))
NDE's still have a living brain involved. So they may be used by some to suggest that there is mind without a brain. But they certainly show a brain is associated with the event!!!!! SO I would suggest that that is still an area of research that is undetermined.  Can you produce evidence of a mind that has no living brain?

 

 

 

 

the text is very clear :

When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR.

furthermore :

In 1991 thirty-five year old Pam Reynolds was diagnosed with a deep brain aneurisms. The only way this aneurisms could be repaired was with the use of “Stand Still Surgery.” In this technique the body temperature is lowered to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The heart is stopped and all the blood is drained out of the brain. The patient is at this point clinically dead. Because of a fear of inducing a brain seizure, the surgeons wanted to be sure that she had absolutely no brain activity. Consequently, Pam’s brain was thoroughly monitored by EEG, even including her brain stem. To eliminate any possibility of outside stimulus her ears plugged. She had to be totally brain dead.

After the surgery her doctors were shocked to learn that she experienced a continuous OBE during the surgery because the EEG monitor showed no evidence of brain activity. Her EEG was completely flat. She went on to inform the doctors of some of their dialogue and was able to describe the surgical procedure. This included a description of some very unusual surgical instruments and holding cases for the instruments.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:that's nice that you

Quote:
that's nice that you use other websites but you still suck at debating. The evidence still suggests that DNA arose naturally without and external mind/god/deity.

you can make as many assertion as you want. As long as you cannot back it up, its worthless.

Quote:
Even more so your the one claiming that information cannot just spontaneously rise

correct. I have shown already statistically, why. is there something you do not understand about the argument ?

Quote:
and that it requires intelligence to happen, yet when it comes to your immaterial mind you are saying that it doesn't require another mind, IN OTHER WORDS you are special pleading which is what you have to resort to for your absurd claim.

why is that special pleading ? If there exists something, its rather logical, that it cannot have arose from absolutely nothing, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, since absolutely nothing has no potentialities. Therefore, something must have existed forever, without beginning. That is rather logical. That being without beginning, we call God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: If its

angelobrazil wrote:

 If its crap, defy it with rational arguments. 

 

Gimme one good reason as to why you are worth the effort...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:Yet

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA.
where does the problem rely in your view 
Quote:
This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain.
see above :=))
Quote:
Even more so where did the information come from for this mind to create dna, even more so to create this mind, as this mind just didn't rise naturally, it had to be created some how, so what created this immaterial mind with all it's information........I guess we are just going to wait on Angelo to answer this one. Don't hold your breath.
http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html Question: "Who created God? Where did God come from?" Answer: A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right? The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Let us assume there is an uncaused cause. Why posit it as god. The universe is more plausibly that uncaused cause.  Another problem with this classical argument is the assumption that "nothing" means something. If you say that it means something then nothing is something.  It may not be an object. But you are at least attributing it as a state and so the idea is a literal Nothing exists.  Nothing and being would then be the same state.  Nothingness is boundless existence.  God is  no-thing and therefore nothing. If we assume that nothing is a negation of positives then it is simply an abstract mental category that makes ontological claims and is relative to being/existence. in an epistemic and not ontological sense. To say where did the beginning come from posits a priori an attribute of something.  We find this Hegelian dialect has classically ended with being and nothingness as the same and consciousness or mind thrown in for good measure.  So "nothing" has usually come to signify the lack of particular (particles), objects, or specificity which actually defines it as a state.  To define existence ontologically is to say that which exists is a relative ontic that comes into and out of being, is temporally and spacially conditioned. Philosophically many have come to speak of Being as potentiality ( a state from which existent things actualize ).  So the field of nothingness of which you speak seems to have an affinity with Eastern philosophical and psychological claims about Nirvana, the void etc.;  God as an uncaused cause would be non-existent. That type of god would be potentiality, void nothingness.  No wonder that many posit a mind without substance...no-thing-ness.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:TGBaker

angelobrazil wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Yet everything you have posted TGBaker, angelo has yet to solve the one problem with his whole premise, the immaterial mind creating information in DNA.
where does the problem rely in your view ?
Quote:
Since we know to date, there is no way for the mind to exist without the brain
how do we know that ?
Quote:
, and the mind is a process of the brain, how would this mind exist without a brain.
thats just a baseless assertion. Near death experiences just evidence the oposit : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=dualism "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
Quote:
This WHOLE part he ignores and keeps on demanding evidence from our side, yet never address the MASSIVE hole in his claim. That no where has it ever been proven to occur that a mind exists without a brain.
see above :=))
NDE's still have a living brain involved. So they may be used by some to suggest that there is mind without a brain. But they certainly show a brain is associated with the event!!!!! SO I would suggest that that is still an area of research that is undetermined.  Can you produce evidence of a mind that has no living brain?

 

 

 

 

the text is very clear : When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. furthermore : In 1991 thirty-five year old Pam Reynolds was diagnosed with a deep brain aneurisms. The only way this aneurisms could be repaired was with the use of “Stand Still Surgery.” In this technique the body temperature is lowered to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The heart is stopped and all the blood is drained out of the brain. The patient is at this point clinically dead. Because of a fear of inducing a brain seizure, the surgeons wanted to be sure that she had absolutely no brain activity. Consequently, Pam’s brain was thoroughly monitored by EEG, even including her brain stem. To eliminate any possibility of outside stimulus her ears plugged. She had to be totally brain dead. After the surgery her doctors were shocked to learn that she experienced a continuous OBE during the surgery because the EEG monitor showed no evidence of brain activity. Her EEG was completely flat. She went on to inform the doctors of some of their dialogue and was able to describe the surgical procedure. This included a description of some very unusual surgical instruments and holding cases for the instruments.

Again the brain is alive it has not died. EEG's can be flat. The fact that the brain was not dead is the fact that when revived there was no damage. EEG's are also not fMRI's.  You are presenting evidence for a speculation or hypothesis but not a factual evidence of a mind that has no brain. 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Angelo, I have shown how

Angelo, I have shown how your Information Theory argument do not, cannot, show that a mind is necessary for the information in DNA or RNA to exist.

Random mutation, given sufficient time can form any sequence that is physically possible. Do you deny this? Until you disprove this Information Theory arguments that only a mind can generate a sequence that is important for life, or 'encodes' significant information, is invalid.

The only question is how much time, on average, before it would appear randomly?

========

Regarding the probability, I pointed out how your estimate of probability is based on the idea of any given sequence emerging out of a single 'dice throw'

Let me show you how step-by-step trials dramatically change the odds.

If I throw ten dice, the probability of getting all 6's in any single throw is (1/6)10 =  1/46656

The probability of getting at least one set of all sixes in N throws = 1 - ((46656-1) / 46656)N 

We would have to throw about 32339 times to have  a 50% chance of getting at least one run of 6's.

Now if we throw each die by itself a maximum of N times until we get a 6, how big should N be to get a probability of 50% of getting all 6's on the ten dice?

It can be calculated that we need to throw each die 15 times to have better than 93% chance of getting a 6, and if each of 10 dice has a 93.3% chance of being a 6, the chance of all 10 being 6's is about 50%.

So doing it this way, we need about 150 throwing events to have a 50% chance of getting all 6's, which is a lot smaller than 32559.

And this disparity increases dramatically as the number of dice, ie, the length of the target sequence, increases.

This is not a precise model of how the statistics of chance mutation + selection works out, but it  does show a fundamental fact, that calculating the probabilityof getting a particular result without accounting for the fact that evolution works by small steps with some selection effects happening at each step is likely to lead to massive over-estimation of the time it would take to hit upon the 'correct' result.

It is the same error scientist Fred Hoyle made with his famous remark that random emergence of life on earth was like expecting a 'tornado in a junkyard' to assemble a 747 airliner. He was pushing his theory of 'pan-spermia', that life originated in space.

======

A 'God' is part of the totality of what exists, therefore cannot have been responsible for existence, which would require him to 'cause' his own existence, which doesn't work logically.

All that is 'necessary' to have simply existed is something like a state of minimal but non-zero potentiality, ie energy, with the sort of uncertainty effects that can at any arbitrary point along whatever dimension matches what we perceive as 'time' has sufficient probability of triggering a Big Bang event.

=====

All that Out of Body experiences show, at best, is the possibility of something like the claimed psychic power of 'remote viewing' or clairvoyance, not that a mind can be independent of the brain.

=====

And could you provide a link to justify your claim that mathematicians have a concept  that "Mathematical Zero" is 10-50 ? That is totally absurd.

As a probability, sure, in any given context, far higher probabilities can be practically ignored. But there is no global concept of a non-zero "Mathematical Zero" that I have never heard even a hint of in my lifetime, and cannot find in any math books or Google searches.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:you can

angelobrazil wrote:

you can make as many assertion as you want. As long as you cannot back it up, its worthless.

Your comprehension problems are what prevents you from understanding the shortfall of your responses.

You might personally deem them worthless, but, it's not up to you, to determine reality for the rest of us.

IOW, your opinion, is not worth the paper that it's written on.

 

 

I notice you are not debating my assertions, however.

Let's be clear, you are not debating. You are copy and pasting 'canned responses'.

Your 'statistical responses', are strawmen, that have long been debunked.

It's a very simple concept to understand, that, if something has happened, there was no other way it could have happened. The odds are 1 in 1.

 

Now, by your own standards, if you cannot conclusively prove how the 4 items I posted, are not naturally (but supernaturally) occuring, then, you don't even fully comprehend what it is you are attempting to prove.

You really do not have any proper 'personal' understanding, worth addressing, seriously.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

correct. I have shown already statistically, why.

Sorry, your analogies are logical fallacies.

angelobrazil wrote:

is there something you do not understand about the argument ?

No.

I understand perfectly, and have demonstrated to you very clearly why they're fallacies, and you don't understand the explanation.

angelobrazil wrote:

 If there exists something, its rather logical, that it cannot have arose from absolutely nothing

What does human logic have to do with reality?

There was nothing 'logical' about fluid dynamics, a priori.

N o t h i n g. 

 

So, you cannot use 'logical' as any sort of 'valid' method of 'proof'.

It's the weakest argument possible.

Logic is a euphemism for "I don't know, so I'll use my knowledge of A, and assert that A= 42".

 

angelobrazil wrote:

since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, since absolutely nothing has no potentialities.

Incorrect.

That's a logical fallacy.

Absolutely nothing, has nothing but potential, since it has no constraints.

angelobrazil wrote:

Therefore, something must have existed forever, without beginning. That is rather logical.

Whether something is logical a priori, is not relevant to it's actuality.

angelobrazil wrote:

That being without beginning, we call God.

It doesn't matter.

You guys don't even know what it is, that you're naming, and you've made numerous naked assertions, which culminate in you anthropomorphizing your ignorance into a sky daddy who loves you.

That's not logic, by any stretch of the word.

You cannot 'logically determine if there are other 'universes' that exist, that make this one, just another brick in the wall, and redundant, to whatever the origins were.

This universe may simply be a byproduct of something else, with no significance at all, to anything.

The statistical odds of that, are 1 in 1 as well.

You cannot logically assert that a god (sic) did not create billions of universes, each with different attributes, as some type of amusement, without any conscience, whatsoever, or even with contempt.

He could be 'on the job' creating another universe at this very moment. One that he 'really' cares about, more than this one.

He could have 'forgotten' about this one, billions of years ago.

So, any claims about a god (sic) are worthless, by your own standards that you mentioned earlier.

 

You cannot logically say, there can only be 1.

It's not acceptable.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Angelo, I have shown

Quote:
Angelo, I have shown how your Information Theory argument do not, cannot, show that a mind is necessary for the information in DNA or RNA to exist.

you can even show me, that 2 + 2 is 5 ......

Quote:
Random mutation, given sufficient time can form any sequence that is physically possible. Do you deny this? Until you disprove this Information Theory arguments that only a mind can generate a sequence that is important for life, or 'encodes' significant information, is invalid.

if we accept odd's of one to 10^220 , well fine. Would you bet a dime to such a probability ?

Quote:
The only question is how much time, on average, before it would appear randomly?

i have shown the flaw to such a argument twise already.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

The sequence of letters, B-A-T, is a word to whom? Someone who speaks English, Dutch, French, German, or Chinese? It is a word only to someone who knows the language. In other words, the order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful. DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without the DNA wouldn’t work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA. This is another one of those “machines” that must already be in existence and fully formed, or life won’t work!

Quote:
Regarding the probability, I pointed out how your estimate of probability is based on the idea of any given sequence emerging out of a single 'dice throw'

you can throw a trillion dices at the same time. It wont work.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/probabilities-and-the-genesis-of-life/

The important thing to keep in mind concerning probabilities and the origin of life is that proteins, and everything else in a living cell, are manufactured by machinery which is controlled by an abstract-representation digital coding system. Proteins not only don’t self-assemble, they cannot self-assemble, because basic chemistry drives the process in the opposite direction.

Once this is taken into consideration all arguments that assert, “But it could have happened by chance,” are rendered ludicrous on their face.

By way of analogy, the basic Darwinian argument for the origin of life goes something like this:

1) Clay occurs naturally.
2) Bricks are made of clay.
3) Therefore, there is some (given enough time) probability that houses made of clay bricks came about by stochastic processes and the chemistry of clay.

This is the way I see it, and so do most people with common sense. Apparently, one needs a Ph.D. in Darwinian Speculation (or sufficient indoctrination in this academic, “scientific” specialty) not to recognize the obvious.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/19/how-can-you-state-macro-evolution-does-not-exist-w/

To sum up the evolutionary dilemma: Even if the physical impossibility of forming and gathering the necessary physical building blocks of a cell were overcome, it would still require information. And it would still require a ‘language.” And it would need to immediately form a copying mechanism. Looking at it from a different angle, you need a cell to create a DNA molecule. But you need DNA to create a cell. What is required to create DNA and cells is information arising from intelligence. Which brings us back to the Biblical model.

Quote:
A 'God' is part of the totality of what exists, therefore cannot have been responsible for existence, which would require him to 'cause' his own existence, which doesn't work logically.

not if god exists eternally, without a beginning, and without a end.

interestingly, the Bible confirms such a view :

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

John 1:1 In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3 1:2 The Word 4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created 5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created 6 that has been created.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.

Quote:
All that is 'necessary' to have simply existed is something like a state of minimal but non-zero potentiality, ie energy, with the sort of uncertainty effects that can at any arbitrary point along whatever dimension matches what we perceive as 'time' has sufficient probability of triggering a Big Bang event.

energy has a property of dissipating in heat. If energy would exist eternally, we would already be in a state of heath death !!

Quote:
All that Out of Body experiences show, at best, is the possibility of something like the claimed psychic power of 'remote viewing' or clairvoyance, not that a mind can be independent of the brain.

human experience shows differently. The grand father of my wife was a psychic. He was able to see the future. He was a friend of presidents, governors, entertaines, actors and actesses etc.
Ones he said to someone : do not take this plane, otherwise you will die. The guy did not belief him, took the plane, the plane crashed, and he died. Someone else could bring him a letter, closed in a envelope, and he was able to read the whole letter through a tranparent bowl. A prophet we know, did tell my wife two weeks before she met me, there would come a guy, he gave her the exact characteristics of mine, where i was from, how i look like, what car i would use, and he told her, she would travel all around the world with me. All that happened. Another time he came to us, it was one week before the end of last year, and he told us : write what i am telling you right now : i see you change house. Until the end of this year, you will buy your own house and move. We were searching for a new house for two years. it did not take a few days, and we found our dream house, exactly as we were looking for. There are millions of phenomenas around the world, which cannot be explained rationally, unless you accept a supernatural world.

Quote:
And could you provide a link to justify your claim that mathematicians have a concept that "Mathematical Zero" is 10-50 ? That is totally absurd.

never heard about borel's law ?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:  you

angelobrazil wrote:
 you can make as many assertion as you want. As long as you cannot back it up, its worthless.

Congratulations you have figured out our problem with your assertion, you have yet to back ANY Thing up with any proper evidence, and even worse everything that everyone has presented you simply dismiss, even when pointing out the problems or the errors in the stuff you present. You have with this story simply presented a story, not evidence, there is no way to verify or even duplicate this, there is no evidence that the mind exists without the brain, even if you present the other case, they are not brain dead, even still the brain is still intact.

Quote:
correct. I have shown already statistically, why. is there something you do not understand about the argument ?

But you haven't at all, even worse Bob has pointed out and you simply dismiss it, even worse you dismiss all the evidence from scientist that are working int and use a very biased website that has really bad analogies for it's evidence.

why is that special pleading ? If there exists something, its rather logical, that it cannot have arose from absolutely nothing, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, since absolutely nothing has no potentialities. Therefore, something must have existed forever, without beginning. That is rather logical. That being without beginning, we call God.

Because your claiming that information has to come from some where that a mind has to create this information, but this mind of yours doesn't need to be created, that it has all the information already, but any other information in this universe has to be created by this mind, HENCE special pleading, your mind claim is an exception to your claim. really don't understand this do you? You can't comprehend things that go against your belief? You simply ignore the contradictions in your claims.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:angelobrazil

redneF wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:
IOW, your opinion, is not worth the paper that it's written on.

then you loose your time, reading what i have to say.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:... Which

angelobrazil wrote:
... Which brings us back to the Biblical model.
Quote:
A 'God' is part of the totality of what exists, therefore cannot have been responsible for existence, which would require him to 'cause' his own existence, which doesn't work logically.
not if god exists eternally, without a beginning, and without a end. interestingly, the Bible confirms such a view : http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html John 1:1 In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3 1:2 The Word 4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created 5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created 6 that has been created. To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language. John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that. The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food&quotEye-wink. It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.
Quote:
All that is 'necessary' to have simply existed is something like a state of minimal but non-zero potentiality, ie energy, with the sort of uncertainty effects that can at any arbitrary point along whatever dimension matches what we perceive as 'time' has sufficient probability of triggering a Big Bang event.
energy has a property of dissipating in heat. If energy would exist eternally, we would already be in a state of heath death !!
Quote:


Well I have a degree in Koine Greek and the New Testament. The Beginning is considered the time that God created and echoes Proverbs 8 and the association of Logos with Wisdom (Sophia).  The Greek copulative "was" simply means 'was' as the English.It is not timeless in the sense that it is used to point to the past. That is why we translate it with "was". Nothing more significant or meaningful than that.  The context apart from whoever attempted to read a Trinitarian apology into it is the typical Stoic/Philo philosophy of Logos (Word)...Logos being the methodology of  how or instrument by which   god  created.  The Word/Logos is  the firstborn of creation and in John 1:18 "the only begotten god".  The logos is the "arkon" ( archaic form) or reason, act,  instrument whereby creation/existence occurred from its birth (or creation). The "en arke an ho logos" means that the word was located in the beginning.  The word is not eternal nor timeless in other words. That interpretation occurred with the second and third century speculations that led to the development of the trinity. So your exegete has a hobby horse ( his own doctrine ) to misinterpret the Prologomena of John.  The "and the word waswith god" in verse one actually reads in the Greek "and the word was toward god" ( the prepostion pros means a separate face to face posture.  All things were created through him not by him in the sense of agency. The preposition is instrumental (dia) So it is saying that the Logos was toward god in the beginning and god made all things through Logos ( reason, wisdom).  Another way of saying it is that god begot reason and then created the universe with reason and that reason became flesh as the Christ. So you are seriously applying primitive Hellenistic philosophy watered down through 3rd century Christian dogma as evidence of a scientific claim.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I think that we will get

I think that we will get nowhere in this discussion because of the inability of theists to suspend their belief system.  It is like going to conservapedia and trying to find an accurate article about anything.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think that

TGBaker wrote:

I think that we will get nowhere in this discussion because of the inability of theists to suspend their belief system.  It is like going to conservapedia and trying to find an accurate article about anything.

that picture would be different, if you would have better arguments on hand, to explain our existence, than i have.
Unfortunately, when its established, God shall not exist, even the best argument against atheism will not be considered.
Base of your belief system and worldview is not reason, science, philosophy, and theology, but your simple will that God shall not exist. The best arguments remain fruitless in front of such a pícture.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:redneF

angelobrazil wrote:

redneF wrote:

 IOW, your opinion, is not worth the paper that it's written on.

then you loose your time, reading what i have to say.

Ummm, no, you're still not comprehending the salient point.

 

The point is simple, what you think/don't think, or what you do/don't understand, what you believe/don't believe, what you wish/don't wish, what you accept/don't accept, is besides the point.

You don't matter, or FACTOR, into the equation of real/not real.

Reality is not a democracy, or something you can take a vote on.

You are insignificant.

You and your cult (no matter how many millions) are insignificant, to real/not real.

 

So, your personal thoughts, or personal opinions are useless.

 

Reality is what it is.

You don't have a 'say', in what it 'is'.

 

I fully understand why you are mistaken, in your assumptions, and I (as well as others) have clearly demonstrated how and why.

We are teaching you, and at the same time, nullifying your objections, and your attempt to spread disinformation.

 

Now, to explain very simply, why your conclusions based on random probablities are flawed. Saying that because 'the odds of that are 10^xxx'  , and using that as a basis to assert that it would NOT happen at the VERY FIRST ATTEMPT, is a logical fallacy.

The 'odds' do not 'place' where in time/space, something (that is statistically improbable) will occur.

Odds don't place things at the 'end' of the line.

Your 'faith', or 'lack of faith' , or logical theories, in the probablity/improbablity that they could occur at the VERY FIRST ATTEMPT, mean little.

They have ZERO influence on 'probability'.

 

The best example of this is "A hole in 1"

 

Hopefully, you may understand now, what any young child can understand.

No matter how unlikely something may be, if it HAS happened, it's odds where 1 in 1.

 

We know the universe HAS happened, exactly as it HAS.

This is FACT.

It is "A hole in 1"

 

You have no better than 50/50 odds of being correct/incorrect, in ANY theory, you can come up with, for:

1- The existence of anything supernatural

2- That something supernatural caused anything

3- That there is a supernatural entity that was/is the 'first cause' of a '50/50 theory that infinite regress is impossible'

4- That #3 is a god

5- That #4 is someone/something that supposedly spoke to a legendary character named Abraham.

 

How you personally 'feel' about any of this, means nothing.

The 100% FACT is, the universe that we inhabit had a 1 in 1 chance of occurring.

 

You have clearly demonstrated your high level of ignorance, and proven exactly NOTHING, to claim that it must have been a god that made that happen.

 

Go back to school.

You are talking gibberish.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:TGBaker

angelobrazil wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think that we will get nowhere in this discussion because of the inability of theists to suspend their belief system.  It is like going to conservapedia and trying to find an accurate article about anything.

that picture would be different, if you would have better arguments on hand, to explain our existence, than i have. Unfortunately, when its established, God shall not exist, even the best argument against atheism will not be considered. Base of your belief system and worldview is not reason, science, philosophy, and theology, but your simple will that God shall not exist. The best arguments remain fruitless in front of such a pícture.

Oh give me a break. I was a theist. I have a degree in theology, ministry and an ability to suspend most of my presuppositions in research. Don't you presume to tell me what my belief system is. I know yours and mine as well as a few dozen more.  It is not a question as to whether god existed, exists or shall exist of which by the way I've seen all as theologies. You wanna discuss god as futurity which is ontologically prior to every past and present moment???  You wanna discuss the death of god as transcendent, as trinity, as Calvinsitic, as Armenian, Arian,  panentheistic, deistic, pantheistic, tribal god, henotheistic god, Feuerbach's idea of god as your own projection.  It is a question of evidence, logic and plausibility. Show me some beyond your own arrogance (typical theistic response here).  If those have been the best arguments they hardly suffice on any theological basis and hardly will fly out of an intelligent design summer camp. regardless of what "picture" will put them in front of.  There is no need to establish that something does not exist. It is always the onus to establish what one claims exists. If Elvis lives show me proof not a bunch of people saying I saw him at the gas station in the john.  UFO's show me. Ghosts show me. Minds without brains show me. A god of some type then show me. Theodicy certainly dispenses with an omniscient, all powerful and good god.  What is this god/mind that you propose. Definition please.  Picture perhaps.  Shoe size?  has he left any traces like footprints. Some of my friends are top dog philosophers of your religion.  So the base of my belief system is a believe in people who warrant trust. When I say I believe in you it simply means I trust  the information and charater of you. I believe in my car measn I think it will get me places. I do not have a belief system.  I do know and have 40 years in theology and philosopy. Where's your degree sonny????

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You missed or ignored the

You missed or ignored the point of my first argument, that any sequence can emerge randomly, including those which are very significant to us for whatever reason, without violating any aspect of Information Theory.

Your only response was to quote a very low probability, which is precisely what I discussed in my second point, that if the random changes occur in small steps, with some kind of selection toward a particular kind of result dramatically increases the probability.

Which you responded to with "you can throw a trillion dices at the same time. It wont work.".

Which shows you entirely missed the point - I went to great trouble to show how the probabilities work very differently when you DON'T throw the dice "at the same time".

What you presented with bricks is NOT the Darwinian argument in any form.

Self-replicating systems exist.

Self-replicating systems can change slightly each time they replicate.

Some changes will be slightly better at replicating that others.

Therefore they can evolve.

Would be a simplified version of it. Self-replication and selection are the key points, without them, it has nothing to do with Darwin.

"energy has a property of dissipating in heat." is not correct.

What happens is that usable energy becomes less available with every interaction, as temperature differences even out. The energy itself remains the same. The 'heat death', with all the temperature variations evened out, can persist eternally. I am merely proposing something like that as being the 'ground state' of existence.

I looked up "borel's law":

TalkOrigins wrote:

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

Seems to sum it up pretty much, and is consistent with my comments.

You proved my point about NDE's/OoBE's. It is about about the reality of pyschic power's, not about the mind being able to exist independently of the body.

Bible references are irrelevant to this discussion. They don't prove anything. Actually reading the Bible is a good way to appreciate the absurdity and immorality of the religion.

EDIT: I just noticed you say you have a degree in Theology. That explains a lot about your ignorance and misunderstanding of reality. See the quote from Sam Harris in my sig... You a perfect example. Actually, I should re-phrase that - you make Theology look even worse that it is.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You missed

BobSpence1 wrote:

You missed or ignored the point of my first argument, that any sequence can emerge randomly, including those which are very significant to us for whatever reason, without violating any aspect of Information Theory.

Your only response was to quote a very low probability, which is precisely what I discussed in my second point, that if the random changes occur in small steps, with some kind of selection toward a particular kind of result dramatically increases the probability.

Which you responded to with "you can throw a trillion dices at the same time. It wont work.".

Which shows you entirely missed the point - I went to great trouble to show how the probabilities work very differently when you DON'T throw the dice "at the same time".

What you presented with bricks is NOT the Darwinian argument in any form.

Self-replicating systems exist.

Self-replicating systems can change slightly each time they replicate.

Some changes will be slightly better at replicating that others.

Therefore they can evolve.

Would be a simplified version of it. Self-replication and selection are the key points, without them, it has nothing to do with Darwin.

"energy has a property of dissipating in heat." is not correct.

What happens is that usable energy becomes less available with every interaction, as temperature differences even out. The energy itself remains the same. The 'heat death', with all the temperature variations evened out, can persist eternally. I am merely proposing something like that as being the 'ground state' of existence.

I looked up "borel's law":

TalkOrigins wrote:

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

Seems to sum it up pretty much, and is consistent with my comments.

You proved my point about NDE's/OoBE's. It is about about the reality of pyschic power's, not about the mind being able to exist independently of the body.

Bible references are irrelevant to this discussion. They don't prove anything. Actually reading the Bible is a good way to appreciate the absurdity and immorality of the religion.

Now gee Bob I just had fun responding to the bible quotes.... I think they show how the beliefs of theists develop and where the problems lie. But then I gotta do sumthun with a bible degree don't I????


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
i just saw in the end of my

i just saw in the end of my answer, that you name called me. my intent was not to answer you anymore, but since i wrote my answer already, here it goes.......

Quote:
It is a question of evidence, logic and plausibility. Show me some beyond your own arrogance (typical theistic response here).

you have not been able to debunk my arguments. Despite this, you insist God does not exist. Why so ? do you have a better explanation for our existence, than God ? If so, present it here, and we discuss it. So far you have failed.

Quote:
If those have been the best arguments they hardly suffice on any theological basis

I have not discussed theology here, but science and philosophy. A atheist forum hardly admits to discuss openly theology. Otherwise, they brandmark someone straigthforward as doing proselitism. The fact that you claim yourself as having been a theist does not mean, you have ever been a true born again christian.

Quote:
There is no need to establish that something does not exist.

Well. Actually. If you are a strong atheist, than you should be able at least to demonstrate with rational arguments, on a solid ground, why you believe, God does not exist. You have failed so far.

Quote:
It is always the onus to establish what one claims exists.

A strong atheist claims, our existence can be explained by natural means, no supernatural , aka intelligent designer needed. You have failed so far, to present convincing arguments for such a picture. When you squeeze out a atheist a littlebit, he starts to scream : "hey, we don't know yet, how everything began" . Science did not get there so far. " maibe one day we will know ".
A strong atheist is by definition a baseless ignorant. Sorry to be frank, but i have discussed with over the years with hundreds of them, literally. And i can just resume it to this. Their faith system is based on pure ignorance. No solid arguments to stand for.

Quote:
If Elvis lives show me proof not a bunch of people saying I saw him at the gas station in the john. UFO's show me. Ghosts show me. Minds without brains show me. A god of some type then show me. Theodicy certainly dispenses with an omniscient, all powerful and good god.

If you want to have a case for ateism, it should be backed up with POSITIVE evidence. Do you have any ?

Quote:
What is this god/mind that you propose. Definition please. Picture perhaps. Shoe size?

Nahh. god as spirit and creator of the material world is above it. Want a description of the God i believe in ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god

Quote:
has he left any traces like footprints.

how about all creation ? how about the bible ? how about the testimonies of millions of people out there that experienced him ?

Quote:
I do know and have 40 years in theology and philosopy. Where's your degree sonny????

You know. If God would restrict the faith in him, and the knowledge of the truth, on education, and intelligence, he would be terribly unjust. Because then, intelligent people could find and know him, and less priviledged people would not. Thats why the matter of God is a quest about your heart, not your mind..... If you truly search him with all your heart and will, you can find him. However, if your heart is closed, if you do not want to have a relationship with God, than the best knowledge, the best doctrine, the best arguments will not convince you about the truth.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:i just

angelobrazil wrote:
i just saw in the end of my answer, that you name called me. my intent was not to answer you anymore, but since i wrote my answer already, here it goes.......
Quote:
It is a question of evidence, logic and plausibility. Show me some beyond your own arrogance (typical theistic response here).
you have not been able to debunk my arguments. Despite this, you insist God does not exist. Why so ? do you have a better explanation for our existence, than God ? If so, present it here, and we discuss it. So far you have failed.
Quote:
If those have been the best arguments they hardly suffice on any theological basis
I have not discussed theology here, but science and philosophy. A atheist forum hardly admits to discuss openly theology. Otherwise, they brandmark someone straigthforward as doing proselitism. The fact that you claim yourself as having been a theist does not mean, you have ever been a true born again christian.
Quote:
There is no need to establish that something does not exist.
Well. Actually. If you are a strong atheist, than you should be able at least to demonstrate with rational arguments, on a solid ground, why you believe, God does not exist. You have failed so far.
Quote:
It is always the onus to establish what one claims exists.
A strong atheist claims, our existence can be explained by natural means, no supernatural , aka intelligent designer needed. You have failed so far, to present convincing arguments for such a picture. When you squeeze out a atheist a littlebit, he starts to scream : "hey, we don't know yet, how everything began" . Science did not get there so far. " maibe one day we will know ". A strong atheist is by definition a baseless ignorant. Sorry to be frank, but i have discussed with over the years with hundreds of them, literally. And i can just resume it to this. Their faith system is based on pure ignorance. No solid arguments to stand for.
Quote:
If Elvis lives show me proof not a bunch of people saying I saw him at the gas station in the john. UFO's show me. Ghosts show me. Minds without brains show me. A god of some type then show me. Theodicy certainly dispenses with an omniscient, all powerful and good god.
If you want to have a case for ateism, it should be backed up with POSITIVE evidence. Do you have any ?
Quote:
What is this god/mind that you propose. Definition please. Picture perhaps. Shoe size?
Nahh. god as spirit and creator of the material world is above it. Want a description of the God i believe in ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god
Quote:
has he left any traces like footprints.
how about all creation ? how about the bible ? how about the testimonies of millions of people out there that experienced him ?
Quote:
I do know and have 40 years in theology and philosopy. Where's your degree sonny????
You know. If God would restrict the faith in him, and the knowledge of the truth, on education, and intelligence, he would be terribly unjust. Because then, intelligent people could find and know him, and less priviledged people would not. Thats why the matter of God is a quest about your heart, not your mind..... If you truly search him with all your heart and will, you can find him. However, if your heart is closed, if you do not want to have a relationship with God, than the best knowledge, the best doctrine, the best arguments will not convince you about the truth.
I do not need a case for atheism. It is simply a statement that I see no basis for theism. The bible is good evidence that christinaity was a fabrication and in fact the reason I do not believe after serious studies of many years. I do not see a creation. I see a universe. Millions of peopleexperience UFO's and Elvis... does not make them real. God's existence should be real enough that everyone could establish his existence sotra like Jennifer Anniston, Obama or you.  Anyone can establish me.  So I think that is an excuse. The fact that the question of god has reached a sophisticated level is because of the lack of any evidence and a long established belief. Can you prove that there is no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, elves????It's not a matter of a closed heart. Its a matter of evidence.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A position that is a lack of

A position that is a lack of belief in a positive claim, Atheism, that is based on lack of evidence for that claim, can only be refuted by presentation of positive evidence for the positive claim.

The Bible itself presents no positive evidence for the existence of an infinite omnipotent loving God, even if you take all the claims of miraculous events at face value. They only present 2nd- or 3rd-hand, or worse, accounts of strange events which the writers could not explain in ordinary terms, and defaults to the unwarranted claim that only such an entity could possibly explain them.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You missed or ignored

Quote:
You missed or ignored the point of my first argument, that any sequence can emerge randomly, including those which are very significant to us for whatever reason, without violating any aspect of Information Theory.

Your only response was to quote a very low probability, which is precisely what I discussed in my second point, that if the random changes occur in small steps, with some kind of selection toward a particular kind of result dramatically increases the probability.

Which you responded to with "you can throw a trillion dices at the same time. It wont work.".

Which shows you entirely missed the point - I went to great trouble to show how the probabilities work very differently when you DON'T throw the dice "at the same time".

What you presented with bricks is NOT the Darwinian argument in any form.

Self-replicating systems exist.

Self-replicating systems can change slightly each time they replicate.

Some changes will be slightly better at replicating that others.

Therefore they can evolve.

Would be a simplified version of it. Self-replication and selection are the key points, without them, it has nothing to do with Darwin.

you missed and ignored my point as well. Which just shows bad will to recognize scientific facts, which do evidence clearly, your standpoint is wrong.

Let me put it very clear to you :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth

We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is
‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55
This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life.

Quote:
"energy has a property of dissipating in heat." is not correct.

What happens is that usable energy becomes less available with every interaction, as temperature differences even out. The energy itself remains the same. The 'heat death', with all the temperature variations evened out, can persist eternally. I am merely proposing something like that as being the 'ground state' of existence.

and i am clarifying that :

1. based on the many decades lasting Big Bang theory, energy was created at the Big Bang, and did not exist eternally , in what state whatsoever.
2. If energy would exist eternally, we would according to the second law of thermodynamics already be in a state of heath death.

Quote:
TalkOrigins wrote:
The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

Seems to sum it up pretty much, and is consistent with my comments.

In our universe do exist 10^80 atoms. chance life came to be by chance, is according to Lee Smolin 10^220. If that number seems plausible to you, fine. I would not bet a dime to such a proability. You can play dice even a trillion times at the same time. It wont change the picture.

Quote:
You proved my point about NDE's/OoBE's. It is about about the reality of pyschic power's, not about the mind being able to exist independently of the body.

Evidence all point the direction , it is possible. Psichic powers evidence it , too. People can leave their body, and do astral travelling with their mind. They leave their body literally.
Spiritism is other evidence. When people are possessed, other spirits do incorporate someones body. That is other evidence in favour . do you have any evidence on hand, a bodyless mind is not possible ?

Quote:
Bible references are irrelevant to this discussion. They don't prove anything. Actually reading the Bible is a good way to appreciate the absurdity and immorality of the religion.

Nice to know you admit morality exists. Why do you believe, objective moral values exist, if God does not exist ?

Quote:
EDIT: I just noticed you say you have a degree in Theology. That explains a lot about your ignorance and misunderstanding of reality.

sorry, that was not me. What should that change ? btw. does that evidence, EdBarker is ignorant in the terms you used ? he's a fellow of yours, sic.....


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15735
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:you have not been able

Quote:
you have not been able to debunk my arguments.

No, you refuse to see the reality that your arguments have been debunked.

Thoughts require a material process, thus there is no such thing as a brain with no brain, much less one with magical super powers that is a puppet master who cares about us.

This is merely you and your wishful thinking that a super hero exists.

Your problem, even before we get to that convoluted tribal ancient book of unscientific myth, written over 1.000 year period with books left out, even before we get to that garbage, you assume a "who" as a cause when a non cognitive "what" is going on.

You don't have to debunk Thor to know that lighting wasn't caused by Thor, so why would life or even the universe need a who?

If we are going to assume that everything is true because we cant disprove it then we would have to believe everything everyone utters to us all the time. YOU dont do that for others so don't expect us to do that for you.

Your claim is debunked by the simple process of KNOWING that thoughts require a material process.

Otherwise any non-material god will do. You could believe in Allah or Visnu or I could even make up one called Snarfwidgit and call it a god, and because you cant disprove it it has to be true.

But let me save you some time if you are going to bring in your comic book.

FACT, there is no such thing as "godsperm" and it takes two sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, thus making the virgin birth story bullshit.

FACT, human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, thus making the zombie god claim of Jesus surviving death a bullshit claim.

MUCH LESS a disimbodied brain with no location, no material, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

You might as well claim that Superman is real if you buy this bullshit.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:A position that is a

Quote:
A position that is a lack of belief in a positive claim, Atheism, that is based on lack of evidence for that claim, can only be refuted by presentation of positive evidence for the positive claim.

The Bible itself presents no positive evidence for the existence of an infinite omnipotent loving God, even if you take all the claims of miraculous events at face value. They only present 2nd- or 3rd-hand, or worse, accounts of strange events which the writers could not explain in ordinary terms, and defaults to the unwarranted claim that only such an entity could possibly explain them.

any atheist that discusses and defends his position on a atheist board, is a strong atheist. A weak atheist, which simply does lack in belief in God, has no interest to discuss the God issue.
Strong atheism is based therefore in the position : God does not exist. To back up this claim, he should be able to come up with a world view, which is superior to theism. He should be able to explain our existence in a more convincing manner than theists do. Fortunately, or unfortunately for you, we Theists have clearly BETTER arguments on hand to ground our faith and belief.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do not need a case

Quote:
I do not need a case for atheism. It is simply a statement that I see no basis for theism. The bible is good evidence that christinaity was a fabrication and in fact the reason I do not believe after serious studies of many years. I do not see a creation. I see a universe. Millions of peopleexperience UFO's and Elvis... does not make them real. God's existence should be real enough that everyone could establish his existence sotra like Jennifer Anniston, Obama or you. Anyone can establish me. So I think that is an excuse. The fact that the question of god has reached a sophisticated level is because of the lack of any evidence and a long established belief. Can you prove that there is no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, elves????It's not a matter of a closed heart. Its a matter of evidence.

There is tons of evidence. Fact that you ignore it, doesnt make your standpoint to be more true.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
 ... you have not been able to debunk my arguments.   

Your arguments are fallacies.

And they've been debunked, easily.

angelobrazil wrote:
  

Well. Actually. If you are a strong atheist, than you should be able at least to demonstrate with rational arguments, on a solid ground, why you believe, God does not exist.

Skepticism is the strongest, most logical default position.

From there, you 'adopt' a belief.

So, your question is a fallacy.

The onus is on you to explain with rational arguments, why you chose to deviate from the most logical, and safest position, if you want to 'argue', and 'defend' your reasons for deviating.

Not the other way around.

It's gambling when you step away from certainty, into uncertainty.

I see no god.

I see no aliens.

I see no bigfoot.

I go on with my day.

End of story.

 

How is this not logical, and rational?

Because rumours persist?

Pffft....

Who cares about rumours?

angelobrazil wrote:
  You have failed so far.   

Ummm, no.

We are in the strongest, most logical, and powerful position.

angelobrazil wrote:
 

If you want to have a case for ateism, it should be backed up with POSITIVE evidence. 

Who gave you that nonsensical notion?

1- There's no 'case' for atheism. It's not a 'movement'. It's a state of mind called 'Skepticism'.

2- Skepticism is the position one 'abandons', in order to 'adopt' a belief.

 

You've been grossly mislead, and you have problems comprehending your own position, and how you deviated from Skepticism .

The question isn't why 'atheism', it is why 'any other position'.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15735
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nice to know you admit

Quote:
Nice to know you admit morality exists. Why do you believe, objective moral values exist, if God does not exist ?

Because we evolved, and morality is not stagnant and does change, otherwise the moral repugnant stories in the bible condoning slavery which was morally defended by the believers of that time, would still be moral today.

Evolution is about survival, not morality, it does incorporate cooperation to increase chances of offspring, which makes morality societal and contextual of time.

Morals change because humans change and lucky for us morals do change. But they are not magical or absolute.

Morals are result of evolution, not laws handed down by fictional invisible sky daddies.

You cannot expect me to respect a book who has a head character who sits with folded arms, or even blesses violence towards outsiders or ownership of the captured in war, all for his own self gratification so that we can glorify him.

You want to give yourself up to this mind rape, we cant stop you. But don't expect us to give it a lick of respect.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:You

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
You missed or ignored the point of my first argument, that any sequence can emerge randomly, including those which are very significant to us for whatever reason, without violating any aspect of Information Theory. Your only response was to quote a very low probability, which is precisely what I discussed in my second point, that if the random changes occur in small steps, with some kind of selection toward a particular kind of result dramatically increases the probability. Which you responded to with "you can throw a trillion dices at the same time. It wont work.". Which shows you entirely missed the point - I went to great trouble to show how the probabilities work very differently when you DON'T throw the dice "at the same time". What you presented with bricks is NOT the Darwinian argument in any form. Self-replicating systems exist. Self-replicating systems can change slightly each time they replicate. Some changes will be slightly better at replicating that others. Therefore they can evolve. Would be a simplified version of it. Self-replication and selection are the key points, without them, it has nothing to do with Darwin.
you missed and ignored my point as well. Which just shows bad will to recognize scientific facts, which do evidence clearly, your standpoint is wrong. Let me put it very clear to you : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t60-abiogenesis-a-reasonable-answer-to-explain-how-live-arise-on-earth We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is ‘… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’55 This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the same for all life.
Quote:
"energy has a property of dissipating in heat." is not correct. What happens is that usable energy becomes less available with every interaction, as temperature differences even out. The energy itself remains the same. The 'heat death', with all the temperature variations evened out, can persist eternally. I am merely proposing something like that as being the 'ground state' of existence.
and i am clarifying that : 1. based on the many decades lasting Big Bang theory, energy was created at the Big Bang, and did not exist eternally , in what state whatsoever. 2. If energy would exist eternally, we would according to the second law of thermodynamics already be in a state of heath death.
Quote:
TalkOrigins wrote: The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law. Seems to sum it up pretty much, and is consistent with my comments.
In our universe do exist 10^80 atoms. chance life came to be by chance, is according to Lee Smolin 10^220. If that number seems plausible to you, fine. I would not bet a dime to such a proability. You can play dice even a trillion times at the same time. It wont change the picture.
Quote:
You proved my point about NDE's/OoBE's. It is about about the reality of pyschic power's, not about the mind being able to exist independently of the body.
Evidence all point the direction , it is possible. Psichic powers evidence it , too. People can leave their body, and do astral travelling with their mind. They leave their body literally. Spiritism is other evidence. When people are possessed, other spirits do incorporate someones body. That is other evidence in favour . do you have any evidence on hand, a bodyless mind is not possible ?
Quote:
Bible references are irrelevant to this discussion. They don't prove anything. Actually reading the Bible is a good way to appreciate the absurdity and immorality of the religion.
Nice to know you admit morality exists. Why do you believe, objective moral values exist, if God does not exist ?
Quote:
EDIT: I just noticed you say you have a degree in Theology. That explains a lot about your ignorance and misunderstanding of reality.
sorry, that was not me. What should that change ? btw. does that evidence, EdBarker is ignorant in the terms you used ? he's a fellow of yours, sic.....
Actually a theological degree usually makes you very biased and opinionated about the existence of god.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You and your cult (no

Quote:
You and your cult (no matter how many millions) are insignificant, to real/not real.

your atheism is either.

Quote:
So, your personal thoughts, or personal opinions are useless.

well, it depends. if my personal thoughts, if my faith reflects the truth, than it is indeed relevant.

Quote:
You don't have a 'say', in what it 'is'.

well, actually i think yes, i have a say to say what it is. I am a testimony of my the faith, i believe reflects the truth.

Quote:
We are teaching you, and at the same time, nullifying your objections, and your attempt to spread disinformation.

how about its not the other way around ? how are you so sure, your atheism is a epic fail , God does indeed exist ?

Quote:
No matter how unlikely something may be, if it HAS happened, it's odds where 1 in 1.

your argument isnt new to me . And its flaw is obvious :

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_hurben/univ.html

"Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad consisting of 100 marksmen. You hear the command to fire and the crashing roar of the rifles. You then realize you are still alive, and that not a single bullet found its mark. How are you to react to this rather unlikely event?"

'Of course you do not observe that you are dead, because if you were dead, you would not be able to observe that fact!' However, this does not stop you from being amazed and surprised by the fact that you did survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event, which was too improbable to happen by chance. Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan among the marksmen to miss you on purpose. In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason, not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident."

"So we should conclude the same with the cosmos. It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God."

Quote:
You have clearly demonstrated your high level of ignorance, and proven exactly NOTHING, to claim that it must have been a god that made that happen.Go back to school.You are talking gibberish.

based on what you are demonstrating, your arrogance isnt justified. It should not be in place.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Actually a theological

Quote:
Actually a theological degree usually makes you very biased and opinionated about the existence of god.

Not true. There are many people, that hold a PhD. in Theology, but do not believe in God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Theism has no basis for any

Theism has no basis for any sort of real morality, merely a set of edicts claimed to the words of an imagined being.

Even if some super-entity exists, there is no way we could know anything with certainty what its ultimate motives are with respect to us, so it could not serve as a base for morality, merely as something to be obeyed, with punishment and reward to influence our decisions. Theist 'morality' is the 'morality' of "might makes right".

Whereas secular morality is based on our collective consensus of what causes us pain or distress of any kind.

Sensitivity to the desires and problems of others clearly evolved as a strong bonding mechanism to keep our group together, since in our original state we were no match as individuals to the predators around us, and cooperation allowed us to enhance our situation a great deal. As it still does.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15735
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:TGBaker

angelobrazil wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think that we will get nowhere in this discussion because of the inability of theists to suspend their belief system.  It is like going to conservapedia and trying to find an accurate article about anything.

that picture would be different, if you would have better arguments on hand, to explain our existence, than i have. Unfortunately, when its established, God shall not exist, even the best argument against atheism will not be considered. Base of your belief system and worldview is not reason, science, philosophy, and theology, but your simple will that God shall not exist. The best arguments remain fruitless in front of such a pícture.

Quote:
that picture would be different, if you would have better arguments on hand, to explain our existence, than i have.

WE DO AND HAVE HAD THE EXPLANATION FOR OVER 100 YEARS, EVOLUTION!

Your petty childish dictator fairy tales were written by inept people who didn't have fucking clue about reality. Don't blame us for crap we didn't write.

Look at a domestic house cat and a tiger. Only a dip shit would claim that they are not related.

We do not need your ancient Santa for adults to explain reality. It is merely your wishful thinking of wanting a super hero to exist.

You do not have an explanation, you have a claim. And an old one at that.

If you really believe that life was started by a magic invisible man, instead of a natural process, you might as well believe that your computer runs on pixy dust.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Actually a theological degree usually makes you very biased and opinionated about the existence of god.
Not true. There are many people, that hold a PhD. in Theology, but do not believe in God.
Well that's what I said.  Opinionated falls both ways.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because we evolved,

Quote:
Because we evolved, and morality is not stagnant and does change, otherwise the moral repugnant stories in the bible condoning slavery which was morally defended by the believers of that time, would still be moral today.

yes, but how should that prove, that objective moral values exist ? Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews ? If God does not exist, the Nazis where as much right as you are. All depends just on the individual standpoint. Every standpoint is equally valid. If God does not exist, it makes no difference, if you rape a small baby, or if you eat a ice cream.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote:I

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
I do not need a case for atheism. It is simply a statement that I see no basis for theism. The bible is good evidence that christinaity was a fabrication and in fact the reason I do not believe after serious studies of many years. I do not see a creation. I see a universe. Millions of peopleexperience UFO's and Elvis... does not make them real. God's existence should be real enough that everyone could establish his existence sotra like Jennifer Anniston, Obama or you. Anyone can establish me. So I think that is an excuse. The fact that the question of god has reached a sophisticated level is because of the lack of any evidence and a long established belief. Can you prove that there is no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, elves????It's not a matter of a closed heart. Its a matter of evidence.
There is tons of evidence. Fact that you ignore it, doesnt make your standpoint to be more true. http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god
None of these are objective and scientific. I am quite familar with all of them. They are less evidential than reasons for the string theory.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:
Quote:
Because we evolved, and morality is not stagnant and does change, otherwise the moral repugnant stories in the bible condoning slavery which was morally defended by the believers of that time, would still be moral today.
yes, but how should that prove, that objective moral values exist ? Who tells you, Hitler was not right, to kill millions of jews ? If God does not exist, the Nazis where as much right as you are. All depends just on the individual standpoint. Every standpoint is equally valid. If God does not exist, it makes no difference, if you rape a small baby, or if you eat a ice cream.
Take some time to read Sam harris's book, the Moral Landscape. Well-being is a scientifically objectifiable state as is good health.  You can think of its opposite as a place where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible (sounds like a christian hell).  Anything that moves from that base of suffering is a movement to well being and can be seen as objective. In fact moral atheism is more moral than Christian. The atheist does the good for the sake of it being so whereas a Christian does it because it is commanded by god or out of fear and threats of going to hell.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The problem with god

If he is all good and all powerful and all knowing there is no explanation about the world unless suffering and evil is an illusion.

If there is really suffering and evil in the world then good can't stop it and is not powerful, he is not good and does not care or enjoys the suffering, or is not all knowing and has not noticed how screwed up his creation is. 

There is no basis for the classical limitless being. So god is not that limitless, perfect being. Since that is what defines the theistic god god does not exist.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If there is a Metaverse

If there is a Metaverse within which the Big Bang, or multiple BB's occurred, there is no reason whatever to claim that ALL energy is within the Big Bang Universe.

The energy within the our Universe is currently seen to be of both positive and negative nature, where the energy associated with gravity is considered as negative, ie complementary to the energy associated with the other forces and matter particles, such that the net energy content of the Universe is precisely zero, so its emergence from the Singularity does not violate any Thermodynamic Laws. This process means  also that the entropy state of the matter/energy of this Universe is not dependent in any sense on that of any Metaverse, or whatever may exist in some larger context of reality - The Second Law simply requires that the total entropy of the Universe can only increase.

Any pre-existing state of minimum energy/maximum entropy could exist indefinitely in that state, and would not preclude the spontaneous 'budding-off' of singularities leading to Big Bangs. No principles of Physics are violated in this scenario.

As Stephen Hawking recently acknowledged, God is unnecessary. Are you claiming to understand Physics and Cosmology better than Hawking, or Stephen Weinberg, et al?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:WE DO AND HAVE HAD THE

Quote:
WE DO AND HAVE HAD THE EXPLANATION FOR OVER 100 YEARS, EVOLUTION!

how does Evolution explain God away ?

Quote:
Your petty childish dictator fairy tales were written by inept people who didn't have fucking clue about reality. Don't blame us for crap we didn't write.

that tells a lot about your feelings and bias towards the God of the bible. Less however about the quest, if he exists, or not.

Quote:
Look at a domestic house cat and a tiger. Only a dip shit would claim that they are not related.

thats micro evolution. When it comes to explain sex, human self conscience, its ability of speech, things get a littlebit more complicated.....

Quote:
We do not need your ancient Santa for adults to explain reality. It is merely your wishful thinking of wanting a super hero to exist.

bring up a highly consistent explanation of the existence of our universe without needing God, and we talk.....

Quote:
You do not have an explanation, you have a claim. And an old one at that.

actually not true. I have already given a lot of explanations. You just ignoring it does not change this fact.

Quote:
If you really believe that life was started by a magic invisible man, instead of a natural process, you might as well believe that your computer runs on pixy dust.

Its not my fault if Abiogenesis is a big mess, a bankrupt theory.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Who gave you that

Quote:
Who gave you that nonsensical notion?
1- There's no 'case' for atheism. It's not a 'movement'. It's a state of mind called 'Skepticism'.
2- Skepticism is the position one 'abandons', in order to 'adopt' a belief.
You've been grossly mislead, and you have problems comprehending your own position, and how you deviated from Skepticism .
The question isn't why 'atheism', it is why 'any other position'.

how about you learn to define the terms of your own row ?

there exist weak atheist, which simply do disbelief that any God exists
strong atheists, which do claim, God does not exist
and agnostics/skeptics, which are on the sideline. Which have not made up their minds so far.
My understanding is that i am debating strong atheists here.