To Deny God is to deny life

Rational Faith
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
To Deny God is to deny life

Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
This is yet another case

This is yet another case of a theist preaching at us.  You assert much but prove nothing.  Let me count the ways... 

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist.

1. Prove it. 

Quote:
Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place.

2. Prove it. 

Quote:
The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

3. Prove it.

Man, that was the easiest thing I've had to refute all day.  Somebody give me a medal.  By the way, evidence is such that you provide us with a Peer Reviewed Thesis that has been through some sort of scientific journal, and made it through the process of being reviewed by several scholars and top scientists on the matter.  We eagerly await your Peer Reviewed studies.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rational Faith
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The most obvious proof is

The most obvious proof is the world around us.  All living organisms in the idea of evolution started the same way.  Living in a very harsh enviroment with no oxygen.  The earth could not have existed long enoug for such advanced organisms to evolve from small bubbles of amino acids.  The amount of time just isn't there.  God is the only way humans could have come into existence as fast as they did.  I do not deny evolution mearly because nature does kill off unfit genes, but the timing is the flaw.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Rational Faith wrote:The

Rational Faith wrote:

The most obvious proof is the world around us. 

 Okay, so where is that Peer Reviewed essay?  Where is the statement from the National Academy of Sciences where they back up your naked assertion?

Quote:
 All living organisms in the idea of evolution started the same way. 

4. Prove it. 

Quote:
 Living in a very harsh enviroment with no oxygen.

5. Prove it. 

 

Quote:
The earth could not have existed long enoug for such advanced organisms to evolve from small bubbles of amino acids. 

6. Prove it. 

Quote:
 The amount of time just isn't there.  God is the only way humans could have come into existence as fast as they did.

7. Prove it. 

 

Quote:
I do not deny evolution mearly because nature does kill off unfit genes, but the timing is the flaw.

8. Prove it.

So far you've given me 8 assertions with absolutely no evidence.  You claim a lot yet prove nothing.  But you MUST have some sort of Peer Reviewed evidence, right?  SOme thesis written by some top scientist to prove these claims?  Again, we eagerly await your evidence.  Hop to it Tonto. =)

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Rational Faith (which is an

Rational Faith (which is an oxymoron by the way),

 

When asked to prove these claims, instead of making more assertions that you now have to prove you should work on the past assertions.  These are some gigantic assertions that you've made that fly in the face of science, if you want to be respected around here you've got some major work on your hands.  And please no cut and paste.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Thandarr
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Give us a break, here!

Look, Rational Faith, I'm not even an atheist, but I'm going to suggest you stop embarrasing yourself and everyone else who suspects there might be something beyond the material world with blanket and patently indefensible assertions about how things had to happen.  All you're going to get is requests that you back up any of your assertions, and you can't back up any of the ones you've made so far save maybe one.  And that one, "Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place." is something most of the atheists around here agree about.  As biologists have demonstrated again and again, life didn't just "fall into place" but is the result of a natural process that is anything but accidental.

You say that the earth could not have existed long enough for life to have developed by natural processes.  Okay, what's the time limit on how long the earth could have existed?  There actually is one, but without the benefit of science you have no idea what that limit is.  You have no way of saying whether life could have evolved in the time we have.

I think there may have been an intelligent force that designed the universe, but I have no proof for it so I don't go around telling people that it must be true.  I could be wrong.  I've been wrong about a lot of stuff. 

Here's what you need to do:  educate yourself about science so you won't just be a target for ridicule.  I'm going to suggest you start with a book by a devout fundamentalist Christian who nevertheless has somehting intelligent to say about science because he's a genuine scientist as well.  Try Francis Collins's The Language of God.  Granted, many of the people on this board will be happy to tell you all the flaws in Collins's book, but at least he has a reason to believe as he does. 

But before you come into a battleground like this, you ought to arm yourself with a little knowledge.  Read the other side.  Read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.  Go from there.

I disagree with the idea that you ought to have a published thesis before you can make assertions about the existence of God,but I think you ought to have a little more than broad unsubstantiated statements unsupported by even a scintilla of research or thought.  Sorry to be so hard on you, but your post came up when I logged on with the good intention of carrying on a serious or at least a silly discussin with these atheists and I have to start off reading this ill-informed and highly unpersuasive post.  If you're a Christian (and I'm not assuming you are--athiests often assume I'm a Christian) seeking to fulfill the grand commission by sitting on your ass in front of your computer and spouting inanities, think again.  If you're a Pagan, for the gods' sake stop embarrassing me.

Thandarr 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with Rational

I disagree with Rational Faith's method of trying to prove this the way he is, but I beg to differ with you, Sapient. Faith is and can be rational. There is no oxymoron. Faith is a type of knowledge whereby we accept certain truths according to a higher authority (either within religion or without). Faith is a type of knowledge, differing in source (and sometimes object) than natural inquiry (which begins with naturally known principles, such as the principle of non-contradiction or mathematical principles, ect.).

Not to be too harsh, but I would caution Rational Faith with the same words of Thandarr - "I disagree with the idea that you ought to have a published thesis before you can make assertions about the existence of God, but I think you ought to have a little more than broad unsubstantiated statements unsupported by even a scintilla of research or thought."

 In the last place, I want to merely argue that Rational Faith has the correct idea in arguing for the existence of God from the existence of the natural world, as it is essentially true. I would argue that, as things in the world, though unintelligent (such as rocks, stones, trees, chipmunks, gasses) act in such a manner as to achieve an end, it would seem that a higher intelligence directs the natural world. I think this is most easily seen in the case of natural laws, such as the 'law of gravity' or the laws of thermodynamics. In these cases, things act, even though unintelligent, in highly intelligible ways always (or for the most part) for the best good. In other words, it seems inevitable that our conclusion is that these things are designed. I think life might prove to be a good example, though not the only example of design in the universe. The reason being that life required, or so it seems, very specific characteristics for it to emerge (so small a set that it seems that all observable planets, if not all, do not possess life). Further, that natural laws seemed disposed to promote life, such as the fact that water freezes naturally from the top down instead of the bottom up, which preserves life in the water during the winter. While this last example is not perfect, I think it very convincing in an argument for belief in a principle of creation/design of the universe.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
StMichael, I haven't

StMichael, I haven't responded to any of your threads yet for the simple reason that I haven't made it through most of them.  The sheer volume of words you use to convey simple ideas is a deterrent.  I don't want you to take that the wrong way.  It's just that you do sometimes go through New Jersey to get to Oregon from California.  I appreciate the concise nature of your previous post.

Anyway, your arguments seem to boil down to these statements:

Faith is a type of knowledge whereby we accept certain truths according to a higher authority

 Demonstrably incorrect.  It is, however, necessary to believe in a deity.  Every single piece of knowledge  comes from some natural occurence in the universe.  Even "revelation" necessarily is a natural experience.  If I hear a voice in my head, that's evidence.  (Just not scientific!)  There's no faith involved, just bad logic that goes like this:

1) I have X evidence that is not scientific or falsifiable.

2) X points to Z, which is not rational

3) Therefore, Z exists, even though it's irrational.

 The second point I find is this:

I would argue that, as things in the world, though unintelligent (such as rocks, stones, trees, chipmunks, gasses) act in such a manner as to achieve an end, it would seem that a higher intelligence directs the natural world.

 This argument rests on several baseless presumptions:

1) the world was made for humans.

2) there is an "end" to the process of evolution.

3) there is such a thing as a "best good."

In order to believe the world was made for humans, you have to believe in god, so you can't use 1) as a proof of god.  It's an ad hoc argument in addition to being circular.

The current theory of evolution has only one determining factor: survival.  The species that are alive at this time are here because they survived.  That's the only "end" that we can observe scientifically.

Even the words, "best good," beg the question, "Best good for whom?"  If you answer humanity, you have to refer back to (1) which, as I demonstrated, cannot be used to support god belief.

 The fact that life exists only proves that conditions were such that life could exist, not that life is, in and of itself, a goal.  The only way to make life a "goal" is to presuppose god and create another circle.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Demonstrably

Quote:

Demonstrably incorrect.  It is, however, necessary to believe in a deity.  Every single piece of knowledge  comes from some natural occurence in the universe.  Even "revelation" necessarily is a natural experience.  If I hear a voice in my head, that's evidence.  (Just not scientific!)  There's no faith involved, just bad logic that goes like this:

1) I have X evidence that is not scientific or falsifiable.

2) X points to Z, which is not rational

3) Therefore, Z exists, even though it's irrational.

I find this a very straw-man type attack.

The first question I ask is why X requires the standard to be neither falsifiable nor 'scientific'. This is not so much an argument directly, but more of a caution against what I see as a common mistake on this site. Namely, Catholics and Christians in general have many things that fall under faith of which some are prerequisites for faith which are not purely accepted on faith; by this I mean certain things which bridge the gap between faith and reason, such as the existence of God, or the immortality of the soul, or morality.

In the second place, why are the only standards falsifiability or 'scientific' character? I find this inadequate as a standard, as well as arbitrary in definition. The better standard, which encompasses both material (empirical, if you wish) and intellectual (mathematical, philosophical) justification, would be that X is not able to be proven according to natural principles. In other words, I cannot arrive at any knowledge of whether or not the article of faith is true by natural reason.

In the third place, I would point out that Catholics, and probably most, if not all, Christians, would reject the second premise. The Catholic faith in particular declares that nothing within faith can come into conflict with what is demonstrated according to natural reason (natural inquiry; for example, physics, mathematics, philosophy, ect.). Philosophy in general proves that no revelation of God would come in conflict with any natural truth because God is the principle of both natural truth and revealed truth (and God cannot contradict Himself).

In the fourth place, I would agree with the initial statement that every revelation takes place in natural conditions. For example, the Scriptures were truly written by human authors according to their ability, ect. but with a Divine inspirer directing their hand. This occurs according to the theological precept, "gratia perficit naturam secundum modum naturae," "grace perfects nature according to a natural mode." However, the natural occurence can truly said to be 'supernatural' in the sense that it shows its author to be supernatural. In this way, for example, a supernatural author could make a true prophecy or could perform some work (a miracle) that manifests His authority in the natural world.

Quote:

This argument rests on several baseless presumptions:

1) the world was made for humans.

2) there is an "end" to the process of evolution.

3) there is such a thing as a "best good."

In response to (1), the argument does not. It merely indicates that all things act for ends, human beings included.

In response to (2), evolution has an end, even if temporary, which is the 'function' that evolves. I find evolution to be a great example, in fact, for this particular argument. Evolution attains an end of purpose or function in the subject, which happens even though the subject is unintelligent. In other words, evolution clearly acts for an end (otherwise it would not be 'evolution', which indicates movement to a more perfect state, but rather something like a 'monster-making' where all changes were purely random). Modern science finds these ends all the time (I think chaos theory, M theory, ect.).

In response to (3), I believe it is clear, on a different level, that a perfect or best good exists because we can speak of something being 'better' than another (this can lead to a seperate proof for God's existence Smiling ), but I find that irrelevant to the current discussion. All things act toward ends, even irrational ones. But ends are rationally directed. Hence, a rational director exists. The account could assume a 'best good' in that nature would be acting for its best good, which I think observation likewise shows (the turtle evolves into the form best suited to its environment).

Quote:
 The fact that life exists only proves that conditions were such that life could exist, not that life is, in and of itself, a goal.  The only way to make life a "goal" is to presuppose god and create another circle.

I find this assertion unsubstantiated, though I don't see this as my position (that life is a goal in itself). I do not see how the fact that life is a goal in itself would presuppose God. In fact, again, looking at evolution, survival is an end sought in evolution and hence the good of the organism. So, in a sense, I suppose I would accept the position that life is a goal, but it does not seem to assume that God exists.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

PS -  "It's just that you do sometimes go through New Jersey to get to Oregon from California." Well, I am sorry. I am merely trying to be very thorough in my response and answer your questions in a satisfactory manner. I am glad that someone is reading them, anyway Smiling

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
No need to apologize. 

No need to apologize.  Just information, and maybe a hint that you could condense some of your answers without losing the substance.  I'm a particular fan of Occam's Razor.

As to your responses to my faith/reason statements:

Paragraph one presupposes the existence of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge, and can't be used as justification for faith being valid.

Second, the reason that falsifiability and science are the only standards is that they are the only physical extension of logic, which is the description of the process by which we connect with the physical universe.   If you substitute anything other than a religious tenet in your statement, it becomes obviously ridiculous:

 In other words, I cannot arrive at any knowledge of whether or not the "abduction by aliens" is true by natural reason.

Ok, then since you can't prove the abduction by aliens, my only choice is not to believe it happened, right?  The person who believes they got an anal probe on the flying saucer is delusional.

 Third, how could Christians possibly reject that "X leads to Z" when X is an "article of faith" that proves to them that "God exists?"

Fourth, this paragraph is just nonsense.  It basically says, "Everything is totally natural, unless it's supernatural, in which case, it proves the existence of the supernatural."  Duh.

I should clarify my statement about presupposing the world to be made for humans.  Theological arguments necessarily assume that humans have a special position in the universe.  If we weren't special, why would god have singled us out for his divine plan?  This is circular:

"We know that god exists because we're special in the universe.  We know we're special because god singled us out.  We can see that he did this by noting the fact that we exist now, and in order for us to exist, we must be special to god."

 In response to (2), evolution has an end, even if temporary, which is the 'function' that evolves.

Having an end presupposes intelligence, and creates yet another circle.  A natural process is just that.  You can no more say that evolution has a goal than you can say that Haley's Comet has a goal.  If you do, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate intelligence behind evolution.  Since evolution is very well explained as a natural process needing no intellect, this argument falls flat.

I believe it is clear, on a different level, that a perfect or best good exists because we can speak of something being 'better' than another (this can lead to a seperate proof for God's existence Smiling ),

This again presupposes a special place for humans.  It's fine to talk about better or best, but it always has a limit based on the question "better or best for what or whom based on what?"

 I do not see how the fact that life is a goal in itself would presuppose God.

A goal requires an intellect.  Rocks do not have goals unless they are being assigned one by an intellect.  "Life," meaning all life, cannot be demonstrated to have an intellect capable of assigning itself a goal.   Therefore, it is a presupposition to assign it an end.  Life simply is.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Marcus1111
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Hmm

To all of the "Rational Responders", here's a thought.

 

You took everything that RationalFaith said and basically without much effort told her to "prove" that God does exist. So, that just leads me to ask you...

 

How about you prove that he doesn't exist?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How about you learn

How about you learn something about logic.

The burden of proof always lies on the claimant.  You don't owe me a proof for the non-existence of leprechauns, nor do any of us owe you a proof for the non-existence of god.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rational Faith wrote: Life

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

Matter cannot have been created and therefore your god is a delusion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Rational

Vastet wrote:

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

Matter cannot have been created and therefore your god is a delusion.

 

i'm sorry if i'm being ignorant of this, but it is simply too late for me to delve into deeper threads in this forum

 

but why cannot matter be created? If i recall (and please correct me if i am wrong for saying this) Nuclear chemistry has defied the law of matter in saying that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in any process; (i apologize in advance if this post does not make sense) 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Vastet

doc101 wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

Matter cannot have been created and therefore your god is a delusion.

 

i'm sorry if i'm being ignorant of this, but it is simply too late for me to delve into deeper threads in this forum

 

but why cannot matter be created? If i recall (and please correct me if i am wrong for saying this) Nuclear chemistry has defied the law of matter in saying that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in any process; (i apologize in advance if this post does not make sense) 

It's always good to learn something new. The fact is that matter and energy are interchangeable. You can turn matter into energy, or you can turn energy into matter. A nuclear bomb is turning matter into energy. The fact that it uses so little matter just shows how much energy every atom actually has within it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not another one expecting

Not another one expecting us to prove God doesn't exist!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Marcus1111 wrote: You took

Marcus1111 wrote:

You took everything that RationalFaith said and basically without much effort told her to "prove" that God does exist. So, that just leads me to ask you...

How about you prove that he doesn't exist?

 How about asking us to prove something we actually believe, like we did with Rational Faith.

 

Rational Faith believes there is a god and has yet to prove it.

We believe there isn't a good reason to believe in a god until someone proves there is one, and Rational Faiths inability to prove it is the proof of our position.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
In response, even if we

In response, even if we assume matter was never created and existed from eternity, we would still have to posit a cause of the existence of matter that would be necessary per se. Second, matter could argued to be scientifically shown to be created if we assume that physics is correct in Big Bang theory. 

In response to Sapient,

Quote:

Rational Faith believes there is a god and has yet to prove it.

We believe there isn't a good reason to believe in a god until someone proves there is one, and Rational Faiths inability to prove it is the proof of our position.

I have been proving the existence of God, and have offered one proof for His existence. I could offer more, but I think this particular debate would profit from carefully examining one argument and concentrating our attention therein before moving on.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:I have

StMichael wrote:

I have been proving the existence of God, and have offered one proof for His existence.

Feel free to repost it, I missed it.

 

Quote:

To Deny God is to deny life

I deny god.

*poof Sapient collapses in a sudden heart attack*

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
doc101 wrote:

It's always good to learn something new. The fact is that matter and energy are interchangeable. You can turn matter into energy, or you can turn energy into matter. A nuclear bomb is turning matter into energy. The fact that it uses so little matter just shows how much energy every atom actually has within it.

I hope you are aware that is theoretically impossible for matter to just have existed, that would suggest that it were here for "infinity" and if it suggests that, that means we would have a infinite past, infinite present, infinite future. As St. Michael said, even the big bang aknowledges the creation of matter, although its creator was just a combustion of particles.

Sapient, although you were attempting to be funny, you have just proved how immature you really are... 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Sapient,

doc101 wrote:
Sapient, although you were attempting to be funny, you have just proved how immature you really are...

 

 Could you theists come up with a better argument than were immature?  It's the same whiny argument over and over, it's getting old.  Smart people aren't buying it.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: doc101

Sapient wrote:
doc101 wrote:
Sapient, although you were attempting to be funny, you have just proved how immature you really are...

 

Could you theists come up with a better argument than were immature? It's the same whiny argument over and over, it's getting old. Smart people aren't buying it.

 

In all honesty that statement regarding immaturity wasn't backing up theists at all, I was just pointing out that comment wasn't needed in this thread, not because it was making fun of God, but the fact that its off topic, just as my immaturity comment wasn't needed, for that I apologize


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rational Faith wrote: Life

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.

If we had a nickle everytime the "complexity" argument came up we'd make Bill Gates look like a wino bum.

Now, insted of letting warm fuzzy thoughts of "awe" rule your emotions. Stop, take a step back and try to understand.

Even if one were to take the concept in theory as a reality, it still would not be evidence of one god claim over another. Saying that life is too complex doesnt default to Thor existing over Allah or even Jesus.

Secondly, you also have the problem of infinate regress. Sticking god in begs the question, who created the creator.

Atoms are not complex bythemselves and draw on positive or negitive charges. BOMBARDMENT of millions and billions of googles of atoms would inevitalby lead to a progression of complexity.

Your awe of nature is understandble. But your warm fuzzies fail to adress the dark side of nature such as desease, war, famine. The universe is full of violance. Black holes, exploding suns, metors that are constant threats to this planet.

Your scope is narrow and although nature is vast and big neither requires a bearded man in sandles to understand anymore than a man in red leotard with a pitchfork.

Just say, "I am impressed with the size and vasteness of nature and the universe", but dont keep attempting to assert magic into life when there is none. 

"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


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Atoms are

Brian37 wrote:

Atoms are not complex bythemselves and draw on positive or negitive charges. BOMBARDMENT of millions and billions of googles of atoms would inevitalby lead to a progression of complexity.

Atoms aren't continuous in motion, someone had to set it in motion, otherwise atoms would be stagnant

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Brian37

doc101 wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Atoms are not complex bythemselves and draw on positive or negitive charges. BOMBARDMENT of millions and billions of googles of atoms would inevitalby lead to a progression of complexity.

Atoms aren't continuous in motion, someone had to set it in motion, otherwise atoms would be stagnant

 

"Someone"

BULLSHIT!

What you fail to ask yourself is this.

"Did a being do this"

OR

Is this motion part of a natural process.

Once again, whatever we dont know about how something happened does not default to a beard man in the sky. STOP INSISTING IN FAIRY TALES TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING

Just say, "I dont know"

That opens your mind to possible answers other than Superman vs Kriptonite.

Our universal tool called science is not supporting ancent mythology. Just as it proves that Appollo did not pull the sun across the sky in a chariot, it also proves that human flesh CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET UP AFTER DEATH!

This is nothing but, "I want it to be my super hero"

NOT

"I can prove my super hero is real" 

 

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: I was just

doc101 wrote:

I was just pointing out that comment wasn't needed in this thread, not because it was making fun of God, but the fact that its off topic,

It was specifically addressing how the topic title itself is flawed, it doesn't get any more on topic than that.

 

Quote:
just as my immaturity comment wasn't needed, for that I apologize

You're right, apology accepted.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

"Someone"

BULLSHIT!

What you fail to ask yourself is this.

"Did a being do this"

OR

Is this motion part of a natural process.


glad we are on the same page sapient Smiling

Brian, what natural process? Processes are created not the creator


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Brian, what

doc101 wrote:
Brian, what natural process? Processes are created not the creator

What Peer Reviewed essay or piblication do you have, or published article by the National Academy of Sciences do you possess with which you can back up your claim that Processes require a creator?  We eagerly await your reply.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: doc101

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

doc101 wrote:
Brian, what natural process? Processes are created not the creator

What Peer Reviewed essay or piblication do you have, or published article by the National Academy of Sciences do you possess with which you can back up your claim that Processes require a creator? We eagerly await your reply.

 Come on now, you know magical bearded men in sandles with giant "s" on their chests trump any pesky science any day. GEEZE, cant he have his delusion without you demanding evidence?

YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD! 

"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


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
To deny Thoth is to deny life.

Rational Faith wrote:
Life requires an all-powerful being,
 

 Right... *Eyes roll out of head*

Rational Faith wrote:
Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place.

So if I roll 616 pairs of dice and they all come up as 5, god had his hand in it?

If we didn't exist would that mean god doesn't exist? 

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
My contention is that

My contention is that indeed because of complexity, there could not be a creator.  You see, if an all powerful god created us, then why build such complex systems that are flawed?  Nature, in it's complexity is flawed: example: Cancer, auto-immune diseases, congenital defects to name a few.  Others are the "design" of the knee.  The simple fact that the sun is also lethal to us (skin cancer). 

If god is so omnipotent, why create life in such a manner that it is so complex?  Why would god not create a more simple living organism? Why would god create viruses, bacteria and parasitic protozoans?  Why would god create plants in nitrogen defecient environments?   Fact is there is no god and we are the products of whatever cosmic accident, and certainly and without doubt, humans are the product of evolution on earth.  Give up this idea that complexity=god, this assertion is ridiculous.   A god, could not have designed us, becuase if he/she/it had, I think we would not see children in third world countries dying of malaria. Plain and fucking simple.  Now, unless you have some wonderous proof and as Rook put it Peer reviewed papers backing your silly assertions, then I suggest you get a biology book and start reading.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:

LeftofLarry wrote:

My contention is that indeed because of complexity, there could not be a creator. You see, if an all powerful god created us, then why build such complex systems that are flawed? Nature, in it's complexity is flawed: example: Cancer, auto-immune diseases, congenital defects to name a few. Others are the "design" of the knee. The simple fact that the sun is also lethal to us (skin cancer).

question sir

If Supercomputers are so complex, then why build complex systems that are flawed? (considering computers crash every so often)

Quote:
A god, could not have designed us, becuase if he/she/it had, I think we would not see children in third world countries dying of malaria. Plain and fucking simple. Now, unless you have some wonderous proof and as Rook put it Peer reviewed papers backing your silly assertions, then I suggest you get a biology book and start reading.

You are thinking for a human standpoint, not a supernatural standpoint (and i can't speak for the supernatural cause well... i'm not lol); Let me put it like this from my perspective

Those kids in third world countries dying of malaria is the result of the human nature (i.e. wars, etc.)

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Vastet

doc101 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
doc101 wrote:

It's always good to learn something new. The fact is that matter and energy are interchangeable. You can turn matter into energy, or you can turn energy into matter. A nuclear bomb is turning matter into energy. The fact that it uses so little matter just shows how much energy every atom actually has within it.

I hope you are aware that is theoretically impossible for matter to just have existed, that would suggest that it were here for "infinity" and if it suggests that, that means we would have a infinite past, infinite present, infinite future. As St. Michael said, even the big bang aknowledges the creation of matter, although its creator was just a combustion of particles.

Sapient, although you were attempting to be funny, you have just proved how immature you really are... 

First of all, how do you know the universe hasn't always existed in some form? Can you prove otherwise? And there is nothing about the big bang theory to suggest matter was somehow created. The big bang would be all of the universe compacted into one massive explosion. There would have been no matter at the moment of the explosion itself, but much of the energy would become matter later.

And now for the trap I laid out. You already believe the universe has existed for infinity, through god. God created the universe, and god has existed for infinity. Your belief is a leap above my non-belief. I believe the universe was always there. You believe that god was always there AND created the universe. Who is really the one taking the leap here? The one who believes in reality, or the one who believes in the supernatural? The answer is obvious even to a 2 year old, but I imagine it will escape you.

doc101 wrote:
Atoms aren't continuous in motion, someone had to set it in motion, otherwise atoms would be stagnant

Lies. Energy is what causes motion within atoms. If they didn't move, the temperature of the universe would be 0 kelvin, and no life could exist. Nothing would ever happen. It would be frozen solid.

doc101 wrote:
question sir

If Supercomputers are so complex, then why build complex systems that are flawed? (considering computers crash every so often)

Very simple. It's a programming error. Or a manufacturing error. It has nothing to do with the systems inherrent complexity.

doc101 wrote:
Those kids in third world countries dying of malaria is the result of the human nature (i.e. wars, etc.)

People die of disease because of human nature? How stupid can you be?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: LeftofLarry

doc101 wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

My contention is that indeed because of complexity, there could not be a creator. You see, if an all powerful god created us, then why build such complex systems that are flawed? Nature, in it's complexity is flawed: example: Cancer, auto-immune diseases, congenital defects to name a few. Others are the "design" of the knee. The simple fact that the sun is also lethal to us (skin cancer).

question sir

If Supercomputers are so complex, then why build complex systems that are flawed? (considering computers crash every so often)

Answer:

Because we are imperfect and create things that are imperfect.

God by definition is perfect, therefore all things that come from him MUST be perfect.  Perfection can not create imperfection, otherwise this thing ceases to be perfect.  Likewise, an imperfect thing cannot create perfection.  You're either perfect or you're not, there is no gray area here.

Quote:
Quote:
A god, could not have designed us, becuase if he/she/it had, I think we would not see children in third world countries dying of malaria. Plain and fucking simple. Now, unless you have some wonderous proof and as Rook put it Peer reviewed papers backing your silly assertions, then I suggest you get a biology book and start reading.

You are thinking for a human standpoint, not a supernatural standpoint (and i can't speak for the supernatural cause well... i'm not lol); Let me put it like this from my perspective

 Wait...you're saying we have to look at it from a supernatural standpoint, but nobody that has lived has been supernatural, so how can anybody claim to know what that supernatural standpoint even is, or even if it exists?!  What would you say if I said there is a Purple Snarfwidget Standpoint™?  Would you take me seriously?  What if I told you I knew it existed, but nobody that has ever lived has verified the standpoint.  Would you still take me seriously? 

I would hope not.  Not even if I believed it as much as you believe in your unknown, thusfar unproven, and thusfar non-existant standpoint.  Belief does not prove anything.  Just as opinions cannot be held as evidence unless given evidence is presented to prove that opinion.  You have not done this.  In fact I have repeated asked for evidence in this thread.  I have asked you directly for it.  You ignored me.  So how can anybody here take your claims seriously?

Quote:
Those kids in third world countries dying of malaria is the result of the human nature (i.e. wars, etc.)

But all the good stuff that happens is the work of God?  I hope this isn't your case, it's rather flawed.

Lets say it's not, you still don't want to play this hand.  You say it's human nature...okay, who created nature?  Beyond that, who created disease?

Further, how is HUMAN nature responsible for diseases we didn't create?!  Again, I'd like Peer Reviewed evidence here.  I demand it, in fact.

I'm still waiting for your other naked assertions to be backed by Peer Reviewed papers, and published articles by some of the top scientists.  Chop chop this is now the second time I've asked you.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow.

Hambydammit, I admire your mind.  I wish I had a decent background in logic, but alas!  My entire education was dogged by religion.  I think they left out logic on purpose. Smiling  Luckily, I managed to think my way out of religion on my own.

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


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet   Lies. Energy is

Vastet

 

Lies. Energy is what causes motion within atoms. If they didn't move, the temperature of the universe would be 0 kelvin, and no life could exist. Nothing would ever happen. It would be frozen solid.

[/quote wrote:

Ok let me say this,

energy begins, energy ends

we know there is an endpoint of energy (death)

where is the starting point?

Rook I ask that you will give me some time to investigate this matter, either you will get an answer, or you will just get a simple "I don't know at the moment"

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You mean to tell me you

You mean to tell me you haven't investigated this yes?!  You're just making these naked assertions with out any Peer Reviewed scientific study?  Where are you drawing your conclusions from then?  And you wish to be taken seriously?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


NoJusticeJustUs
NoJusticeJustUs's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
To Deny The Malign Puppetmaster Is To Embrace Life

When I was a kid, I used to love building domino labyrinths with my grandfather.  Of course the most fun is the part where we knocked them down to watch the structure change into a new beautiful pattern.  Conventional wisdom might suggest that one or the other of us had to start the chain reaction by tapping a domino.  But is this absolute?  The reaction could have begun with another object tapping the domino.  It could have been a brisk wind.  It could have been any random thing flying through the air at that moment.  Heck, maybe it wasn't us tapping the domino at all.  Maybe it was the domino drawing pressure to itself.  Anyway, my point is that making a general assumption is a fallacious way to begin constructing an argument.  A good example of a general assumption is the following.

"Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist."

Well, all right, maybe it's a truth in this author's universe.  In the universe I know and love there are any number of possibilities for the kick that started this thing we call life.  Perhaps it's truly frightening to think of anything other than the Malign Puppetmaster being in control. 

 "Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place."

Au contraire, life is just complex enough to have fallen into place.  That, to me, is far more amazing than some celestial pimp daddy.  And anyway, if it's the work of the Puppetmaster, why is it so complex?  One of those tsts of faith things, like placing dinosaur bones in the earth? 

 "The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells."

Do you even have any idea of just what every strand of DNA includes?  Have you heard of mitochondria, the little beings inside of us?  Heard the one about do I take my mitochondria for a walk or do they take me?  People making faith-based proclaimations should be forbidden from mentioning DNA--the cake and eating it too. 

  "The very beginning of matter requires God."

Then God is made of matter?  What about energy?  If you'd picked energy, you might have strengthened your argument, but you didn't.  You chose matter.  That doesn't gel really with the whole God and spirit and ether and metaphysical stuff that gives faith its juice. 

Sometimes I think I'm hearing the universe moan...

Cheers!

There is no beLIEf without a LIE.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
dude, what's with the

dude, what's with the copy-cat?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: You

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You mean to tell me you haven't investigated this yes?! You're just making these naked assertions with out any Peer Reviewed scientific study? Where are you drawing your conclusions from then? And you wish to be taken seriously?

 Not in depth enough, I remember reading these accusations of mine somewhere, but I need time to find these;

 


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
I love it when theists say

I love it when theists say "there has to be a god. life requires a god, etc, etc."
No, your mind just can't imagine another one of an infinite amount of possibilites. We could be little green creatures on a very hot planet or a red planet like mars and say "oh, this is perfect. it HAS to be a miracle. there has to be a god"

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
doc101 wrote: Ok let me say

doc101 wrote:
Ok let me say this,

energy begins, energy ends

we know there is an endpoint of energy (death)

where is the starting point?

Rook I ask that you will give me some time to investigate this matter, either you will get an answer, or you will just get a simple "I don't know at the moment"

More lies. There is no such thing as an end point of energy, unless perhaps you refer to it becoming matter. Which is hardly an end.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

doc101 wrote:
Brian, what natural process? Processes are created not the creator

What Peer Reviewed essay or piblication do you have, or published article by the National Academy of Sciences do you possess with which you can back up your claim that Processes require a creator? We eagerly await your reply.

 

Here's an Article from the American Scientific Affiliation

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm

(if clicking it doesn't work actually copy and paste it into your url bar) 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Excuse me, but that is as

Excuse me, but that is as far away from peer reviewed as it gets.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Doc, you must be joking. 

Doc, you must be joking.  I specifically said PEER REVIEWED or something from the NAS or NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES!  The reason is because only through Peer Review does one prove a claim.  The NAS is also the leading scientific organization with some of the greatest minds in the world.

If this is all you can come up with, this is really sad.  I'll give you another chance though.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
How doesn't the ASA work in

How doesn't the ASA work in this case, they are a nationally known Christian scientist group (haha dunno if thats correct wording)? is it because its... oooo Christian? How else am I going to prove my response that natural processes came from a Creator? if that in fact implies that i'm saying God created them;

 

The National academy of science isn't even credible in my arguement because the general consensus is that they accept a THEORY (evolution) not a fact, (i'm not saying that mine is a proven fact) thus creationism cannot fit with their spectrum of knowledge, that is being bias

 http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html

While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve. Yet the teaching of evolution to schoolchildren is still contentious.
In Science and Creationism, The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You prove your point like

You prove your point like everyone proves a point, with evidence submitted in a Peer Reviewed paper.  If you don't have evidence, your claim is immediately suspect and dishonest.  Find me a Peer Reviewed paper. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
ok then i dont' have

ok then i dont' have one

 

but here's something else

is there even a peer reviewed paper for natural processes NOT having a creator? If you do find one that is indeed crediable, i'll refrain from replying in this thread 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Yes there are hundreds

Yes there are hundreds (thousands) of Peer Reviewed papers on Evolution and natural selection.  In fact I can direct you to several sites where you can find them.  Naturalism, in fact, there is a book out by Richard Carrier that has been Peer Reviewed, called "Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism."  Also he has several dozen Peer Reveiwed publications at the www.infidels.org site.

 The problem here is your ignorance of what evolution is.  Once you understand what evolution is, you'll understand why so many publications and scientists (unbias scientists - not atheist scientists) agree with the process. 

Now, I don't want you to stop posting in this thread, I just want an apology.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


doc101
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
how is that book as a

how is that book as a source any different from the link i provided? the only difference is that one made a book, and one made an online article; to what claim does the book prove that God isn't needed in natural processes? and with what evidence does it prove?

 

so then how is the evidence i shown for God creating natural processes any different...? 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
The difference is they were

The difference is they were peer-reviewed and critiqued by actual scientists who were able to re-produce or falsify the claims in the papers/books. Creation science is an oxymoron precisely because no one is allowed to critique what goes into the papers/books. The claims are not re-producible or falsifiable, nor do they stand against the scrutiny of fellow scientists because there are almost no "creation scientists."

It is my understanding that biologists almost universally agree that evolution is a fact. That is why it's a travesty to put creationist fantasies in a school setting.

 On edit: Rook, Dawkins's books were all peer-reviewed, weren't they?  I spent my formative years in fundy schools, so I'm fascinated by evolutionary biology.  I am dying to read Dawkins.

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