Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
63 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat, vimesey (4 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 856 of 2767 (856262)
06-29-2019 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by GDR
06-28-2019 10:39 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
quote:

Good ideas do not equate with "knowing".

We are not talking about “knowing” - we are talking about which ideas are rationally preferable. Even if your ideas made equal sense and fit as well with the evidence - and they likely don’t - they are still far less parsimonious.

quote:

I'm not suggesting that it would help in understanding how consciousness evolved. It is about why consciousness evolved.

It’s pretty obvious that you started talking about the “how” questions, not the “why”. But the “why” questions are even less help to you.

quote:

Well firstly we cannot tell whether there was guidance or not, but I'm personally ok with no intervention. The question is why evolution at all. If it didn't have an intelligent root cause what is the process that allowed the evolutionary process to begin - and what was the process that kicked that process off and on and on and on.

Evolution is an inevitable (or close to inevitable) consequence of imperfect reproduction. There doesn’t need to be anything special to “kick it off”. And why exactly do we need an infinite regress ? It’s your ideas that call for it.

quote:

It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.

I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 10:39 PM GDR has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 8:00 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 857 of 2767 (856264)
06-29-2019 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 856 by PaulK
06-29-2019 2:21 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.

Hey I can fully agree! jar used to tell us that he was a believer yet there was no way he could justify his beliefs as rational, though he tried. He reiterated that his ideas about GOD (expressed through his belief in God) were most likely WRONG. I don't quite take that same stance. Look, I know that there is an argument against the "people of the kool aid". The Christian Charismatic "Flow" is easily recognizable. I can listen to a sermon for two minutes and discern whether the Pastor is "one of us" or not. I would claim that they are "in the Spirit" and that my discernment is in fact spiritual discernment. There are certain identifying factors. In fact, it would be a good topic spinoff.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 2:21 AM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 862 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:43 AM Phat has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 793
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 858 of 2767 (856269)
06-29-2019 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 853 by GDR
06-28-2019 4:36 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
It can't be "proven" in the same sense that I can't prove there are no unicorns on the Moon, because I haven't searched every crater. But the possibility is pretty small, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 4:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 859 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 10:36 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 859 of 2767 (856281)
06-29-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 858 by Sarah Bellum
06-29-2019 8:43 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Sarah Bellum writes:

It can't be "proven" in the same sense that I can't prove there are no unicorns on the Moon, because I haven't searched every crater. But the possibility is pretty small, no?

I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-29-2019 8:43 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 860 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2019 10:53 AM GDR has replied
 Message 890 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-30-2019 3:05 PM GDR has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 860 of 2767 (856282)
06-29-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 859 by GDR
06-29-2019 10:36 AM


chances
I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?

Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.

Also you are obviously wrong if we make some judgements about the nature of unicorns. If they are at all horse like then we know the odds of unicorns on the moon are very, very, extremely, very close to zero.

On the other hand the experiments we have done so far indicate that life arising through reasonable chemical processes is certainly non-zero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 10:36 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 861 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 11:31 AM NosyNed has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 861 of 2767 (856285)
06-29-2019 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 860 by NosyNed
06-29-2019 10:53 AM


Re: chances
Nosy Ned writes:

Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.

I'm not saying that the processes can't have produced life. What I am claiming is the incredibly high degree of improbability that the processes themselves existed without an intelligent cause.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 860 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2019 10:53 AM NosyNed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:46 AM GDR has replied
 Message 868 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 12:21 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 862 of 2767 (856286)
06-29-2019 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 857 by Phat
06-29-2019 8:00 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Phat writes:

I can listen to a sermon for two minutes and discern whether the Pastor is "one of us" or not.


So can all of us. Bullshit is not hard to detect.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 8:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 11:59 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 863 of 2767 (856288)
06-29-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by GDR
06-29-2019 11:31 AM


Re: chances
GDR writes:

What I am claiming is the incredibly high degree of improbability that the processes themselves existed without an intelligent cause.


Intelligence can only work with existing processes.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 11:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 12:02 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 864 of 2767 (856293)
06-29-2019 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 862 by ringo
06-29-2019 11:43 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
How do you know its bullshit? Only because it doesnt line up with your standards? Your way of Biblical interpretation is the one that is way off. First of all, you assert that God is a made up concept within human minds. Then you go on to say that the stories do have value despite being mythos...and you trot out matthew 25 and proudly say that yes, yes we should give to the poor. Give till it hurts. You thus become the substitute for Gods parable in that you determine that according to humanist consensus, we should obey the character Jesus in the book. In essence what you have done is humanize the story of a Deity and substituted humans correcting humans. heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see you lobby for legislation for mandatory compulsive giving to help the poor. #Extreme Socialist My hope is that Jesus Himself will return and set you people straight along with the rest of us. Mandatory, indeed!!!!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 866 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 12:14 PM Phat has replied
 Message 869 by jar, posted 06-29-2019 12:53 PM Phat has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 865 of 2767 (856294)
06-29-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by ringo
06-29-2019 11:46 AM


Re: chances
ringo writes:

Intelligence can only work with existing processes.

Sure, with our human level of intelligence. The processes exist. The question is why. Are they the result of an intelligent agent or are they the result of a regression of other processes from fortuitous blind chance?

Stile claims he knows that the first option is wrong therefore he is also claiming that the second option is correct. His view is every bit as subjective as mine and isn't absolute knowledge of the truth.

I do claim though that my conclusion is more probable, but that again is subjective.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 11:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 867 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 12:21 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 866 of 2767 (856295)
06-29-2019 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 864 by Phat
06-29-2019 11:59 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Phat writes:

How do you know its bullshit? Only because it doesnt line up with your standards?


Because it doesn't line up with any standards of reality or logic.

Phat writes:

Your way of Biblical interpretation is the one that is way off.


That's an empty claim. Back it up or withdraw it.

Phat writes:

First of all, you assert that God is a made up concept within human minds.


And you know damn well it is. You yourself are the first to say that Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are made up.

Phat writes:

Then you go on to say that the stories do have value despite being mythos...


And why wouldn't they?

Phat writes:

...and you trot out matthew 25 and proudly say that yes, yes we should give to the poor.


We know that's true because we are social animals.

Phat writes:

...you determine that according to humanist consensus, we should obey the character Jesus in the book.


Yes, the Jesus character understood that we are social animals. And?

Phat writes:

In essence what you have done is humanize the story of a Deity and substituted humans correcting humans.


There's no need to "substitute" anything. We can understand what it means to be social animals without spackling on a "God" layer.

Phat writes:

I wouldn't be surprised to see you lobby for legislation for mandatory compulsive giving to help the poor.


We already have that. It's called taxation. They had it in the Old testament. It was called tithing.

Phat writes:

#Extreme Socialist


Stop being such an asshole. You're turning into faith.

I'm pointing out what Jesus fucking told you to do! You're spitting in His face.


All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 11:59 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 4:03 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 867 of 2767 (856296)
06-29-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 865 by GDR
06-29-2019 12:02 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:

Sure, with our human level of intelligence.


Exactly. The only level of intelligence there is. If you're claiming that some entity has something "beyond intelligence", don't call it intelligence. Why not just call it magic?

GDR writes:

The processes exist. The question is why.


That isn't really much of a question - unless you have a canned answer that you're trying to sell.

GDR writes:

His view is every bit as subjective as mine and isn't absolute knowledge of the truth.


Of course there is no such thing as "absolute knowledge" - but no, Stile's view is not as subjective as yours. His view is based on what we objectively know.

GDR writes:

I do claim though that my conclusion is more probable, but that again is subjective.


No, probability is not subjective. It's mathematics.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 12:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 870 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 1:10 PM ringo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 868 of 2767 (856297)
06-29-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 861 by GDR
06-29-2019 11:31 AM


Re: chances
quote:

I'm not saying that the processes can't have produced life. What I am claiming is the incredibly high degree of improbability that the processes themselves existed without an intelligent cause.

I would think that an intelligent cause would be far less likely. And your own arguments would tend to suggest that you should have an even lower estimate. But of course this is all rationalisation intended to support a predetermined conclusion.

And of course, you can’t substantiate your claim of “incredibly high degree of improbability”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 11:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 871 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 869 of 2767 (856299)
06-29-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 864 by Phat
06-29-2019 11:59 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Remember Phat, the Bible itself describes man, plain old human type man, correcting God. We've been over this more then once IIRC.

The Bible itself describes God as unsure, insecure, frightened by the prospects of plain old humans, unable to defeat a plain old human even by using deceit and trickery...

Why do you insist on placing the God YOU create above the God other folk create?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 11:59 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 3:41 PM jar has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 870 of 2767 (856302)
06-29-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 867 by ringo
06-29-2019 12:21 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:


Exactly. The only level of intelligence there is. If you're claiming that some entity has something "beyond intelligence", don't call it intelligence. Why not just call it magic?

Call it whatever you like but that doesn't make any point beyond the use of words.
ringo writes:

That isn't really much of a question - unless you have a canned answer that you're trying to sell.

I am not arguing for a canned answer but simply against Stile's claim of knowledge.

ringo writes:


Of course there is no such thing as "absolute knowledge" - but no, Stile's view is not as subjective as yours. His view is based on what we objectively know.

Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there. Essentially, I don't mean to put words in his keyboard, but we have learned a great deal about the evolutionary process, and then he claims that this proves that there is no intelligent agency without showing how evolution itself came into existence.

ringo writes:

No, probability is not subjective. It's mathematics.

..and just how did the laws of mathematics become part of our existence?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 12:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 872 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 1:23 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022