|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps if one does not believe that God exists then the Bible does not have an intended purpose. Its like Stile *knowing* that God does not exist. He accepted the evidence and thus allows himself to know.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Lots of people believe in God but not in the Bible. You'd have to believe in a particular myth about God to believe that the Bible has one specific purpose. Perhaps if one does not believe that God exists then the Bible does not have an intended purpose. It would also be possible for an atheist to believe that the Bible has one specific purpose, though he would have no vested interest in it.
Phat writes:
Well, the evidence suggests that the Bible does not have a single purpose, so I don't see the parallel. Its like Stile *knowing* that God does not exist. He accepted the evidence and thus allows himself to know.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 624 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
But then, of course, you have to answer the question of how this "intelligent agency" came to exist. At least, you have to wonder if the agency could develop from non-intelligent origins.
But if it could, then why couldn't a simpler thing, a universe without intelligence (but with neutrons, protons, electrons, etc), develop out of non-intelligent origins?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Should humans assume that their intelligence(or simplicity) is the only contribution towards a universal consensus? What universal consensus? I didn't know there were other than human opinions. Are you in cahoots with the dolphins?
We need to ask ourselves what idea or argument we individually(and/or collectively) are trying to defend or further develop. Well, in this thread it's "I Know That God Does Not Exist".Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 624 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I was using protons, neutrons and electrons making up the Periodic Table as an example of complexity (the chemical properties of the Periodic Table) that one would not expect from descriptions of elementary particles that make up the atoms. There's no reason to think the complexity you spoke of is not the result of some deeper level, as protons, neutrons and electrons are at a deeper level than the chemicals they make up.
Complexity is not evidence of intelligent origin. If it were, intelligence itself would have to have an intelligence existing before it to develop it, which is a contradiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Complexity is not evidence of intelligent origin. If it were, intelligence itself would have to have an intelligence existing before it to develop it, which is a contradiction. It is only a contradiction if you assume as fact the idea that human intelligence is the origin of creativity and definition.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 624 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I didn't specify any particular intelligence.
I just said if you have to have an intelligence in existence before intelligence can develop you've developed yourself a contradiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
well if so, that answers the argument of Who Made God. People always ask where God came from. God Himself could say that such a question assumes a necessary contradiction.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
It is only a contradiction if you assume as fact the idea that human intelligence is the origin of creativity and definition. That's a pretty good assumption since there is no evidence of anything to the contrary.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Sarah Bellum writes:
I'm not contending that it is. I am however contending that most of the complexity you mentioned doesn't come from a deeper level of simplicity, but a deeper level of incredible complexity.
Complexity is not evidence of intelligent origin. If it were, intelligence itself would have to have an intelligence existing before it to develop it, which is a contradiction. Sarah Bellum writes:
I mean if your picture of atoms is based on something like the Bohr model that presents atoms as little solar systems, then yes you wouldn't expect it. However if your picture of protons is the one from quantum field theory where the experimental properties of one proton are beyond the power of a supercomputer why wouldn't you expect that complexity? It's not complexity from a simpler layer
I was using protons, neutrons and electrons making up the Periodic Table as an example of complexity (the chemical properties of the Periodic Table) that one would not expect from descriptions of elementary particles that make up the atoms Sarah Bellum writes:
There is a deeper level, but it seems to be even more complex, possibly incomprehensibly so. So rather than complexity arising from simpler levels below it's actually complexity built atop increasing complexity. There's no reason to think the complexity you spoke of is not the result of some deeper level, as protons, neutrons and electrons are at a deeper level than the chemicals they make up Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given. Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given. Edited by Son Goku, : Quote correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: I guess I was a bit obtuse. The point was simply that you had accused me with using an argument from incredulity. Fair enough, but the argument that I hear against the belief in an intelligent agent responsible for life, is also an argument from incredulity. I used as an example the use of Santa Claus to make the point. Obviously an adult belief in Santa Claus in an incredulous belief and so the inference is that belief in a deity is also incredulous. Sorry, GDR, you lost me.I know that's easy to do and getting easier every day, but... what? Hope that helps. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: My claim the I know God exists is simply a way of saying that I "know" that God exists using the same definition and understanding of what it means to know something that Stile used. Neither of us actually "knpw" that our positions are correct.
What on earth are you talking about? You said in Message 991, "I declare that I "know" God exists." and I replied in Message 993, "But you have no evidence." How on earth is a quote from NASA in any way related to what we were talking about? The NASA quote was simply to make the point of the contrast of the early universe to the arrival of conscious sentient life.
ringo writes: My only point is that there are subjective beliefs within science as well. I'm inclined to think that if someone spends their working life trying to prove a hypothesis then they subjectively believe in it.
Nobody "believes" in string theory. Some people think it's the most promising current hypothesis. ringo writes: Are you saying that because we can show that heat is necessary to boil water by a natural process that all natural processes are the result of mindless origins?
Are you suggesting that heat is not an explanation for boiling water? You asked for evidence that we can explain phenomena in terms of natural processes or "blind chance" as you call it. That's what I did. Now the goalposts have moved? ringo writes: But it isn't piling processes on processes. It's connecting known processes to known processes. As I said, it's a network, not a hierarchy. There is no ultimate beginning to the network of processes, so there's no need for an infinite regression - like there is for an intelligent cause. How did this "network" bring about an evolutionary process out of the initial materials of the universe?
ringo writes: But we have scientific evidence that at one time within our universe which is subject to time and entropy there was no cellular life and in fact no planets at all. It looks like the fundamental forces interacting with each other.There's no need to speculate about "where it came from". If something "always was" - like your God - then the processes can just as easily be the something that always was. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: I pay taxes as well. Obviously what we are talking about is what we do with what we have left after taxes. We are also talking about what we do with or time.
Why not? The vast majority of good that I do for people is through my taxes. ringo writes: It isn't about the amount but the comparison between those who as Christians are active in their churches and those with no religious affiliation. You made the claim that there was no difference. I've simply shown you that what you claimed was well off the mark using secular sources. t isn't rocket science. Americans give more because they have more, not because they're more religious.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Fair enough, but the argument that I hear against the belief in an intelligent agent responsible for life, is also an argument from incredulity. OK, Got it. Even though you cannot prove an external intelligence is responsible you push that thought because your emotional makeup doesn’t want to accept the other possibility. That is incredulity. The other argument to be made is that the wholesale lack of even the most minimal evidence in favor of a god proposal, after thousands of years and so many brains and so much activity in looking for any at all, has become its own set of data points against the proposal. Carl Sagan wasn’t wrong when he said “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” when it comes to other life in our galaxy. The numbers and processes in proposing such other life are too strong to be ignored and support considering such a speculation. Not the same with a god speculation where there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such a speculation.
Obviously an adult belief in Santa Claus in an incredulous belief and so the inference is that belief in a deity is also incredulous. You're right, both are incredulous and for the same reasons - there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such speculations. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Sarah Bellum writes: But then, of course, you have to answer the question of how this "intelligent agency" came to exist. At least, you have to wonder if the agency could develop from non-intelligent origins.But if it could, then why couldn't a simpler thing, a universe without intelligence (but with neutrons, protons, electrons, etc), develop out of non-intelligent origins? Our universe as we experience it is restricted in time by only having one time dimension. Certain scientific theories, as I with something below minimal understanding of, propose having more than one dimension of time. Science also tells us that we are only able to perceive 4.5% of all that is. I subjectively believe that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and that God is not restricted to one dimension of time, and as a result God is not restricted in time as we are.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024