I Know That God Does Not Exist

quote:

---

So your response is simply to say I'm wrong but you aren't able to provide an explanation of what makes me wrong.

---

It should be obvious. You don’t get to invent your opponent’s position. Indeed, believing that human morality, intelligence and consciousness can be attribute to a cause which shares none of those properties does not invite an infinite regress. Insisting that the cause must also share those properties does. And that, too, would be obvious if you cared to consider why the suggestion of an infinite regress came up.And I for one do not believe in an infinite regress.Funny how you fail to address the more important point. How do you account for the morality, intelligence and consciousness of your hypothetical creator? Calling it timeless doesn’t do that. At all.

quote:

---

If it is obvious then tell me. What is the non-intelligent process that began the evolutionary process?

---

Interesting that you should ask a question which doesn’t touch on the reasons why the points are obvious - and one I’ve already answered in this thread.But to explain why the points are obvious.Inventing positions for your opponents is less than honest and does nothing to refute their actual positions.Attributing human morality to a moral creator begs the question of where that creator got it’s morality from. Without any hint of an answer to that - indeed with the implicit rejection of other causes - a moral creator is the obvious answer. Thus you invite an infinite regress. Attributing human morality to causes that are not themselves moral obviously does not beg the question. The regress doesn’t even get started.

quote:

---

Just give me one process without me even asking where that process came from.

---

What you ask doesn’t matter. You can’t force me into believing an infinite regress just by asking questions. And I don’t even need to evade the questions the way you do. So, I’ll suggest this. The process that formed our universe is a consequence of the existence of space-time.

quote:

---

I don't claim to be able to. A timeless deity was not about answering that question and of course doesn't explain it at all.

---

That isn’t what you said in Message 897: Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I asked a question to which you give no answer at all.

---

I answered all the relevant questions and the other I had already answered in this thread.

quote:

---

This thread isn't about the morality of a deity but about whether God exists at all.

---

And I am offering a critique of your argument. Funny how you insist on irrelevancies while objecting to relevant points.

quote:

---

You and others keep saying that there is objective evidence to support Stile's opening question

---

I don’t. I’m just critiquing your argument.

quote:

---

I am merely saying that whether we choose an intelligent root cause for life as we know it or a non-intelligent root is entirely subjective and can be argued only on a subjective basis.

---

In reality you were attempting to argue that your position was more rational and I was pointing out that that was untrue.

quote:

---

You guys keep saying that there is objective evidence for Stile's claim. What is it?

---

If I did, remind me of the post where I made that claim.

quote:

---

Please explain the leap from space time to conscious life to me. That is quite a breath-taking leap. As a matter of fact that kind of leap, subjectively speaking, sounds very god-like.

---

And there is a lot of science to fill it, cosmology covers the origin of our universe and it’s early development, astronomy and related disciplines cover the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, abiogenesis covers the origin of life and evolution it’s subsequent development.Let us also note that this question is yet another diversion - and one that concedes my point. You claimed that my views entailed an infinite regress, yet you do not even attempt to show that.

quote:

---

.....but what you quoted was my subjective position.

---

Which is yet another evasion into irrelevancy. A subjective answer is still an answer. An explanation is still an explanation even if it is a subjective belief.As for God, Phat says the believers are the evidence. What does your evasion and diversion and your refusal to engage in honest discussion tell us ?

It’s an odd defence.The assertion that God’s existence is obvious is obviously false. But the book goes on to falsely attack anyone who dares say so.So this is more evidence that it’s a scam. And a rather nasty-minded one at this point.

quote:

---

The book is only attacking anyone who outright rejects the possibility of God and who flaunts their freedom in a flesh driven manner.

---

Does it? It seems to me to be saying that everyone knows that God exists, so everyone who denies it deserves to be accused of dishonesty.

quote:

---

Keep in mind that one side believes the book to be inspired by this God Whom we cant seem to be able to objectively prove to your satisfaction.

---

Keep in mind, that while the general idea of inspiration is not as obviously false as the inerrantist silliness, it’s got some serious problems.

Not all that giving is good. The preachers getting rich from poor Americans (BBC)

quote:

---

And just how do you know that?

---

The desperate rationalisations are a bit of a giveaway.

quote:

---

Every member of the Catholic clergy, on the other hand, must take a vow of poverty

---

Which means that the Church nominally owns the wealth and the clergy - at least those with the right position - get to enjoy it.And I bet that a lot of the Televangelists have a similar deal, for tax purposes if nothing else.

quote:

---

There is also the question of the Observer Effect where conscious observation effects changes in what we observe.

---

No it doesn’t. Did you actually read the article you cited ? Just another example of your clutching at straws.

quote:

---

As you pointed out in your quote the observer doesn't "need' to be conscious.

---

Which means that consciousness is irrelevant to the observer effect.

quote:

---

Also, of course it takes a conscious observer to be able to measure the effect.

---

Only if you insist on begging the question. Measurements may be taken by instruments perfectly adequately.

While it is getting on a bit now, J L Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism is a classic refutation of common arguments for God.You can find it online at Scribd

I think I understand historical framework a little differently.However

quote:

---

There is no historical framework for the parting of the Red Sea.

---

This is correct. Exodus contains no useful dating material at all. The few things pointing to dates, point to dates too late to be correct. None of the Pharaohs is named. Exodus just doesn’t fit into history. Neither does Joshuah’s conquest.This, on the other hand I disagree with.

quote:

---

There is also absolutely no historical framework for Jesus or anything to do with his life.

---

The Gospels do place Jesus in an identifiable time and place. Pontius Pilate, Herod and his sons, even John the Baptist are known to history. Jesus himself is obscure enough to suggest that his faddish popularity was exaggerated by the Gospels but that obscurity is not sufficient to prove that he didn’t exist at all. That is not to say that the Gospel depiction of Jesus is accurate - it is likely extremely inaccurate in many ways.

quote:

---

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone puts Harry Potter into an identifiable time and place. If you are not happy with Harry Potter, I can find thousands of examples from the writings of Homer to the present day.

---

This does not change the fact that we have a historical setting for Jesus. One in which it is plausible that there was a human original (who worked no genuine miracles). A historical setting which is clearly lacking for the Parting of the Red Sea.

quote:

---

That would be a strawman. I did not say anything about proving he could not exist. There is no contemporary, historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus character. Do you claim there is? Please present it. If you have it you need to write paper to present it. I am still waiting.

---

I think it is quite forgivable to think that your insistence on contemporary evidence is intended to argue against the existence of a historical Jesus, and even if you do not the comment is still accurate and relevant.

quote:

---

How do we determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of something that we have no evidence for?

---

Oh, there are ways. For instance we can identify the inaccuracy of the Gospels by noting the major disagreements between them.

quote:

---

GDR for instance rejects the annihilation of some people in the OT because he refuses to think of God as that kind of "evil" being, who would commit what he calls "genocide."

---

And as was shown, is actually genocide. Or would be if it wasn’t fictiion.

quote:

---

You do know, of course, that what you say here is exactly what I was referring to as the "fleshly" inability to understand the things of the spirit..

---

You do know that what you said there confirms my opinion that the things of the spirit are simply falsehoods, dressed up in religion to deceive.

quote:

---

in the case I was describing God's judgments for sin, and you are showing quite nicely that just as I said you don't LIKE that idea. So what else is new?

---

I was pointing out that the described actions fit the definition of genocide. Thus it is a fact that they are genocide and any denial is false.The UN definition of genocide states: Your intended distinction is simply not present in the definition, and is therefore irrelevant.As I stated in previous discussion you would do better to argue for justifiable genocide as a parallel to justifiable homicide.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag