|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
ringo writes: Well then with that understanding, as I said earlier, I declare that I "know" God exists.
I think he's made it clear that it's the current conclusion, not the "ultimate" conclusion. No objective conclusion is ever final in the sense that it can not be altered by new evidence. ringo writes: The definition that comes up for "subjective evidence" is this. Evidence is not subjective.quote: ringo writes: Again, what evidence points only to natural causes? When you are talking about an intelligent first cause then you are talking about the reason that the natural processes that we can evaluate exist. All of the evidence we have points only to natural processes. How could evidence ever point to something unnatural? I subjectively claim that the fact that conscious intelligent life emerged from mindless particles to be unnatural.
GDR writes: ... ultimately there has to be either an intelligent or a non-intelligent root for that string of processes regardless of how far back you want to go.ringo writes: That is just evading the question by asking another question. My point is, that if you want to raise the issue of an infinite regression of gods then I am simply pointing out that you have the same problem with an infinite regression of natural processes.
Why? If you can say "the buck stops here" at your intelligent cause, why can't the buck stop somewhere else? ringo writes: The only intelligence that we have knowledge of is human. I freely admit that human intelligence would be inadequate to create a process of bringing conscious intelligent beings out of mindless particles.
There is evidence of human intelligence. And as I have said before, the evidence shows that intelligence can only manipulate natural processes. It can not create new processes except from existing processes. What we know about intelligence can not point to an ultimate origin of processes. GDR writes: Intelligent life itself is subjective evidence.ringo writes: The fact that intelligent life exists is objectively known by all of us. We then can form our own subjective views of why intelligent life exists. No, private evidence needed.
There's no such thing as subjective evidence. You don't get your own private evidence. Evidence must be evident to everybody. ringo writes: We objectively know that Treasure Island exists but it is clearly meant as fiction. The Gospels, (I suppose you can argue it if you want to), were clearly meant to historically talk about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. We can subjectively conclude what we personally believe to be historical, allegorical, embellished, in error, made up or a combination of any or all of those possibilities. The accounts though, however we view them, are evidence.
We also have Treasure Island. We have the objective evidence that it exists. And furthermore, we have objective evidence of how it came to exist, in Stevenson's own words, which puts it well ahead of the Gospel stories in authenticity. ringo writes: On that we will simply disagree. The simplest solution is known processes, as opposed to speculation about the unknown.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: 1.9 |
ringo writes: Just one thought on that. I have one foot in the church world and one in the secular world. I have many friends and contacts in both. The percentage of those people in the church world that are prepared to spend their resources of both time and money for the benefit of others, far exceed what I experience in my secular world. Certainly there is an overlap but on average the gap is huge. I am not talking about proselytizing, but about feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, clothing the naked etc. Believers are pretty conclusive evidence that they have nothing special, no imparted wisdom, no exemplary morality, etc.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
But you have no evidence.
Well then with that understanding, as I said earlier, I declare that I "know" God exists. GDR writes:
That may work in a court of law where it is necessary to make a decision one way or the other. It's worthless in a scientific context where we're trying to determine the existence of something.
The definition that comes up for "subjective evidence" is this.... GDR writes:
Again, all of it. For one example, the evidence suggests that boiling water is caused by heat - take the heat away and the boiling stops.
Again, what evidence points only to natural causes? GDR writes:
That's a "reason" with no reasoning behind it. It's empty speculation. It's an answer that answers nothing.
When you are talking about an intelligent first cause then you are talking about the reason that the natural processes that we can evaluate exist. GDR writes:
That's because your "answer" is not an answer. It doesn't explain anything. It just adds another turtle to the stack.
That is just evading the question by asking another question. GDR writes:
But it isn't an infinite regression. It's a network. One process causes another. If you want to admit that your god is created by another god, you have the same situation. If you want to claim that there's an ultimate god that causes all else, it's different. ... I am simply pointing out that you have the same problem with an infinite regression of natural processes.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Your experience is clearly not representative. If it was, there would be a notable difference in those activities between Christian and non-Christian nations. The percentage of those people in the church world that are prepared to spend their resources of both time and money for the benefit of others, far exceed what I experience in my secular world.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The percentage of those people in the church world that are prepared to spend their resources of both time and money for the benefit of others, far exceed what I experience in my secular world. Certainly there is an overlap but on average the gap is huge. I am not talking about proselytizing, but about feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, clothing the naked etc. That is my experience too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
ringo writes: I'd suggest that there is. How about even comparing the US or Canada with any other nation on Earth. Your experience is clearly not representative. If it was, there would be a notable difference in those activities between Christian and non-Christian nations. Here is a study in the US
Christian vs Secular giving in US In our area here there were a number of groups formed to bring in refugees from Syria. I was involved in 3 of them. Every group that I know of in the area were church based. It involved not only contributing financially but helping them to settle in an entirely new to them culture, including having to learn a new language. AbE Incidentally this is not just my experience where I live now, but was also my experience when I lived in the Montreal area and the the Toronto area. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.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: 1.9 |
ringo writes:
But you have no evidence.quote:From this source We have scientific evidence of the this quote. We now have the world that we know with humans possessing consciousness and intelligence. That is quite a leap from one to the other. Paley had the right idea with the human eye. His problem was that he didn't go back far enough. Science has demonstrated a way in which the eye could have evolved. However, what Paley should have asked, and might if he were alive today, is how could a mindless process come up with an incredibly complex evolutionary process that produce a single living cell let alone an eyeball. I don't claim that argument is conclusive but I do claim that it is highly suggestive of an external intelligence. We form our subjective opinions based on the objective evidence we have.
ringo writes: Wouldn't you say that belief in string theory is based on subjective evidence?
That may work in a court of law where it is necessary to make a decision one way or the other. It's worthless in a scientific context where we're trying to determine the existence of something. ringo writes: Just how is that an explanation for deciding to believe that we are solely the result of processes driven by blind chance?
Again, all of it. For one example, the evidence suggests that boiling water is caused by heat - take the heat away and the boiling stops. ringo writes: ...just like piling process upon process adds turtles to the stack.
That's because your "answer" is not an answer. It doesn't explain anything. It just adds another turtle to the stack. ringo writes: I've given one speculative explanation for not requiring an infinite regression of gods. You propose a network. Can you explain what that looks like and where it came from? But it isn't an infinite regression. It's a network. One process causes another. If you want to admit that your god is created by another god, you have the same situation. If you want to claim that there's an ultimate god that causes all else, it's different.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 595 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Extraordinarily complex results can come from quite simple basic stuff.
The incredible variety of the Periodic Table is built from protons, neutrons and electrons. Snowflakes are built from some geometric rules of crystallization. Saturn's rings are an enormously complex kinetic system built by gravitational attraction. In mathematics the Monster Group, with just under ten to the fifty-fourth elements is a gem of complexity that is the result of a few simple rules. No, "complexity implies intelligence" is not an idea worthy of any merit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
..sure and why do all those rules and processes you talk about exist and work. You make my case for me.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
I think it is arguable how much of this is really simple.
The periodic table's structure comes from the enormous complexity of Quantum Electrodynamics. What protons, neutrons and electrons actually are similarly becomes a rabbit hole of complexity in modern Field Theory. A proton can't be simulated accurately even with networked supercomputers. Saying exactly what an electron is is the subject of a large monograph by Othmar Steinmann, turns out it doesn't really have a specific mass. It's not fully accurate to say atoms are "made of" protons, neutrons and electrons either. Saturn's rings again follow from gravitation, but is that really a simple? The rings themselves again can't be fully simulated due to their chaotic nature that arises from the nonlinearity of gravity. I say this as you might find it interesting, I'm not disagreeing with the main point of your argument here in this thread. Edited by Son Goku, : Forgot the not!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 595 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
You're not going to look at the examples I gave you, of complexity coming from non-intelligent simplicity and then say, "Oh, but these other things couldn't possibly have simple foundations"? Are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 595 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
The phrase "can't be simulated" is the essence of the idea that out of simplicity comes complexity without the need for an intelligent agency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Sarah Bellum writes: You're not going to look at the examples I gave you, of complexity coming from non-intelligent simplicity and then say, "Oh, but these other things couldn't possibly have simple foundations"? Are you? No. However ultimately the world had to come from "neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos." to conscious intelligent life. I can't prove conclusively that this happened without any external intelligence, but I can't muster up enough faith in the possibility to consider the idea "worthy of merit".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: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
So your personal incredulity is your argument against the weight of evidence?
Not all that sustainable, GDR.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
My point isn't concerning intelligent agency.
It's to say that these examples don't constitute complexity coming from simplicity. If a proton cannot be modelled fully by a set of networked supercomputers and the experimentally accessible part of its own complexity is described by the incredibly complex infinite dimensional mathematics of Quantum Field Theory, how can it be said to be "simple basic stuff". Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024