4 Terrible arguments Atheists make.

RGacky3 said:

Only if you have a better and simpler explination for the contingancy of the universe, the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe and the mathematical inteligability of the universe.

Click to expand...

Chance - simple and elegant.

RGacky3 said:

Who says it cannot be changed in the face of fact?

You believe you are a person with agency, if it is shown (which it plausably can), that you don't have free will and neither do you have agency, will you stop believing you do?

Click to expand...

Then I wouldn't call it a "basic" belief.


I actually agree with Sam Harris so your statement here is nothing new to me. If you haven't read his book Free Will you might want to do that. In light of that, it's obvious I can't really stop whatever it is I'm doing. What I do is programmed by my genes and modified by my environment (Dawkins). You've changed nothing.

MoSurveyor said:

Chance - simple and elegant.

Click to expand...

Is'nt that just using a "Chance of the Gaps" argument? I mean that really ONLY deals with the fine tuning of the universe and perhaps the mathematical intelligability of the universe, but even so it's extremely contrived.

Then I wouldn't call it a "basic" belief.

I actually agree with Sam Harris so your statement here is nothing new to me. If you haven't read his book Free Will you might want to do that. In light of that, it's obvious I can't really stop whatever it is I'm doing. What I do is programmed by my genes and modified by my environment (Dawkins). You've changed nothing.

Click to expand...

Or sure, but you don't live yourlife like you don't have free will, and you believe you have agency, since it's self evident ... you think ABOUT things, and you decide to DO things, even though it seams to be impossible.

This is a VERY interesting philosophical topic though, wanna start a new thread about it?

RGacky3 said:

Is'nt that just using a "Chance of the Gaps" argument? I mean that really ONLY deals with the fine tuning of the universe and perhaps the mathematical intelligability of the universe, but even so it's extremely contrived.

Click to expand...

If you're really interested you should read more quantum mechanics - and I don't mean that fake crap that thinks the world doesn't exist unless we look at it, I mean the real thing. I think you'll find your argument lacking.

String theory, which if true is a step beyond QM et al, addresses more of those questions.

RGacky3 said:

Or sure, but you don't live yourlife like you don't have free will, and you believe you have agency, since it's self evident ... you think ABOUT things, and you decide to DO things, even though it seams to be impossible.

This is a VERY interesting philosophical topic though, wanna start a new thread about it?

Click to expand...

Free will is an illusion. The things we experience in our "conscience" are after the fact, not in real time. Humans are great at creating stories and illusionary images, many suppose it's for better memory retention but that's just one possibility.


I suspect such a thread would quickly deteriorate from the intellectual discussion.

RGacky3 said:

That doesn't answer my question ....

Click to expand...

Perhaps not the way that you wanted me too. You wanted to know if science is the end all for everything but since we dont know everything obviously that cant be true. Plus there are things like opinions for example that are not in the realm of science.

I'm not appealing to theologians, I'm appealing to historians.

Click to expand...

Historians? Didnt you just say scholars? I could have sworn that you just said scholars. You are appealing to the arbitrary, which cannot be debated.

Also it being a possibility doesn't make it likely at all.

Click to expand...

Who says that it cant be likely? You wouldnt be showing bias would you?

I'm not assuming absolute knowledge ... I'm positing God as the best explination.

Click to expand...

What is a god and why would it be the best explanation? Invoking gods is a bit intellectually lazy dont you think?

Which is a shame, I enjoy discussing philosophy.

Click to expand...

I agree. But at least it is up to us to make the subjects of these threads.

RGacky3 said:

1. It didn't, Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken literally and wasn't until the 1900s.

Click to expand...

Of course it's meant to be taken literally. God even referenced it in the Ten Commandments.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

That's a different discussion.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. We're talking about whether or not Yahweh is fallible. There are MANY examples of him being fallible. The fact that he has human emotions, such as jealousy, makes him a fallible creature.

FreedomFromAll said:

Perhaps not the way that you wanted me too. You wanted to know if science is the end all for everything but since we dont know everything obviously that cant be true. Plus there are things like opinions for example that are not in the realm of science.

Click to expand...

Ok let me rephrase this so you can't again missunderstand the question.

Is everything there is to know given to us by science?

Historians? Didnt you just say scholars? I could have sworn that you just said scholars. You are appealing to the arbitrary, which cannot be debated.

Click to expand...

I said scholars which you somehow read as "theologians," theologians are not the only scholars that deal with new testament history, infact they are the minority, it's more historians, infact they are the authority on the new testament history and the historical Jesus not theolgians .... Do you want to have a serious discussion here?

Who says that it cant be likely? You wouldnt be showing bias would you?

Click to expand...

It is unlikely, since the scenarios where that would happen would fly against everything we know about the history, the culture of the time and what happened ...

It is possible that Lincoln didn't die, and instead was shot, and put a look a like in the coffin and retired in costa rica ... but it's unlikely given the data we have, the same with youre explination of what you think could have happened with Jesus of Nazareth.

What is a god and why would it be the best explanation? Invoking gods is a bit intellectually lazy dont you think?

Click to expand...

Why?

If your position is God can NEVER be an explination, then you're rejecting it apriori, which is unscientific and philosphically fallacious

I agree. But at least it is up to us to make the subjects of these threads.

Click to expand...

I've done debates on freewill here before.

RGacky3 said:

1. "I just believe in one God less than you, you don't believe in Zeus, Thor and so on and so forth"

This is a rediculous argument, The monotheistic Abrahamic God is in a WHOLE different category than pagan Gods. Pagan Gods were not all powerful, they were subject to other forces, infact could be compelled by Magic, there was a higher spiritual realm with forces that they were subject to, they were more or less physical, persons that had sexual relations, physical features and so on, they were not perfect, they had flaws, whims, failings and so on, they were not all knowing, many of them were actually Gods to be countered and feared, NONE of them claimed to be THE God, they were not worshiped as THE God. The monothestic God of Abraham was totally different, you're comparing apples and oranges.

2. "You might as well say Unicorns exist."

No, Unicorns exist IN space and time, they have shape and are material, God is not any of those things.
You could say "well its a Unicorn that doesn't exist in space and time," if that's the case then it's not a horse with a horn, since those are material properties, then it's not a "unicorn" is it, or then you could say "well it can manifest in space and time as a unicorn bceause it's a magical unicorn," Assuming that why couldn't it manifest as anything? making it just like God, if it can ONLY manifest as a unicorn, you're essencailly saying "God" with one strange unexplainable property, i.e. "only being able to manifest as a Unicorn." Once you strip it down it's a very silly argument.

3. "Science can explain everything."

Science explains the mechanisms of the Universe ... That isn't what religion claims to explain, never has, God is not an explination of how the universe works, its an explination of why the Universe exists.

4. "You cannot PROVE God."

You cannot PROVE most things, you cannot PROVE almost anything in history, you cannot PROVE that other minds exist than yours, proof means something shown to be true without reasonable doubt, i.e. mathematical proof, you cannot PROVE multiverse theory ... doesn't make it wrong.

Take the statements, "there are an odd number of stars in the Universe." "there are an even number of stars in the Universe."

You cannot PROVE either of those statements ... yet one of them is necessarily true.

Click to expand...

Agnostics question the existence of any deity, whilst Atheist reject any belief in religion full stop. An Agnostic might entertain your argument but ask for proof to support it, whilst an atheist would probably not even entertain your argument stating that they reject all concept of religion and religious deities.

You have no proof other than supposed blind faith, so there isn't really much of an argument, although an agnostic might point to evolution or the big bang as some form of scientific proof, or indeed to the fact we now have the building blocks of life in our own hands in the form of DNA and could even evolve ourselves by making future generations immune to certain hereditary diseases.

In the end it's just a question of personal belief

Amadeus said:

Of course it's meant to be taken literally. God even referenced it in the Ten Commandments.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Click to expand...

It hasn't been taken literally for centuries, the early rabbinic authorities didn't take it literally, neither did augustine, neither do modern scholars, and this is due to textual considerations, so what your saying is simply nonsense, its obvious if you examine the text that it is ment as allegory.

No, it's not. We're talking about whether or not Yahweh is fallible. There are MANY examples of him being fallible. The fact that he has human emotions, such as jealousy, makes him a fallible creature.

Click to expand...

1. I'm not necessarily refering to Yahweh, nor am I arguing that the OT is a correct view of God.
2. In what way does having emotions make one fallible?

RGacky3 said:

It hasn't been taken literally for centuries, the early rabbinic authorities didn't take it literally, neither did augustine, neither do modern scholars, and this is due to textual considerations, so what your saying is simply nonsense, its obvious if you examine the text that it is ment as allegory.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally?

1. I'm not necessarily refering to Yahweh, nor am I arguing that the OT is a correct view of God.

Click to expand...

Which god are you referring to?

2. In what way does having emotions make one fallible?

Click to expand...

In every way. Lets take jealousy, which God admits he has. From Wikipedia:

'Jealousy is an emotion and typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, particularly in reference to a human connection. Jealousy often consists of a combination of presenting emotions such as anger, resentment, inadequacy, helplessness and disgust.'

Do I really have to point out the problems of an all-powerful God with this mixture of emotion baggage?

RGacky3 said:

Ok let me rephrase this so you can't again missunderstand the question.

Is everything there is to know given to us by science?

Click to expand...

Obviously not. As I already stated known opinions are not science.

I know that my favorite color is X.
I know what I heard.
I know some people agree with me.
I know that 2+2=3
I know that my god exists.

Knowing things is a subjective proposition. Science prove that we know things it establishes truths.

2=2 has been established as a truth as shown through mathematics. True it then becomes a known fact but everything isnt as simple as that. And as been demonstrated time and time again people make mistakes. But science doesnt make mistakes because it isnt a it. So when you ask about if science is the end all contributor of the known universe I have to question if you are using the typical theist assumption that science is a belief system that relies on faith? Hence my reluctance to answer a simple question because it appears to be a leading question. So perhaps you should just move on to the second part of this inquiry?

I said scholars which you somehow read as "theologians," theologians are not the only scholars that deal with new testament history, infact they are the minority, it's more historians, infact they are the authority on the new testament history and the historical Jesus not theolgians .... Do you want to have a serious discussion here?

Click to expand...

Scholars come in many titles and face it the subject was the Resurrection of jesus christ the savior. We wouldnt I assume that the scholars were theological on that basis?

But then you only mentioned them in passing you didnt cite any of them you just appealed to their authority. So in that vain, many scholars dispute the Resurrection.

It is unlikely, since the scenarios where that would happen would fly against everything we know about the history, the culture of the time and what happened ...

It is possible that Lincoln didn't die, and instead was shot, and put a look a like in the coffin and retired in costa rica ... but it's unlikely given the data we have, the same with youre explination of what you think could have happened with Jesus of Nazareth.

Click to expand...

My explanation is that there wasnt a jesus to resurrect from the dead.

Why?

If your position is God can NEVER be an explination, then you're rejecting it apriori, which is unscientific and philosphically fallacious

Click to expand...

Deflection noted. Again why do you posit that a god best explains it? What evidence led to that position?

Before we can go over whether I think that god is a relevant theory we need to determine if it even warrants the worth of being considered as a hypothesis.

When you propose that god is the end all explanation for the universe and well everything in it and perhaps even outside of it you are making a positive claim that the universe and everything it can only happen because of a god. Its a claim that it would be impossible for anything to happen that is being claimed that a god did to happen without a god. Can you demonstrate or at the very least make a theoretical demonstration of what cannot work without a god? Or at least explain why a god can do these things and not just be the result of a chain of events?

What exactly is the theory of god when applied to the universe and how it works. Is there a law which you think might possibly explain these things? For a god to exist there must be a way in which a god exists. The concept that reality is too complex that the answer must be that a god explains this complexity is as I said a lazy thing to assert. It really just moves the goal post to farther distance. If a god is the explanation for the known set of questions, then what about future questions that are unknown to us right now? Or the obvious ones like if everything that exists depends on a creator how was the creator created. That is a honest question since it follows the logic of all things must be created by a conscious will of the creator. SO then more logic comes into play and further questions arise like if everything needs a creator then what about the observable universe around us? Why is it that things can happen naturally on their own? Is the god theory claiming that a god is present in every action of the universe? Is this god manipulating every existent molecule in the universe concisenessly?

I've done debates on freewill here before.

Click to expand...

Really? lol :shock:

quantumechanic said:

Sit down a rabbi, an imam and a priest in a room and ask them to find a description of their god which they can all agree to. The reason we all know they won't find one is that while "Allah" and the Christian god are (loosely) based on the Jewish god (Jews find the word you used offensive, apropo religious ignorance), they are substantially different beings. Have you actually read the OT? Did the Abrahamic god of fire, death, vengeance and jealousy strike you as the sort of fellow who'd say something like "turn the other cheek"?

Incidentally, if you can find three different individuals of the same faith and ask them to come up with a mutually agreeable description of god they probably won't be capable of it. That's what I find so crazy - theists (from the same religion, and sometimes, the same denomination) can't even agree on what fictional character they're making up!!

Click to expand...

I don't think I said that they all see God in the same way, in fact I said the opposite as you can clearly see in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I just said that they worship the same deity. It is true that they are entirely subjective as no one can know for sure what God is like or what denomination he finds the most acceptable, because no one can talk to him. But it is also ridiculous for someone to entirely discredit these religions as farce, when there is so much evidence that does give merit and credibility to these claims.

Lightning said:

I don't think I said that they all see God in the same way, in fact I said the opposite as you can clearly see in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I just said that they worship the same deity. It is true that they are entirely subjective as no one can know for sure what God is like or what denomination he finds the most acceptable, because no one can talk to him.

Click to expand...

Seeing god differently is one thing, but when you compare a jealous and vengeful Hebrew god to a Christian loving and forgiving one, you're clearly discussing two different fellows with two different philosophies in life. I was basically arguing that it couldn't possibly be the same god "in different lights".
Also, if you're admitting that no one can know what god thinks or wants, does that mean that every single person in the world who claims he does (which is basically all religious people) is deluded?

Lightning said:

But it is also ridiculous for someone to entirely discredit these religions as farce, when there is so much evidence that does give merit and credibility to these claims.

Click to expand...

It always cracks me up when the people who sue for "religious tolerance" call the people who don't need to invent fairys to get through their day "ridiculous".
Setting that aside, "so much evidence"? What is it?

RGacky3 said:

1. "I just believe in one God less than you, you don't believe in Zeus, Thor and so on and so forth"

This is a rediculous argument, The monotheistic Abrahamic God is in a WHOLE different category than pagan Gods. Pagan Gods were not all powerful, they were subject to other forces, infact could be compelled by Magic, there was a higher spiritual realm with forces that they were subject to, they were more or less physical, persons that had sexual relations, physical features and so on, they were not perfect, they had flaws, whims, failings and so on, they were not all knowing, many of them were actually Gods to be countered and feared, NONE of them claimed to be THE God, they were not worshiped as THE God. The monothestic God of Abraham was totally different, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

No, a monotheistic God is not in a different category. It's a supernatural being of immense power that nobody has ever observed, just like Thor and Aphrodite. This attempt of yours to place Jesus' Dad into a different category is completely irrelevant to this "argument" that you think atheists are prone to make.

2. "You might as well say Unicorns exist."

No, Unicorns exist IN space and time, they have shape and are material, God is not any of those things.
You could say "well its a Unicorn that doesn't exist in space and time," if that's the case then it's not a horse with a horn, since those are material properties, then it's not a "unicorn" is it, or then you could say "well it can manifest in space and time as a unicorn bceause it's a magical unicorn," Assuming that why couldn't it manifest as anything? making it just like God, if it can ONLY manifest as a unicorn, you're essencailly saying "God" with one strange unexplainable property, i.e. "only being able to manifest as a Unicorn." Once you strip it down it's a very silly argument.

Click to expand...

No, this is a very silly argument. There's no evidence for the existence of unicorns, only the opinion of someone who thinks unicorns do exist. Similarly, there's no existence that God exists, just your opinion. This atheist argument isn't silly, you've just wildly misunderstood it and gone of on some irrelevant rant about some nonsense.

3. "Science can explain everything."

Science explains the mechanisms of the Universe ... That isn't what religion claims to explain, never has, God is not an explination of how the universe works, its an explination of why the Universe exists.

Click to expand...

Semantic quibbling. When people say this, they don't mean science explains literally every conceivable thing. They mean that every observable phenomenon can be explained via science somehow. (and it also doesn't mean humans will necessarily be capable of determining that explanation in all cases)

4. "You cannot PROVE God."

You cannot PROVE most things, you cannot PROVE almost anything in history, you cannot PROVE that other minds exist than yours, proof means something shown to be true without reasonable doubt, i.e. mathematical proof, you cannot PROVE multiverse theory ... doesn't make it wrong.

Click to expand...

God has not met this level of proof that you have specified.

FreedomFromAll said:

Obviously not. As I already stated known opinions are not science.

I know that my favorite color is X.
I know what I heard.
I know some people agree with me.
I know that 2+2=3
I know that my god exists.

Knowing things is a subjective proposition. Science prove that we know things it establishes truths.

2=2 has been established as a truth as shown through mathematics. True it then becomes a known fact but everything isnt as simple as that. And as been demonstrated time and time again people make mistakes. But science doesnt make mistakes because it isnt a it. So when you ask about if science is the end all contributor of the known universe I have to question if you are using the typical theist assumption that science is a belief system that relies on faith? Hence my reluctance to answer a simple question because it appears to be a leading question. So perhaps you should just move on to the second part of this inquiry?

Click to expand...

1. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
2. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
3. Is certainly true.
4. Is demonstrably false.
5. Can be true or false.

Science gives evidence for the way nature works, there are plenty of truths that it doesn't establish, for example you know what your favorate color is, and saying my favorate color is red IS TRUE, and science cannot prove it, nor does it care to, it's truth doesnt' depend on that.

As for your second paragraphs, it's just truisms .... you're not saying anything there.

Scholars come in many titles and face it the subject was the Resurrection of jesus christ the savior. We wouldnt I assume that the scholars were theological on that basis?

But then you only mentioned them in passing you didnt cite any of them you just appealed to their authority. So in that vain, many scholars dispute the Resurrection.

Click to expand...

Oh sure they do, take Bart Ehrman for example, but the reason he disputes it is not that he disputes the evidnece for it, it's that he thinks there MUST be another explination (he doesn't have one), because he things miricles are inherently inprobable, because he doesn't believe in a God .... That isn't a historical reason, it's a theological one.

My explanation is that there wasnt a jesus to resurrect from the dead.

Click to expand...

Oh boy, this should be good, can he have another thread to debate the historical Jesus?

Deflection noted. Again why do you posit that a god best explains it? What evidence led to that position?

Before we can go over whether I think that god is a relevant theory we need to determine if it even warrants the worth of being considered as a hypothesis.

When you propose that god is the end all explanation for the universe and well everything in it and perhaps even outside of it you are making a positive claim that the universe and everything it can only happen because of a god. Its a claim that it would be impossible for anything to happen that is being claimed that a god did to happen without a god. Can you demonstrate or at the very least make a theoretical demonstration of what cannot work without a god? Or at least explain why a god can do these things and not just be the result of a chain of events?

What exactly is the theory of god when applied to the universe and how it works. Is there a law which you think might possibly explain these things? For a god to exist there must be a way in which a god exists. The concept that reality is too complex that the answer must be that a god explains this complexity is as I said a lazy thing to assert. It really just moves the goal post to farther distance. If a god is the explanation for the known set of questions, then what about future questions that are unknown to us right now? Or the obvious ones like if everything that exists depends on a creator how was the creator created. That is a honest question since it follows the logic of all things must be created by a conscious will of the creator. SO then more logic comes into play and further questions arise like if everything needs a creator then what about the observable universe around us? Why is it that things can happen naturally on their own? Is the god theory claiming that a god is present in every action of the universe? Is this god manipulating every existent molecule in the universe concisenessly?

Click to expand...

I posit that GOd is the best explination FOR THE EVIDENCE, (asking what is the evidence that god explains the evidence is circular argument), because there is no other plausable explination that I've heard.

What cannot work without a God is creation ex nihilo .... also it's implausable that without a God our Universe would be governmened by elegant, mathematically simple and beautiful laws.

Putting the goal posts farther is fine, I don't see the problem with that, if God is the explination for a set of question future questions might be answered by something else, or something we know now, I don't know.

How was the creator created is a nonsensicle question, since he is by definition uncreated, i.e. timeless, a necessary being, now you can ask how a necessary being can exist, and that's a valid question, but asking who created a necessary being is a nonsensicle one, the universe is contingant, we know that, God is not.

I don't think that ALL things must be created by the will of a creator, I'm saying the universe, i.e. physical reality, must be. If you're a mathematical platonist it's possible that math exists necessarily as well, thats a whole different question though.

Also some people believe that God is present in every action of the universe, some people take more of a Deist approach, that God isn't present, I lean towards the latter, I don't think reality is being upheld by God, as some classical and modern theologians believe, but that's a different question.

Really? lol :shock:

Click to expand...

No need to be a dick

Deuce said:

No, a monotheistic God is not in a different category. It's a supernatural being of immense power that nobody has ever observed, just like Thor and Aphrodite. This attempt of yours to place Jesus' Dad into a different category is completely irrelevant to this "argument" that you think atheists are prone to make.

Click to expand...

Thor and Aprhodite are not creators, they are not all powerful or all knowing, they are not trascendant, they are physical with physical characteristics, they are not monotheistic they are just one in a realm of many different beings .... I'ts a totally different category, as I already explained ...

No, this is a very silly argument. There's no evidence for the existence of unicorns, only the opinion of someone who thinks unicorns do exist. Similarly, there's no existence that God exists, just your opinion. This atheist argument isn't silly, you've just wildly misunderstood it and gone of on some irrelevant rant about some nonsense.

Click to expand...

... there is evidence for God's existance. and we don't believe in Unicorns because if they DID exist we'd expect more evidence.

Semantic quibbling. When people say this, they don't mean science explains literally every conceivable thing. They mean that every observable phenomenon can be explained via science somehow. (and it also doesn't mean humans will necessarily be capable of determining that explanation in all cases)

Click to expand...

No it cannot, mathematical truths are not explained scientifically, neither are subjective thoughts, neither are meaning truths and so on, I already answered this in previous posts.

God has not met this level of proof that you have specified.

Click to expand...

No ****, but neither has most other things you believe and are rational to believe.

RGacky3 said:

What cannot work without a God is creation ex nihilo .... also it's implausable that without a God our Universe would be governmened by elegant, mathematically simple and beautiful laws.

Click to expand...

You don't give physics enough credit nor do you, apparently, consider our bias.

RGacky3 said:

No it cannot, mathematical truths are not explained scientifically, neither are subjective thoughts, neither are meaning truths and so on, I already answered this in previous posts.

Click to expand...

Mathematics is a construct and proves itself. For any branch of mathematics we have certain assumptions that are not questioned (axioms) and from them we derive proofs of other things (theorems) using logic - but the end proofs cannot be proved without the original assumptions that are unquestionable and undeniable. If you don't "buy in" to the axioms then the theorems that follow cannot be proved. Mathematics is a simulation of reality.


Individual thoughts are getting to the point where they are somewhat quantifiable. The more we learn the more we can measure and the better our mathematical models become. With thoughts it's only a matter of time. We're already in the early stages of predicting human behavior on a mass scale. However, like an individual particle or molecule, we may never be able to predict an individual human's actions with 100% certainty.


You mean you tried to answer it in previous posts.

MoSurveyor said:

You don't give physics enough credit nor do you, apparently, consider our bias.

Click to expand...

Of coarse I give physics enough credit .... What am I not goving it credit for.

Mathematics is a construct and proves itself. For any branch of mathematics we have certain assumptions that are not questioned (axioms) and from them we derive proofs of other things (theorems) using logic - but the end proofs cannot be proved without the original assumptions that are unquestionable and undeniable. If you don't "buy in" to the axioms then the theorems that follow cannot be proved. Mathematics is a simulation of reality.


Individual thoughts are getting to the point where they are somewhat quantifiable. The more we learn the more we can measure and the better our mathematical models become. With thoughts it's only a matter of time. We're already in the early stages of predicting human behavior on a mass scale. However, like an individual particle or molecule, we may never be able to predict an individual human's actions with 100% certainty.

Click to expand...

Those axioms are assumtions .... and are not explained scientifically ... and yeah, math is not scientific knowledge, yet it is rational to believe. Whether or not math is a construct is a different issue.

Individual thoughts are not quantifiable by science, brain activity is.

RGacky3 said:

Of coarse I give physics enough credit .... What am I not goving it credit for.

Click to expand...

These "elegant, mathematically simple [laws]" you seem to think are impossible without some kind of conscious intervention.

RGacky3 said:

Those axioms are assumtions .... and are not explained scientifically ... and yeah, math is not scientific knowledge, yet it is rational to believe. Whether or not math is a construct is a different issue.

Click to expand...

Of course it's rational to believe because it's a construct built for the most part using logic (rationality). That's a pretty circular argument.

However, most of the axioms aren't rational. What's rational about a flat, 2D plane? Have you ever seen one? Have we ever measured one? Is there any evidence at all that such a thing actually exists outside of the mathematical construct? Doesn't seem very rational to me. That doesn't stop me from playing along with the game but I always know that it's just a game, not reality.

RGacky3 said:

Individual thoughts are not quantifiable by science, brain activity is.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can prove a difference between them.

RGacky3 said:

1. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
2. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
3. Is certainly true.
4. Is demonstrably false.
5. Can be true or false.

Science gives evidence for the way nature works, there are plenty of truths that it doesn't establish, for example you know what your favorate color is, and saying my favorate color is red IS TRUE, and science cannot prove it, nor does it care to, it's truth doesnt' depend on that.

As for your second paragraphs, it's just truisms .... you're not saying anything there.



Oh sure they do, take Bart Ehrman for example, but the reason he disputes it is not that he disputes the evidnece for it, it's that he thinks there MUST be another explination (he doesn't have one), because he things miricles are inherently inprobable, because he doesn't believe in a God .... That isn't a historical reason, it's a theological one.



Oh boy, this should be good, can he have another thread to debate the historical Jesus?



I posit that GOd is the best explination FOR THE EVIDENCE, (asking what is the evidence that god explains the evidence is circular argument), because there is no other plausable explination that I've heard.

What cannot work without a God is creation ex nihilo .... also it's implausable that without a God our Universe would be governmened by elegant, mathematically simple and beautiful laws.

Putting the goal posts farther is fine, I don't see the problem with that, if God is the explination for a set of question future questions might be answered by something else, or something we know now, I don't know.

How was the creator created is a nonsensicle question, since he is by definition uncreated, i.e. timeless, a necessary being, now you can ask how a necessary being can exist, and that's a valid question, but asking who created a necessary being is a nonsensicle one, the universe is contingant, we know that, God is not.

I don't think that ALL things must be created by the will of a creator, I'm saying the universe, i.e. physical reality, must be. If you're a mathematical platonist it's possible that math exists necessarily as well, thats a whole different question though.

Also some people believe that God is present in every action of the universe, some people take more of a Deist approach, that God isn't present, I lean towards the latter, I don't think reality is being upheld by God, as some classical and modern theologians believe, but that's a different question.



No need to be a dick

Click to expand...

Its not probable that a god did anything if you cannot describe a god. Your argument isnt any different than claiming that AGENT X explains everything. AGENT X is responsible for all things unexplained. Since you cannot explain the current concepts that are unexplained then you cannot disprove that AGENT X exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe, life, etc. AGENT X also is responsible for creating the concept of god since people do not understand AGENT X they created the theory of a god to explain AGENT X.

Someone could then turn around and claim that it isnt AGENT X at all but its the Y FACTOR. And in turn someone else could claim that its neither god, agent x, factor y, but its actually all the result of of a group of super beings that live in a town in a place that is undetectable because it is out of phase with our reality.

Since no one has seen a god and especially a deist god the assertion that a god exists is completely a construct of human imagination. Logically you do not create a fanciful construction to explain something that you lack knowledge to explain. You just leave it as a open question. To make up something to fulfill that question is to engage in pseudoscience.

FreedomFromAll said:

Its not probable that a god did anything if you cannot describe a god. Your argument isnt any different than claiming that AGENT X explains everything. AGENT X is responsible for all things unexplained. Since you cannot explain the current concepts that are unexplained then you cannot disprove that AGENT X exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe, life, etc. AGENT X also is responsible for creating the concept of god since people do not understand AGENT X they created the theory of a god to explain AGENT X.

Someone could then turn around and claim that it isnt AGENT X at all but its the Y FACTOR. And in turn someone else could claim that its neither god, agent x, factor y, but its actually all the result of of a group of super beings that live in a town in a place that is undetectable because it is out of phase with our reality.

Since no one has seen a god and especially a deist god the assertion that a god exists is completely a construct of human imagination. Logically you do not create a fanciful construction to explain something that you lack knowledge to explain. You just leave it as a open question. To make up something to fulfill that question is to engage in pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

Of coarse you can describe God ... trancsendant, powerful, non material and so on ... there are tons of things that cannot be described that are used as explinations, scientists don't know what gravity is for example, and in qunatum mechanics there are tons of undescribable things.

About the Agent X thing, if you're just giving this Agent X the properties of God and then calling it Agent X .... then yeah, you're just calling it seomthing else, the same with Y FACTOR ...

RGacky3 said:

I'm not assuming absolute knowledge ... I'm positing God as the best explination.

Click to expand...

My view comes down to this, here; believing in God and granting him with all 'ability' and 'thought' and 'everything under the sun - including the sun' - just isn't good enough for me.

In my opinion, using God as an umbrella-default to answer everything and give meaning to everything is a lazy path to take. One that enables the individual to sidestep important subjects and difficult topics. It foster ignorance over simple matters.

I can use the mountain questions as an example of how faith in God can create ignorance:
Me (when I was 4: ) "Mom, how'd the mountains get there?"
My Mother's God-centered answer: "Well sweetie, God put them there. Aren't they beautiful."

My youngest son when we were on vacation last year: "Mom, how'd the mountains get there?"
My answer: a simplified, child-friendly version of plate tectonics . . . which fostered more questions - which I was happy to answer. I think that's where his fascination with rocks started, he's been collecting them ever since.

Fortunately for us - some modern-day religious folk will still believe in God and also believe in plate tectonics . . . God still explains what we don't know: "exactly how the earth was made" . . . just as science cannot answer that, either.

Yet - using God to explain what we don't know just isn't GOOD enough for me. Again, it fosters compliant ignorance and a lack of investigation into the unknown. It squelches the thirst for knowledge.

RGacky3 said:

Of coarse you can describe God ... trancsendant, powerful, non material and so on ... there are tons of things that cannot be described that are used as explinations, scientists don't know what gravity is for example, and in qunatum mechanics there are tons of undescribable things.

About the Agent X thing, if you're just giving this Agent X the properties of God and then calling it Agent X .... then yeah, you're just calling it seomthing else, the same with Y FACTOR ...

Click to expand...

We can observe what gravity does and prove that there is a force that does it. There is a theory that has named a thing called a graviton, to be the thing responsible for gravity. Now who really knows if a graviton really exists, even though there has been alot of headway in the theories about gravitons there still isnt proof. Does that mean that I should just believe that it exists? No of course not there is good reason to have the theory though. But that is because of direct measurements of gravity is observable.

And you are correct there are many thing s that are as of yet explainable but the difference between like in explaining gravity with the theory of gravitons is that there is a scientifically theory behind gravitons. Someone didnt just declare that gravitons exist and thats that. ANd in science there are unanswered questions that are not answered with a imagined thing to fill the void. ANd if you are using the title 'god' to represent a unknown then that is completely dishonest. As you said the word 'god' has a definition in a dictionary. If you claim that the things that you dont understand are god you are asserting that collection of dictionary definitions that describe the meaning of the word god. So when you say for example that the universe was made by god you actually said the universe is made by the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Notice that that isnt a definite thing. Its a superficial description of a god as known through ages of folklore. No one has seen a god no one knows what a god actually would be. There isnt a theory of what a god even be. But when pressed the people that bring up the possibility of a god jump ship from science and dive into its supernatural so its impossible to find a god. Talking about moving the goal posts, by insisting on god being supernatural and making it impossible disprove, the goal posts were destroyed. And in doing so the concept of god had nothing to do with science or logic. The concept of god resides entirely in the folklore realm or fiction a story told to make people feel better about their existence.

ANd that was my point be it god, agent x, factor y or anything that you can think up the end result is that you are just giving a opinion and nothing more. Thats ok that its your opinion that a god exists, but your opinion has no real consequence. Im sure at this point you will say the same to me that its only my opinion that there isnt a god. And that is true but that doesnt bother me at all since either way your god is absent. You could go on all you want about how that absence isnt proof that your god does not exist but again that doesnt bother me either because your god is still absent. And if you assert otherwise then by all means ask your god to show itself. Either your god is present or it is absent. No one has ever seen a god so then your god must be absent which is for all effect means there isnt any god around. So I could pronounce that there is no god at all, again that would be my opinion of course but it doesnt matter since you cannot produce a god at all. Hell you wouldnt even know where to look or what you were looking for.