God probably exists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Define what you mean by a prime cause. Do you mean a cause that does not have a cause? If you accept that there are causes without causes, even one, why can't there be multiple. In quantum physics, there are spontaneous events. If so, why does the 'prime cause' augment have any meaning to it?

You seem to miss the problem here, we cannot propose a material agency as the reason we have material agencies, whatever the prime cause was it cannot have been material, governed by laws of nature because these are the very things we are striving to explain, one must admit that the universe literally has no explanation or it does but that explanation is something altogether different, aka supernatural.

Saying there is no explanation amounts to saying there is no reason why I exist, why I can think, why I am a unique conscious entity. I do not accept this when something more reasonable is available, namely God created it all and has a reason.

 

[watsup]

You're on very thin ice again watsup.

If you affirm something ("there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution") then you should be able to supply the evidence that proves your claim, can you do that for us please?

How did you prove that there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution?

This need to almost always make an ad hom statement towards the other person (you are on very thin ground) shows YOUR weakness, not those of your debate partners.

And you clearly do not understand science when you ask for "proof". Science is based on EVIDENCE, math is based on "proof".
And the answer remains the same: there is NO evidence of prior intent in evolution. And until some is shown, then the logical conclusion is that there is none. There is simply no indication, IN SCIENCE, that homo sapiens is anything more that the ultimate level of life on this little planet AT THIS POINT. Evolution takes quite literally millions of years, and we humans with our puny little brains who live maybe 80 or 90 years at the most are doing our best to understand it all, but it will take time.

 

[zyzygy]

How can the proccess of evolution have prior intent? That is a basic misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[watsup]

There are at least two definitions from what I can find, absence of belief in God and denial of the existence of God.

Some "atheists" embrace the former and some the latter, so just tell me what definition you want to use and we can proceed.

Neither, of course, since both imply that there is a “God” in which to “believe” or not.
I already posted the definition that I use in my previous post, one which denies the existence of such an entity as “God”. This definition does not presuppose a “God” as yours does, and is the definition that is indeed favored by most atheists for that very reason.
The definition is an up-to-date one, which do quite different from yours, which are the ones most preferred by THEISTS such as yourself and other, not by true atheists.
Please use an up-to-date definition preferred by atheists themselves: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Thank you in advance.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This need to almost always make an ad hom statement towards the other person (you are on very thin ground) shows YOUR weakness, not those of your debate partners.

You are a sensitive person, I'll try to be more careful going forward.

And you clearly do not understand science when you ask for "proof". Science is based on EVIDENCE, math is based on "proof".

Very well, point taken.

And the answer remains the same: there is NO evidence of prior intent in evolution.

How do you know with such certainty?

You can say you personally have not seen anything that you'd regard as evidence for intent in evolution but you cannot say there is no evidence.

And until some is shown, then the logical conclusion is that there is none.

No this is not right, it is not true to say that because no evidence has yet been found that therefore no evidence exists, if I lose my car keys and spend all day looking I cannot conclude there are no car keys.

There is simply no indication, IN SCIENCE, that homo sapiens is anything more that the ultimate level of life on this little planet AT THIS POINT. Evolution takes quite literally millions of years, and we humans with our puny little brains who live maybe 80 or 90 years at the most are doing our best to understand it all, but it will take time.

Your not making sense now, the question we were discussing is evidence of intent in evolution and so far you've emphatically said there is none, none exists yet have not shown the evidence for that view, why should I believe you when you say there is no evidence of intent?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How can the proccess of evolution have prior intent? That is a basic misunderstanding of evolution.

What if it were designed to do what it does, evolve? how can you show there was no such intent? to design a system capable of evolving?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Neither, of course, since both imply that there is a “God” in which to “believe” or not.

So your not an atheist, thanks for clearing that up.

I already posted the definition that I use in my previous post, one which denies the existence of such an entity as “God”.

Oh, ermm, I see, so you are an atheist.

This definition does not presuppose a “God” as yours does, and is the definition that is indeed favored by most atheists for that very reason.

I see, so now we have three definitions, the two I gave (of which you say neither represent you) and this new one of yours.

1. Absence of belief in God
2. Denying the existence of God
3. Denying the existence of such an entity as “God”.

The definition is an up-to-date one, which do quite different from yours, which are the ones most preferred by THEISTS such as yourself and other, not by true atheists.

So there are true atheists and false atheists? I never knew that and the definition gets updated from time to time too, Hmmm.

Please use an up-to-date definition preferred by atheists themselves: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Which seems to be the same as my first definition, 1) above, no? but you say "preferred by atheists themselves" do you mean preferred by true atheists or false atheists and how can you speak on behalf of all atheists?

 

[Big Eye]

The no god idea is simpler. It has one less thing to explain, namely, god. But simpler doesn't really mean something is evidence. Neither of those is evidence. Systems do not require intent. For example, weather systems. Where is the intent?

I've explained why the God concept is simpler...everything becomes the product of thought. Your materialist theory goes with the idea that mind independent matter and thought both exist.If the simpler idea explains reality why do we need to add unnecessary complexity (ie, mind independent stuff)?

The intent in weather systems is the same as the intention we see everywhere...the rules/laws of nature...weather systems obey them, like everything else.

 

[watsup]

You are a sensitive person, I'll try to be more careful going forward.
Very well, point taken.
How do you know with such certainty?
You can say you personally have not seen anything that you'd regard as evidence for intent in evolution but you cannot say there is no evidence.
No this is not right, it is not true to say that because no evidence has yet been found that therefore no evidence exists, if I lose my car keys and spend all day looking I cannot conclude there are no car keys.
Your not making sense now, the question we were discussing is evidence of intent in evolution and so far you've emphatically said there is none, none exists yet have not shown the evidence for that view, why should I believe you when you say there is no evidence of intent?

Again with the ad hom “you’re not making sense”. I’m not talking but just me. I have observed that you basically can’t make a post without denigrating the other chatter, atheists in general, or both. Whether you wish to believe it or not, it shows you as a chatter whose inputs are unable to stand on their own without adding a negative comment towards others. What it really does is to diminish YOUR inputs, not theirs. Try this: when you get ready to add a negative comment about a person or persons, a ask yourself whether it adds to the centrality of the topic. If the answer is no, then refrain.
And your “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” commentary is of the “anything is possible!” sort which makes reasoned debate essentially impossible. If anything is possible, then why even discuss situations. Everybody could just make any outlandish statement and then go “but anything is possible!”
As you know by now, we atheists consider ourselves as logical, and thus as needing EVIDENCE rather than just “witnessing” in order to acknowledge the reality of an entity.
In this case, since there is no evidence, per se, of previous intent, then the logical position is that there is none.

Evolution was the “creator”, and it had no intent, just whatever appeared as “life” was fine, whether it be dinosaurs or Homo sapiens. (I am personally glad of the appearance of the latter).

 

[Big Eye]

Your second “evidence” has no merit because there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution, which is how life had come to its present from on this particular planet. Yes, it all basically “just happened”and the end result TO THIS POINT is Homo sapiens at the top of the evolution pyramid.

As I've said above, evolution does not break the laws of nature, evolution is a reflection of its intent....it's a lot simpler than believing a bunch of atoms got together to randomly start evolution...what the **** do atoms get out of it lol?

 

[Big Eye]

Still no proof of the Christian god.

You'll have to kill yourself for that bud.:lamo

 

[Big Eye]

How can the proccess of evolution have prior intent? That is a basic misunderstanding of evolution.

The prior intent exists within the laws of "nature".

 

[watsup]

So your not an atheist, thanks for clearing that up.



Oh, ermm, I see, so you are an atheist.



I see, so now we have three definitions, the two I gave (of which you say neither represent you) and this new one of yours.

1. Absence of belief in God
2. Denying the existence of God
3. Denying the existence of such an entity as “God”.



So there are true atheists and false atheists? I never knew that and the definition gets updated from time to time too, Hmmm.



Which seems to be the same as my first definition, 1) above, no? but you say "preferred by atheists themselves" do you mean preferred by true atheists or false atheists and how can you speak on behalf of all atheists?

You are just going in circles, misrepresenting my words, and making false equivalences. I don’t wish to go in circles with you, even though that is your preferred method of “debate”. I have made myself quite clear, while your intent is clearly to obfuscate. As such. I am dropping pit of this particular topic. I’m sure there are others out there who are not yet tired of your circular “logic”.
You can even insult me by claiming that you “defeated” me or that I am “scared” to continue. Makes me no nevermind because I know the truth.
Till later,
Nemesis.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Again with the ad hom “you’re not making sense”. I’m not talking but just me. I have observed that you basically can’t make a post without denigrating the other chatter, atheists in general, or both. Whether you wish to believe it or not, it shows you as a chatter whose inputs are unable to stand on their own without adding a negative comment towards others. What it really does is to diminish YOUR inputs, not theirs. Try this: when you get ready to add a negative comment about a person or persons, a ask yourself whether it adds to the centrality of the topic. If the answer is no, then refrain.

The sentence "you're not making sense now" is not an ad-hominem attack Watsup, it is my assessment of what you wrote, it made no sense to me, it doesn't make sense to me given what we were discussing, why am I in the wrong for saying that it doesn't make sense?

And your “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” commentary is of the “anything is possible!” sort which makes reasoned debate essentially impossible. If anything is possible, then why even discuss situations. Everybody could just make any outlandish statement and then go “but anything is possible!”
As you know by now, we atheists consider ourselves as logical, and thus as needing EVIDENCE rather than just “witnessing” in order to acknowledge the reality of an entity.
In this case, since there is no evidence, per se, of previous intent, then the logical position is that there is none.

Evolution was the “creator”, and it had no intent, just whatever appeared as “life” was fine, whether it be dinosaurs or Homo sapiens. (I am personally glad of the appearance of the latter).

I am unwilling to continue the conversation, the risk of you accusing me of ad-hominem attacks and taking things personally at the slightest hint that I dare to disagree with you is too high, I have no time for this.

 

[Big Eye]

People talking about evolution are missing the point...in this theory it is easier to see reality as a kind of program...we call that program the laws of nature. So no more talk of evolution, it's been dealt with.

 

[zyzygy]

The prior intent exists within the laws of "nature".

I disagree. Your understanding of evolution leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[zyzygy]

As I've said above, evolution does not break the laws of nature, evolution is a reflection of its intent....it's a lot simpler than believing a bunch of atoms got together to randomly start evolution...what the **** do atoms get out of it lol?

Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components03.09.12

Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life.
NASA -
Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components.

 

[Big Eye]

Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components03.09.12

Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life.
NASA -
Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components.

I disagree. Your understanding of evolution leaves a lot to be desired.

You need to explain why and how atoms got together to form life...we can't do it in the lab can we.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components03.09.12

Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life.
NASA -
Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components.

Why oh why oh why do atheists seem to never explore the problems facing evolution? the problems facing abiogenesis?

There are huge problems with the claim that life can emerge spontaneously, absolutely huge.

The atheists like to chatter about this or that experiment that appears to explain this or might have played a role in that, but they never ever look at the deep problems.

There are a great many problems so for no particular reason why not research the subject of homochirality and abiogenesis, chances are most here have never even heard of this.

Here's a few bits n pieces for ya'll

Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems (emphasis their's)

The homochirality of amino acids and sugar molecules in biosystems is a necessity for life, and the preservation of homochirality over long periods of time in a prebiotic fluid environment is the problem. It is the problem because it is not sufficient to obtain homochirality. Due to the active isomerization kinetics in fluid systems [1, 2], which in general drives a chiral system toward a racemic composition, it is of utmost importance to determine the condition and mechanism for preservation of homochirality in prebiotic systems.

Unresolved Questions About the Origins of Life

One further problem confronting many abiogenesis models is homochirality. Homochirality is the term used to describe all building blocks in living organisms having the same “handedness” (amino acids being left-handed, nucleic acid sugars (ribose and deoxyribose) being right-handed, and chiral phosphoglycerides). Some process in chemical evolution must account for the origin of this phenomenon. Chiral molecules can be synthesized, but in the absence of a chiral source or a chiral catalyst, they are formed in a 50/50 mixture of both enantiomer.

The origin and evolution of life

Why does biology exhibit homochirality (Jiang et al., 2017; Burton and Berger, 2018)? Specifically, why are nearly all amino acids left-handed even though experimentally when trying to create them, mixtures of left- and right-hand (precursor) molecules are seen? People have often responded that this is a trivial matter of which enantiomer won out in forming the first biomolecules or that the chemistry would not be different. The former reasoning is neither satisfactory nor mechanistic and the later is certainly wrong (see Enantiopure drug), take for example R-(-)- and S-(+)-Carvone, which have different smells owing to different reactions stemming from their specific configuration (thanks 5.310!).

 

[soylentgreen]

Very well, so as an atheist what is it you are unwilling to develop a belief in? what don't you believe? at this point from what you've said so far your position is nothing more than an unwillingness to believe in something for which you regard as having no evidence, which is no different from me.



I'm sorry Soylent but I don't see how you can label yourself as "atheist" and then claim the term has no definition. Defining something does not prevent it being a deduction, conclusion or inference.

An electromagnetic wave is inferred yet still has a definition.

But we can if you wish refer to you as a goddoesnotexister will that work?




Of course I agree, if all the premises are facts (true) then the conclusion is a fact (true) too, forgive me I was unaware that all your premises are (so far as you are concerned) facts.



Well I agree in the sense that both have a duty (to ourselves at the very least) here, me to define what it is that do regard as true and you to define what you do regard as false.



For one what? what is it that you have no need of? if you can't answer that question then how can you be certain you don't need it?

I have no interest in defining a god. That problem belongs to theists.

I did not say atheism has no definition. I sad that having no belief in a god is a conclusion based on reason. Atheism itself is just a lack of belief in a god.

No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god. Nor have they even managed to come up with a good reason for a god. So there is no reason as to why i should bother with the concept of a god let alone believe in the existence of one.

Agree or not it is still the problem for a theist.

Tell me why i should bother to answer the question? Fiction has always been optional.

 

[zyzygy]

I disagree. Your understanding of evolution leaves a lot to be desired.

You need to explain why and how atoms got together to form life...we can't do it in the lab can we.

Give us about a billion years.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have no interest in defining a god. That problem belongs to theists.

I did not say atheism has no definition. I sad that having no belief in a god is a conclusion based on reason. Atheism itself is just a lack of belief in a god.

No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god. Nor have they even managed to come up with a good reason for a god. So there is no reason as to why i should bother with the concept of a god let alone believe in the existence of one.

Agree or not it is still the problem for a theist.

Tell me why i should bother to answer the question? Fiction has always been optional.

Because I'd like to know the answer.

I'd also like to see the argument leading to the conclusion "No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god" along with any (if there is any) supporting evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Give us about a billion years.

I see, so this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, hmmm.

 

[soylentgreen]

Because I'd like to know the answer.

I'd also like to see the argument leading to the conclusion "No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god" along with any (if there is any) supporting evidence.

The argument is historical. There has been no evidence produced nor even a good reason. If you disagree then provide one. As always the onus belongs to the person making the positive claim.

I gave you the answer. Fiction is always optional.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The argument is historical. There has been no evidence produced nor even a good reason. If you disagree then provide one. As always the onus belongs to the person making the positive claim.

I gave you the answer. Fiction is always optional.

I see. Well I agree that the onus is on the one making the claim and you claim "No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god" and surely this a position you reached rationally? based on some evidence?

I can accept that you personally have not seen what you would regard as evidence for a God but it does not follow from that that nobody throughout history has ever produced any evidence for god, if there is an argument leading to this then it is an unsound argument.

Furthermore even if it were true and demonstrable that nobody had ever produced any evidence for god one cannot draw the conclusion from this that therefore god does not exist.