A Debate About God.

[Firestorm77]

To start this off, I would like to know why you (the believer) believe in God. When I say this, I do not mean little details that may only make sense with God, but the core reason that convinces you that a God exits.

This life we have and everything surrounding you is not a mere coincidence, just as You are the proof for the necessary existence of your parents, or for the necessary existence of your great-great-great-great grandmother - you are also the proof for the necessary existence of Universe - and therefore are also the proof for the necessary existence of "primary cause" of the universe - the rest is how to one wants to believe from this point:

1. Atheist believe that this "primary cause" was non-intelligent, non-conscious, agent not yet discovered by empirical methodology - but it is believed the "cause" is most likely to be "material" (i.e Matter or Energy)

2. Theist believes this "primary cause" is conscious, immaterial, and intelligent - and cannot be described in empirical method as this "primary cause" is immaterial, space-less, & timeless.

3. Agnostic says - "I don't know".

If Atheist is so "confident" about this position he also has the same obligation as theist to produce some empirical evidence to prove his/her point - as he/she demands from theist - Simple as that.

But If you are asking from theist perspective what "strengthens" the argument for a "primary cause" that is conscious and intelligent is the following conditions:

1. Morality:

Morality has to be either Innate or external based on consensus. And it is evident that morality working through consensus is self-defeating, otherwise what Nazis did to 6 million Jews would be still had been wrong even if Hitler had won the WW-2. and had went on to brainwash everyone in Europe. So any Atheist, who claims that Nazis are "evil" is denying his own philosophy that morality is probably an 'accident' in universe..

2. Consciousness:

A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the idea that "primary cause" also had to be conscious. A universe with just rocks, planets & stars, and no consciousness to observe the phenomenon is different than a universe with conscious beings - therefore Universe in its nature had the seeds for consciousness.

And even if these two positive arguments for the "primary cause" to be intelligent & conscious do not fit the criteria of Atheists - then finally according to atheists -- we're all just an "accidental arrangement atoms", then death is just the rearrangement of those atoms.
So, who cares how it seems or feels then. What matters if some believes in Love or does not - it is all just 'chemical reactions' in brain - atoms, and molecules playing tricks on human brain )
It would not be wrong to kill or murder people - why care about empathy - selfishness is no different than empathy - everything is therefore just some state of mind, that has been accepted by consensus - just as theists have made a consensus to accept that "primary cause" is conscious & intelligent - After all everything would just be ideas heading towards "heat death" of the universe

 

[tigerclaw1000]

This life we have and everything surrounding you is not a mere coincidence, just as You are the proof for the necessary existence of your parents, or for the necessary existence of your great-great-great-great grandmother - you are also the proof for the necessary existence of Universe - and therefore are also the proof for the necessary existence of "primary cause" of the universe - the rest is how to one wants to believe from this point:

1. Atheist believe that this "primary cause" was non-intelligent, non-conscious, agent not yet discovered by empirical methodology - but it is believed the "cause" is most likely to be "material" (i.e Matter or Energy)

2. Theist believes this "primary cause" is conscious, immaterial, and intelligent - and cannot be described in empirical method as this "primary cause" is immaterial, space-less, & timeless.

3. Agnostic says - "I don't know".

If Atheist is so "confident" about this position he also has the same obligation as theist to produce some empirical evidence to prove his/her point - as he/she demands from theist - Simple as that.

But If you are asking from theist perspective what "strengthens" the argument for a "primary cause" that is conscious and intelligent is the following conditions:

1. Morality:

Morality has to be either Innate or external based on consensus. And it is evident that morality working through consensus is self-defeating, otherwise what Nazis did to 6 million Jews would be still had been wrong even if Hitler had won the WW-2. and had went on to brainwash everyone in Europe. So any Atheist, who claims that Nazis are "evil" is denying his own philosophy that morality is probably an 'accident' in universe..

2. Consciousness:

A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the idea that "primary cause" also had to be conscious. A universe with just rocks, planets & stars, and no consciousness to observe the phenomenon is different than a universe with conscious beings - therefore Universe in its nature had the seeds for consciousness.

And even if these two positive arguments for the "primary cause" to be intelligent & conscious do not fit the criteria of Atheists - then finally according to atheists -- we're all just an "accidental arrangement atoms", then death is just the rearrangement of those atoms.
So, who cares how it seems or feels then. What matters if some believes in Love or does not - it is all just 'chemical reactions' in brain - atoms, and molecules playing tricks on human brain )
It would not be wrong to kill or murder people - why care about empathy - selfishness is no different than empathy - everything is therefore just some state of mind, that has been accepted by consensus - just as theists have made a consensus to accept that "primary cause" is conscious & intelligent - After all everything would just be ideas heading towards "heat death" of the universe

Holy ****, so original, where did you get it?
(W)(W)(W).1000000timesrefutedargumenst.(C)(O)(M)?

I am So ******* tiered of the SAME old refuted arguments.

Dose any one have something original?

 

[tigerclaw1000]

And i am still waiting for that source for DNA origin being 100% none natural.

 

[Riverwolf]

Holy ****, so original, where did you get it?
(W)(W)(W).1000000timesrefutedargumenst.(C)(O)(M)?

I am So ******* tiered of the SAME old refuted arguments.

Dose any one have something original?

"Tiered"? So you're composed of many layers of quality/authority... of the same old, refuted arguments?

...what's that supposed to even mean?

 

[tigerclaw1000]

"Tiered"? So you're composed of many layers of quality/authority... of the same old, refuted arguments?

...what's that supposed to even mean?

What are you talking about, what quality/authority? only ID and professional debaters(apologists) present these arguments.

in what sense are you using the word composed?

.. oh yea i am sorry i wrote "Tiered", i meant "Tired"

English is my second language.

BTW
You could have picked up that i meant "Tired", it looks more like a typo any way.

 

[Riverwolf]

This life we have and everything surrounding you is not a mere coincidence, just as You are the proof for the necessary existence of your parents, or for the necessary existence of your great-great-great-great grandmother - you are also the proof for the necessary existence of Universe - and therefore are also the proof for the necessary existence of "primary cause" of the universe - the rest is how to one wants to believe from this point:

1. Atheist believe that this "primary cause" was non-intelligent, non-conscious, agent not yet discovered by empirical methodology - but it is believed the "cause" is most likely to be "material" (i.e Matter or Energy)

2. Theist believes this "primary cause" is conscious, immaterial, and intelligent - and cannot be described in empirical method as this "primary cause" is immaterial, space-less, & timeless.

3. Agnostic says - "I don't know".

There's also combinations and variations.

For example, I'm a panentheist (i.e., I believe that God is both imminent and transcendent), but I'm agnostic about it. I don't claim to know for sure, nor do I have a logical reason for believing.

You're definition of "atheist" is also not quite accurate. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. But they're still capable of believing that we were created by aliens. ^_^

IOW, atheists don't necessarily have any opinions on the Primal Cause. In truth, we don't know what the Primal Cause, whatever it may have been, (and heck, whatever it even is) was.

If Atheist is so "confident" about this position he also has the same obligation as theist to produce some empirical evidence to prove his/her point - as he/she demands from theist - Simple as that.

Incorrect. Negatives cannot be proven, and atheism is a negative stance.

But If you are asking from theist perspective what "strengthens" the argument for a "primary cause" that is conscious and intelligent is the following conditions:

1. Morality:

Morality has to be either Innate or external based on consensus. And it is evident that morality working through consensus is self-defeating, otherwise what Nazis did to 6 million Jews would be still had been wrong even if Hitler had won the WW-2. and had went on to brainwash everyone in Europe. So any Atheist, who claims that Nazis are "evil" is denying his own philosophy that morality is probably an 'accident' in universe..

Morality is limited to human minds; animals are amoral, and if there's a Supreme God, It's most likely amoral as well.

It's based on the notion that we, as humans, are capable of rebelling against our instincts which may cause unjust harm onto others, which other animals are incapable of having (thus, they are neither moral or immoral.) Therefore, what the Nazis did was immoral, since they were causing unjust harm to other people.

2. Consciousness:

A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the idea that "primary cause" also had to be conscious. A universe with just rocks, planets & stars, and no consciousness to observe the phenomenon is different than a universe with conscious beings - therefore Universe in its nature had the seeds for consciousness.

How would a universe that was not started by a conscious being be different than a universe that was?

And even if these two positive arguments for the "primary cause" to be intelligent & conscious do not fit the criteria of Atheists - then finally according to atheists -- we're all just an "accidental arrangement atoms", then death is just the rearrangement of those atoms.
So, who cares how it seems or feels then. What matters if some believes in Love or does not - it is all just 'chemical reactions' in brain - atoms, and molecules playing tricks on human brain )

Yup.

It would not be wrong to kill or murder people - why care about empathy - selfishness is no different than empathy - everything is therefore just some state of mind, that has been accepted by consensus - just as theists have made a consensus to accept that "primary cause" is conscious & intelligent - After all everything would just be ideas heading towards "heat death" of the universe

This is incorrect. Murdering people is causing unjust harm on other humans, which we're capable of avoiding. It's wrong insofar as justice is concerned.

What is justice? It's basically whatever brings happiness to the vast majority of people without causing harm to others for undeserved reasons.

 

[Daviso452]

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to get at (which is not hard to do because i often dont explain myself properly)

its not that these things in themselves exist....its that they exist because of the information contained in the DNA. The DNA in all living things is the blueprint for how the matter is arranged. So the DNA is coded information....somewhat like computer chips and we all know that coded information doesnt occur naturally.

Information is not a naturally occuring substance....information is abstract, it cannot be created by normal forces of nature. So the information is what gives rise to the likelihood of a creator/designer.... because information always comes from some intelligence.

its also not logical that because we dont know, then that must mean there is no creator, so we might as well start from the assumption there is no creator.

That simply ignores the evidence, which is already well established, that there is complex information inside all living things. Information always comes from a mind....and to ignore that and tell people there is no creator is simply unethical and deliberately ignorant.

The neutral position is not to assume anything. To not believe in anything. That means to not believe in a creator, the theory of evolution, and so forth.

FROM THERE you take the evidence that there is and you form your beliefs from there. However, you could also believe something without any reason at all; this is faith. Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

Now I wish to discuss the subject of genetics

Scientists currently do not know how life started on earth if it was not from a conscious. HOWEVER, this does not mean it is impossible.

Take the speed of light for instance. For years people thought nothing was faster than the speed of light. CERN proved that false. CERN scientists 'break the speed of light' - Telegraph

Plus, scientists have also been able to create amino acids in a recreated enviorment of the earth 3 billion years ago.

Now, this does not prove that it is possible for life to begin on its own, but it does prove that there is a possibility. Of almost every scientific rule there is an exception, and thus it is irresponsible to say something is "impossible."

Basically, there is always a possibility. Does that make sense?

 

[Riverwolf]

What are you talking about, what quality/authority? only ID and professional debaters(apologists) present these arguments.

in what sense are you using the word composed?

.. oh yea i am sorry i wrote "Tiered", i meant "Tired"

English is my second language.

BTW
You could have picked up that i meant "Tired", it looks more like a typo any way.

Just making fun.

But now I'm aware that English, a language so difficult that even native speakers can't speak it correctly (I've seen FAR worse typos and grammar from native speakers), is not your first language, I'll not do that again.

 

[Pegg]

Show me a source where a credible scientist says that there is no other way the (information) in DNA could have been made only by an intelligence and not Natural laws.

You might say that DNA is information but this information is of a natural origin, this is demonstrable!! There is no intelligence required to make it.

you can believe what you like, but logic is logic and logic tells me that information does not randomly produce itself

the laws of physics alone cannot, and never will, produce information or process information... but what happens in biology is that the chemicals in the dna are working to produce readable information in the form of arranged matter. And those processes work again and again and again in the same way which is evidence that the chemicals themselves are not simple random events...they are producing information

You know that information can be stored on different devices such as a CD or a microchip or in a vynal record....when they are activated, they show the information on them and that is exactly the same as what the DNA does...it shows the information stored in it by replicating the information into a physical form such as an arm, a leg a nose, colors etc etc etc

Is it reasonable to conclude that in the case of biology, its not really information?

 

[tigerclaw1000]

you can believe what you like, but logic is logic and logic tells me that information does not randomly produce itself

the laws of physics alone cannot, and never will, produce information or process information... but what happens in biology is that the chemicals in the dna are working to produce readable information in the form of arranged matter. And those processes work again and again and again in the same way which is evidence that the chemicals themselves are not simple random events...they are producing information

You know that information can be stored on different devices such as a CD or a microchip or in a vynal record....when they are activated, they show the information on them and that is exactly the same as what the DNA does...it shows the information stored in it by replicating the information into a physical form such as an arm, a leg a nose, colors etc etc etc

Is it reasonable to conclude that in the case of biology, its not really information?

LOGIC? Really

"the laws of physics alone cannot, and never will produce information or process information" they do and it is demonstrable! You can actually see that!

"And those processes work again and again and again" they don't, they malfunction, or make mistakes. Witch introduces variety that is one of the basics for Evolution.

"Is it reasonable to conclude that in the case of biology, its not really information?"
Yes because information implies that some intelligence put it there. And we can not know that. It might look this way, intuitively.
But on the countrary we have natural mechanisms that perferctly explain this (information)s origin, and like i said before it demonstrable. its a fact!

 

[Pegg]

LOGIC? Really

"the laws of physics alone cannot, and never will produce information or process information" they do and it is demonstrable! You can actually see that!

what information is produced by electromagnetism?

"And those processes work again and again and again" they don't, they malfunction, or make mistakes. Witch introduces variety that is one of the basics for Evolution.

the vast majority of reproduction is according to the plan...and when something does go wrong, it is usually because of outside factors such as toxins or radiation...even a child born deaf due to some outside factor, can still reproduce offspring with perfect hearing. So its not like the DNA is designed to malfunction...its designed to produce very particular traits and specific features with very definite functions.

"Is it reasonable to conclude that in the case of biology, its not really information?"
Yes because information implies that some intelligence put it there. And we can not know that. It might look this way, intuitively.
But on the countrary we have natural mechanisms that perferctly explain this (information)s origin, and like i said before it demonstrable. its a fact!

when a volcano explodes and magma spews out, the trail of molten rock left behind is not information. It is a pattern produced randomly...it did not require programming though.

but living things do require programing just as the application I am using to send this message to you required programming.

 

[Awoon]

Hello. I am an atheist wishing to have a debate about the existence of God with those who believe in him. However, this forum does not need to be limited to the Abrahamic Gods of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

To start this off, I would like to know why you (the believer) believe in God. When I say this, I do not mean little details that may only make sense with God, but the core reason that convinces you that a God exits. If, however, you believe solely on faith, then I wish to know why you believe faith in your religion than in others.

Great. Now lets see where this thread goes .

God is you. Now you can debate about yourself.

 

[tigerclaw1000]

"what information is produced by electromagnetism? "

You think that electromagnetism is the only Force? There is gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. And There are 100+ LAWs.


"The vast majority of reproduction is according to the plan...and when something does go wrong, it is usually because of outside factors"

Ehh and the outside factors are not Gods creation? So God made DNA perfect, but he forgot to make it protected from the outside factors, so it wold work perfectly and would not result in horrible defects and suffering?

"when a volcano explodes and magma spews out, the trail of molten rock left behind is not information. It is a pattern produced randomly...it did not require programming though.

but living things do require programing just as the application I am using to send this message to you required programming."

DNA is also not information, it is produced by the same natural laws that the volcano magma.

You have to let go of you presuppositions: Creation,Programing,Information

You already have a conclusion in your argument, that is circular logic.
You constantly imply that there is GOD because there is Creation,Fine tuning,Programing,Information.
You have to PROVE god first.

 

[Pegg]

"what information is produced by electromagnetism? " You think that electromagnetism is the only Force? There is gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. And There are 100+ LAWs.

im aware of the many forces, im only asking about one of them so as to not bombard you ... so tell me, what information is produced by electromagnetism?

"The vast majority of reproduction is according to the plan...and when something does go wrong, it is usually because of outside factors"

Ehh and the outside factors are not Gods creation? So God made DNA perfect, but he forgot to make it protected from the outside factors, so it wold work perfectly and would not result in horrible defects and suffering?

alcohol can affect the reproduction process, so can smoking tobacco and other drugs... God doesnt force people to drink and smoke while they are pregnant. And the forces of the universe do not cause birth defects...the outside forces im talking about are the pollutants that we ourselves make and use.

DNA is also not information, it is produced by the same natural laws that the volcano magma.

You have to let go of you presuppositions: Creation,Programing,Information

if dna is not information, why can it be used by scientists to determine the identity of a person? What are they looking at when they link DNA to a certain person?

No matter how you want to think about it, the DNA is readable and can be translated because DNA is information. Just because the information is held in chemical form does not mean it is not information.... you know, the music on a cd is held in digital form but when you hear it, it translates into musical form

well its no different to the information in DNA carried in chemical form which translates to a physical form.

You already have a conclusion in your argument, that is circular logic.
You constantly imply that there is GOD because there is Creation,Fine tuning,Programing,Information.
You have to PROVE god first.

God has already been proved. God has spoken to mankind on many occasions in the past, he has sent angels to earth, he has communicated by means of Jesus Christ, he has given us his word the bible, he has foretold mankinds future and developments on the earth which have come true, he has shown mankind that he is real.....so i dont need to prove anything.

 

[elmarna]

Hello. I am an atheist wishing to have a debate about the existence of God with those who believe in him. However, this forum does not need to be limited to the Abrahamic Gods of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

To start this off, I would like to know why you (the believer) believe in God. When I say this, I do not mean little details that may only make sense with God, but the core reason that convinces you that a God exits. If, however, you believe solely on faith, then I wish to know why you believe faith in your religion than in others.

Great. Now lets see where this thread goes .

Why - very much in the fact that the resources of him came to me at my darkest hour. Speaking (in thought form not a voice) in a positive , calm manner. Soothing & spoken in words I do not use . The lifting up was a great surprise. For someone who was not looking to be saved or seeking GOD it was the very essence of a God truly merciful !
As for my faith. It was with the urgeing of the voice of guidence to mosque. A revelation the when I went there - they were speaking in beliefs I all ready turned to!
God does exist. I could never find the words to speak contrary to it after being touched by him!

 

[tigerclaw1000]

"alcohol can affect the reproduction process, so can smoking tobacco and other drugs... God doesnt force people to drink and smoke while they are pregnant. And the forces of the universe do not cause birth defects...the outside forces im talking about are the pollutants that we ourselves make and use. "

Before that you specified one of the outside forces as radiation.which is natural force in the universe. And DNA is effected by many other thing that are natural. Do some research


"im aware of the many forces, im only asking about one of them so as to not bombard you ... so tell me, what information is produced by electromagnetism?"

alone of course it cant(as far as i know), but that's not the reality. in reality we have the four basic forces which together allow the chemical reactions and the laws of physics to produce all we see around us.
THE IS NO NEED FOR A CREATOR. < THAT IS DEMONSTRABLE!! NATURAL LAW ACCOUNT FOR OLMOST EVERYTHING, AND EVERY TIME SOME SAID "OH SEE THAT GOD DID IT" SCIENCE FOUND A NATURAL EXPL.

 

[Pegg]

Before that you specified one of the outside forces as radiation.which is natural force in the universe. And DNA is effected by many other thing that are natural. Do some research

there is safe radiation and dangerous radiation....the dangerous radiation from the sun is mostly blocked out by our atmosphere

but the radiation that comes from radioactive material that we produce can enter our waterways and when we drink that water, we get poisoned and that causes problems... i really shouldnt have to explain this.

you cant answer the question about what information is produced by electromagnetism because you know the answer is that it does not produce information. Natural forces cannot produce information full stop.

 

[Daviso452]

you can believe what you like, but logic is logic and logic tells me that information does not randomly produce itself

the laws of physics alone cannot, and never will, produce information or process information... but what happens in biology is that the chemicals in the dna are working to produce readable information in the form of arranged matter. And those processes work again and again and again in the same way which is evidence that the chemicals themselves are not simple random events...they are producing information

You know that information can be stored on different devices such as a CD or a microchip or in a vynal record....when they are activated, they show the information on them and that is exactly the same as what the DNA does...it shows the information stored in it by replicating the information into a physical form such as an arm, a leg a nose, colors etc etc etc

Is it reasonable to conclude that in the case of biology, its not really information?

Is DNA nessesarily information? I see them as merely chemicals that react a certain way, and the reaction that these chemicals made started life. From there, well, we know the rest. Does anyone disagree?

 

[Pegg]

Is DNA nessesarily information? I see them as merely chemicals that react a certain way, and the reaction that these chemicals made started life. From there, well, we know the rest. Does anyone disagree?

ok, lets say that this is correct... DNA is nothing more then chemicals which produce living things

Can the dna on its own produce life? Can you take a piece of DNA from someone and will that piece of DNA produce anything? If its just chemicals reacting with one another to produce something, then any dna should theoretically be capable of producing something.... but why doesnt it?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Hello. I am an atheist wishing to have a debate about the existence of God with those who believe in him. However, this forum does not need to be limited to the Abrahamic Gods of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

To start this off, I would like to know why you (the believer) believe in God. When I say this, I do not mean little details that may only make sense with God, but the core reason that convinces you that a God exits. If, however, you believe solely on faith, then I wish to know why you believe faith in your religion than in others.

Great. Now lets see where this thread goes .

Sorry to butt in, but I have an addendum to this line of questioning.

What about god makes he/she/it worth worship?