Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[richardlowellt]

Because of my personal experiences, I would not believe you.
That said, I do not think that LDS hold monopoly on manifestations. I recieved my first experience before I was a member of the LDS church.
The gift of discernment of Spirits is also needed.

Well because of my personal experience and using reason and logic I cannot believe that you have had any kind of spiritual experiences.

 

[richardlowellt]

God transformed what eternally exists, He did not create out of nothingness.

The Hebrew word translated as "create" in the Bible would be better translated as "transform"
Hebrew Word Studies
"The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews."

No God didn't transform what eternally existed, all things were formed naturally with his help. Even now cosmologists are seeing how planets are formed, can study the birth and death of galaxies, they are happening without the assistance from a God figure.

 

[richardlowellt]

Everything has always existed in one form or another.
The difference between my premise and yours is I don't limit the upper bounds of life.
That something as complex as all of the physical laws macro to micro quantum exists proves that complexity did not have to evolve. Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the simplest solution is that complex life has always existed.
COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce

All one has to do is study how evolution works and you will see how life starts simple and over millions of years becomes more complex.

 

[richardlowellt]

many people live with thoughts of cannot, go gainst the laws of nature, can't, will never, impossible, etc. etc...
other people live with a different life philosophy.
The sky is not the limit...
That archer's arrow only flies as high as he aims.

There is a fellow named Peter, who is able to take us by the hand to pearly gates, and bids us enter into a land of wonder and awe. Most stories have an element of truth in them.


So you also thing that a fairy can sprinkle pixie dust on you and you will be able to fly? Do you believe in fairies? if so what logic or reason points to the existence of fairies? Do you know what the properties of pixie dust are? What is the ingredients in pixie dust that enables us the fly?

YOU BELIEVE there is a fellow named Peter, you can only believe as you have no evidence that any such person or being exists, if you do please show me using evidence from the naturalistic realm.

 

[slave2six]

So you also thing that a fairy can sprinkle pixie dust on you and you will be able to fly? Do you believe in fairies?

Don't make me have to start clapping to revive dying fairies!

 

[Falvlun]

No I really don't think you get it. The someone who may have planted the tree is REAL, I know about the planter, I have seen one, spoken to one, I know planters are real, so even though I never saw the planter plant the tree, the fact that he could have is a very real possibility to me. That was a flop on your part, care to try another example?

Ok. Let's go back to the very beginning.

Is there anything reasonable and logical about invoking an imaginary being to accomplish what occurs naturally?

There is if He actually did the things in question.
But you do not know that He didn't do them.
ALL you know is that there are alternatives to "God did it".
This in no way proves God didn't do it, let alone that God does not exist.

There is no reason for God to exist if all can be explained without him.

But that does not mean that He did not do them.
Only that he did not HAVE to do them.

Merely finding alternative ways for things to be done does not prove that the other ways do not exist.

You made an argument, claiming that it was logical. Mestemia pointed out the flaw in your logical argument, but you have consistently misunderstood and misconstrued his criticism. Here is your argument in deductive argument form:

Premise 1: If things can be explained through natural mechanisms, then God does not need to exist.
Premise 2: Things can be explained through natural mechanisms.
Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist.
Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist.

This is in the form of modus ponens: if A, then B. A. Therefore, B.

The argument is valid -- meaning that it follows the correct structure-- from Premise 1 thru Conclusion (a). However, you make an unsubstantiated leap when you go from Conclusion (a) to Conclusion (b).

By providing an alternative method by which the universe could exist (ie, Big Bang, et al), you have merely shown that God is not necessary. (For example, a dishwasher is not necessary for washing dishes-- you can wash them by hand).

You have not shown that God did not, in fact, create the universe. (The dishes are clean; dishwashers are not necessary; but that does not mean the dishwasher did not clean those dishes.)

And you have certainly not shown that God does not exist. (The dishes are clean; your proposal that they were washed by hand in no way disproves the possibility of dishwashers existing.)

The criticism of your argument, then, has nothing to do with whether God is in fact real, or likely, or whatever. It has everything to do with the gaps in your so-called logical argument. You failed to sufficiently connect your premises to your ultimate conclusion.

 

[richardlowellt]

Ok. Let's go back to the very beginning.








You made an argument, claiming that it was logical. Mestemia pointed out the flaw in your logical argument, but you have consistently misunderstood and misconstrued his criticism. Here is your argument in deductive argument form:

Premise 1: If things can be explained through natural mechanisms, then God does not need to exist.
Premise 2: Things can be explained through natural mechanisms.
Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist.
Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist.

This is in the form of modus ponens: if A, then B. A. Therefore, B.

The argument is valid -- meaning that it follows the correct structure-- from Premise 1 thru Conclusion (a). However, you make an unsubstantiated leap when you go from Conclusion (a) to Conclusion (b).

By providing an alternative method by which the universe could exist (ie, Big Bang, et al), you have merely shown that God is not necessary. (For example, a dishwasher is not necessary for washing dishes-- you can wash them by hand).

You have not shown that God did not, in fact, create the universe. (The dishes are clean; dishwashers are not necessary; but that does not mean the dishwasher did not clean those dishes.)

And you have certainly not shown that God does not exist. (The dishes are clean; your proposal that they were washed by hand in no way disproves the possibility of dishwashers existing.)

The criticism of your argument, then, has nothing to do with whether God is in fact real, or likely, or whatever. It has everything to do with the gaps in your so-called logical argument. You failed to sufficiently connect your premises to your ultimate conclusion.

You just haven't been listening, I stated that because no God was needed to create the universe was only part of the reason and logic behind my premise, I'll find the post number for you. There are many piece to this mozaic, here is a partical list that contributes to a non-existing god.

1.) Gaps for God
2.)Lack of evidence
3.)Conditions for considering extraordinary claims.
4.) The paradox of Omnipotence
5.)The illusion of design
6.) Self-organization
7.) Bad design
8.) The uncongenial universe
9.) Waste
10.) The failures of revelation
11.) Physical evidence
12.) Holy horrors
13.) Natural morality
14.) The argument from evil
15.) Gods who disagree with the data
16.) The hiddenness problem

Each little piece completes the whole picture of a non-existing God, and as I said only the "no god needed" to create the universe, is a small part of the whole.

 

[McBell]

You just haven't been listening, I stated that because no God was needed to create the universe was only part of the reason and logic behind my premise, I'll find the post number for you. There are many piece to this mozaic, here is a partical list that contributes to a non-existing god.

1.) Gaps for God
2.)Lack of evidence
3.)Conditions for considering extraordinary claims.
4.) The paradox of Omnipotence
5.)The illusion of design
6.) Self-organization
7.) Bad design
8.) The uncongenial universe
9.) Waste
10.) The failures of revelation
11.) Physical evidence
12.) Holy horrors
13.) Natural morality
14.) The argument from evil
15.) Gods who disagree with the data
16.) The hiddenness problem

Each little piece completes the whole picture of a non-existing God, and as I said only the "no god needed" to create the universe, is a small part of the whole.

Unfortuanately for you, NONE of the things listed, even if you take ALL of them, fill in the gap from "Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist" to "Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist".

Which is my whole point.
You are making a huge illogical leap from A to B.
But instead of addressing that fact, you prefer to play with fairy dust.....

 

[Falvlun]

You just haven't been listening, I stated that because no God was needed to create the universe was only part of the reason and logic behind my premise, I'll find the post number for you. There are many piece to this mozaic, here is a partical list that contributes to a non-existing god.

Well, you can cross off "alternate explanations for the creation of the universe" as one of your supporting cast members, since it is a faulty argument.

 

[richardlowellt]

Unfortuanately for you, NONE of the things listed, even if you take ALL of them, fill in the gap from "Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist" to "Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist".

Which is my whole point.
You are making a huge illogical leap from A to B.
But instead of addressing that fact, you prefer to play with fairy dust.....

Well they certainly do it for me. Maybe I should continue the list until even you will see the logic. No I don't prefer to play wit pixie dust, unlike you, I don't believe such a thing exists.

 

[richardlowellt]

Ok. Let's go back to the very beginning.








You made an argument, claiming that it was logical. Mestemia pointed out the flaw in your logical argument, but you have consistently misunderstood and misconstrued his criticism. Here is your argument in deductive argument form:

Premise 1: If things can be explained through natural mechanisms, then God does not need to exist.
Premise 2: Things can be explained through natural mechanisms.
Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist.
Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist.

This is in the form of modus ponens: if A, then B. A. Therefore, B.

The argument is valid -- meaning that it follows the correct structure-- from Premise 1 thru Conclusion (a). However, you make an unsubstantiated leap when you go from Conclusion (a) to Conclusion (b).

By providing an alternative method by which the universe could exist (ie, Big Bang, et al), you have merely shown that God is not necessary. (For example, a dishwasher is not necessary for washing dishes-- you can wash them by hand).

You have not shown that God did not, in fact, create the universe. (The dishes are clean; dishwashers are not necessary; but that does not mean the dishwasher did not clean those dishes.)

And you have certainly not shown that God does not exist. (The dishes are clean; your proposal that they were washed by hand in no way disproves the possibility of dishwashers existing.)

The criticism of your argument, then, has nothing to do with whether God is in fact real, or likely, or whatever. It has everything to do with the gaps in your so-called logical argument. You failed to sufficiently connect your premises to your ultimate conclusion.

My post 146 explains that "no god needed" is only apart of the logic for a non-existent god.

 

[McBell]

Well they certainly do it for me.

Thats fine.
Whatever floats your boat.

However, your logic is flawed and I am not buying it.

Maybe I should continue the list until even you will see the logic.

Until such time as you can logically connect your conclusions, you are running on assumption created by your faulty logic.

But I can see that in your quest to drive your agenda, you cannot or will not see it.

No I don't prefer to play wit pixie dust, unlike you, I don't believe such a thing exists.

Unfortunately for you, anyone reading the thread will clearly see that it was YOU who brought the fairy dust into the conversation and YOU who kept going with the fairy dust commentary, in a seriously sad attempt at ridicule, and not me.

My post 146 explains that "no god needed" is only apart of the logic for a non-existent god.

post #146:

Alternative explanations are only part of what forms reason and logic, kind of helps it along. I need no alternative explanation to KNOW that peter pan does not exist. I know because, he actions would suspend the laws of nature, flying, that never never land is suppose to exist out among the stars, again suspending the laws of nature as humans cannot exist in the cold and vacuum of space without life support, see how reason and logic work. I this instance I don't even need to provide an alternative explanation. I can do the same with superman, plastic man, and a host of others, let me know if you need me to guide you along the path of reason and logic, I'll be glad to help you out.

Again, all the reasons presented still do not fill in the huge gap between "Conclusion (a): Therefore, God does not need to exist" and "Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist".

 

[Sententia]

What kind of sick deity would create people in such a way that they are allergic to the planet wherein there were born? I mean, really! Case in point, I am allergic to grass, pollen, mold, trees and nature in general as well as having wonderful food allergies to such harmful things as melons, bananas, nuts (but not peanuts), fish (but not shellfish), tomatoes and pretty much everything except chocolate and Dr. Pepper.

And there are people with far worse allergies - some of them potentially fatal.

It is my contention that no deity in his/her right mind would torture people thus.

I'd love to say more but I am going to go pray to Saint Benadryl...

I guess if you take allergies and other evils as part of god's design then what kind of god is it? Now ye olde Mr. Diety did try to explain this to us. (Awesome series btw)

But Epicurus was born in 341 BCE and his argument is still quite valid:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

(YT)

Religion is the found fossil of a long extinct philosophy that purported to answer questions with more questions which have no answer and of which you were not allowed to question or think about but were asked to just accept.

 

[richardlowellt]

Well, you can cross off "alternate explanations for the creation of the universe" as one of your supporting cast members, since it is a faulty argument.

When there becomes more than one explanation for anything, and one of those explanations relies on things imagined, then reason and logic would tend to rule out that explanation. What's faulty about comparing science with magic?

 

[richardlowellt]

Thats fine.
Whatever floats your boat.

However, your logic is flawed and I am not buying it.


I can conclude that pixie dust does not exist, there is no scientific evidence for it, no one has ever physically used it, its properties and effect defy the laws of nature, it is only mentioned in children's stories, and in an animated motion picture, can one not make all the same conclusions about a fictitious god thing?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well they certainly do it for me. Maybe I should continue the list until even you will see the logic. No I don't prefer to play wit pixie dust, unlike you, I don't believe such a thing exists.

Please stop looking like a fool.
It really is NOT complicated.
What you actually SHOULD speak about is the probability for God to exist. THEN your list is usefull and you might conclude that the probability of his existence is very low given the data you have.

You should not be so stupid as to assume that you have actually disprooven God.
Take the black swan example as a touchstone

Now since you so much like Peter Pan.
Even if we KNOW that Peter Pan was created by a human and is a story for kids, EVEN THEN you can't disproove that "a" Peter Pan can't possibly exist "somehow".
Get it ?
Once you have swallowed that pill you might (correctly) stand up and say "but the probability of it is nearly zero so i assume he doesnt exist until shown otherwise".
Once you did that you are right back on the track of reason and logic

The disproove of something is nearly impossible for most things IF these things (supposedly) encompass a realm beyond our own.
What you can and should do is to work with the probabilities and stick to the most probable solution.

That by the way is also a small kick into the butts of "agnostics" that say they can't decide. Of course they can and of course they actually do. Normally they just hide behind a "it cant be said for sure". Well nothing can.

 

[Falvlun]

When there becomes more than one explanation for anything, and one of those explanations relies on things imagined, then reason and logic would tend to rule out that explanation. What's faulty about comparing science with magic?

Oh, I see. You are using circular reasoning to support your "logical argument".

Premise 1: Either God or natural causes created the universe.
Premise 2: God does not exist.
Conclusion (a): Therefore, natural causes created the universe.
Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist.

Do you see the problem with a) using the conclusion you are trying to obtain as a premise, and b) how there is still no connection between Conclusion (a) and Conclusion (b)?

 

[richardlowellt]

Please stop looking like a fool.
It really is NOT complicated.
What you actually SHOULD speak about is the probability for God to exist. THEN your list is usefull and you might conclude that the probability of his existence is very low given the data you have.

You should not be so stupid as to assume that you have actually disprooven God.
Take the black swan example as a touchstone

Now since you so much like Peter Pan.
Even if we KNOW that Peter Pan was created by a human and is a story for kids, EVEN THEN you can't disproove that "a" Peter Pan can't possibly exist "somehow".
Get it ?
Once you have swallowed that pill you might (correctly) stand up and say "but the probability of it is nearly zero so i assume he doesnt exist until shown otherwise".
Once you did that you are right back on the track of reason and logic

The disproove of something is nearly impossible for most things IF these things (supposedly) encompass a realm beyond our own.
What you can and should do is to work with the probabilities and stick to the most probable solution.

That by the way is also a small kick into the butts of "agnostics" that say they can't decide. Of course they can and of course they actually do. Normally they just hide behind a "it cant be said for sure". Well nothing can.

Thanks for your polite response, and apparently it is that complicated. It is stupid for anyone to speak of the "probability" of god existing given the complete absents of evidence. I guess thats why a belief in such a thing is based solely on faith. I think maybe you might be the stupid one with your Peter pan fantasy's. You KNOW that Peter Pan was created by a human, you KNOW it is a story for children, yet you contend that a Peter Pan CAN possibly exist "somehow." Could I please have some of what your smoking!! You continue to look foolish yourself by saying it is nearly impossible to disprove things that encompass a realm beyond our own. And what realm might this be, and how do you know anything about it since it is BEYOND OUR REALM? Show me some evidence of this realm, pictures, first hand accounts, scientific research and documented articles, I'll be waiting.

It is foolish of you to say is that one should work with the "probabilities" and stick to the probable solution. There can be NO probabilities when dealing with things imagined, things without evidence, things from a realm beyond our own. Stupid of you to think that you or anyone else could even know such a realm exists let alone make any conclusions about it.

 

[richardlowellt]

Oh, I see. You are using circular reasoning to support your "logical argument".

Premise 1: Either God or natural causes created the universe.
Premise 2: God does not exist.
Conclusion (a): Therefore, natural causes created the universe.
Conclusion (b): Therefore, God does not exist.

Do you see the problem with a) using the conclusion you are trying to obtain as a premise, and b) how there is still no connection between Conclusion (a) and Conclusion (b)?

Apparently you are NOT paying attention, the natural cause of the universe is but a small piece of the argument, go to my post #146.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

It is stupid for anyone to speak of the "probability" of god existing given the complete absents of evidence.

Really ?
Did you know that people said the same about others that spoke about Black Swans not so long ago? Lack of evidence... for all of time untill australia was discovered.
Ups!

I guess thats why a belief in such a thing is based solely on faith.

OF COURSE. There is NO evidence for God, the chance that he exists is NEARLY 0 given the evidence we have and thus of course we do NOT believe in one or if we do its SOLELY based on faith.
Very good.
Sadly after that VERY intelligent sentence you again make the same mistake.
Just because you have NO evidence doesnt mean that something is the way you think. There MIGHT be evidence. That probability is perhaps very low but as long as you are not omnicient you cant possibly rule it out.

I think maybe you might be the stupid one with your Peter pan fantasy's. You KNOW that Peter Pan was created by a human, you KNOW it is a story for children, yet you contend that a Peter Pan CAN possibly exist "somehow."

As others have told you before. You didnt disproove it yet and it would amaze me if you could. All you can say (and i would agree with you then) is that the chance for a peter pan to exist is nearly 0 since...... (put your list here).
And of course practically nobody assumes a Peter Pan to exist.
Neither do I assume a God exists.
But its something else to claim anything was disprooven.

Could I please have some of what your smoking!!

I dont smoke.

You continue to look foolish yourself by saying it is nearly impossible to disprove things that encompass a realm beyond our own. And what realm might this be, and how do you know anything about it since it is BEYOND OUR REALM? Show me some evidence of this realm, pictures, first hand accounts, scientific research and documented articles, I'll be waiting.

Again that silly mistake.

IF something is prooven to be wrong then there is NO possibility that it is right.
If you want to say there is NO possibility then you must KNOW all possibilities that MIGHT exist. Even YOU should know that for example there is a legitimate possibility that outside of this universe there exists something. That there is an outside at all.
Even you should know that there could be multiple universes.
I do not NEED to show you that it really is so. It is sufficient that it is possible.
If it is possible then you cant disproove it. You can only state that the chances are infinitesimal low.

It is foolish of you to say is that one should work with the "probabilities" and stick to the probable solution.

Thats the way science works my friend. Perhaps you should pay some attention to the method when it comes to evaluating different theories or ideas.
Its the very same thing reasonable people do.

There can be NO probabilities when dealing with things imagined, things without evidence, things from a realm beyond our own. Stupid of you to think that you or anyone else could even know such a realm exists let alone make any conclusions about it.

I never said I or anybody else knew about such a realm. I stated that it COULD exist. And you cant disproove that.
Actually you cant even proove to me that you are not just an imagination by me which of course according to your logic would mean that there is no probability that you exist. Which begs the question what i actually do here.:areyoucra

Now in order to calm things down here....
I only ask you to remain OPEN in principle. What you do is to jump to a conclusion that is not given and rule something out which logically cant be ruled out so easily. Doing that is dogmatic to "faithfull". You shouldnt do that. Given your titulation as "antitheist" I almost speculate on your objectivity here.

The chance of God to exist is infinitesimal small (given certain definitions of God and the evidence we have). THAT should be sufficient. The burdon of proof lies on the other side and not on you or any other atheist.