Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[mickiel]

No, I question why anyone who claims not to be interested in convincing others of something would hang out in a debate forum. I have never feigned disinterest in convincing people of the positions I'm arguing for.

Well I am defintely different than you, I see no reason to convince anyone of my view of God.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is so absurd, I won't even honor it with response.

And yet go on...

Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of the theory of evolution, complettely recanted this theory as false and he admitted he was wrong about it.

Firstly, he was not the "co-founder" of the theory of evolution. His ideas simply influenced Darwin. It wasn't for another several decades that Darwin's ideas would become the theory of evolution.

Secondly, he never admitted his ideas were wrong. He simply asserted that his ideas "could not account for complexity" as he saw it, and believed the mechanism of natural selection worked through God.

You're just a bald-faced liar.

He said after careful study, there must have been a creative power to the Universe.

And...? He was always a religious man.

And Atheist cynicism cannot change this historical fact.

No, but your lies can distort it to mean something it didn't.

 

[Zadok]

[/font][/color]

...



Why are evolutionary processes inadequate to explain the existence of bats, as a side topic?

In order for bats to survive they must be evolve 4 separate traits at once 1. Fly 2. Create high pitched sonic noise 3. Ears capable of hearing high pitched sonic noise and 4. A brain that can translate sonic echoes into 3 dimensional space images

Mathematically it is impossible for a creature to evolve all 4 traits simultaneously.

I have no problem with accepting the premise that if there is a god it is more intelligent than me or any of us. However the problem arrives once we start assuming such a thing exists without justification. What reasons are there to suppose such a being exists?

The fact that intelligence exist in this place in the universe is justification that intelligence also exist elsewhere and that it has existed longer and therefore in a form greater than our intelligence. Since our intelligence is greater than the intelligence that existed here - say just a few milllion years ago.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

In order for bats to survive they must be evolve 4 separate traits at once 1. Fly 2. Create high pitched sonic noise 3. Ears capable of hearing high pitched sonic noise and 4. A brain that can translate sonic echoes into 3 dimensional space images

Mathematically it is impossible for a creature to evolve all 4 traits simultaneously.

This is just another ol' "irreducible complexity" argument. Fact is, many bats don't echolocate and still use eyesight. (For instance, Australian bats). So no, these 4 things didn't evolve "simultaneously." The brain translating information into 3d images is already present in most mammals -- even we have limited ability to echolocate in stereo sound. So no, that didn't "have to evolve simultaneously" either.

A brief googling shows that scientists have recently linked bats to their pre-flight ancestors, so there's another problem solved. It really doesn't take that much for echolocation to specialize from there. I don't really see the problem, seems like the details are all that need to be worked out.

The fact that intelligence exist in this place in the universe is justification that intelligence also exist elsewhere and that it has existed longer and therefore in a form greater than our intelligence. Since our intelligence is greater than the intelligence that existed here - say just a few milllion years ago.

Zadok

How does the existence of intelligence here "justify" intelligence elsewhere? That doesn't make sense. It may well justify that it's possible for there to be intelligence elsewhere (since we know it's happened at least once), but it doesn't justify that there exists intelligence elsewhere.

 

[JustWondering]

There is nothing impossible for this God, at least as far as I determine him to be, he could do anything, as evidenced by those incredible things already done. And there was " No stuff around", there was no physical universe, no physical anything, before God created it.

Peace.

Since we KNOW that the universe exists, isn't it more plausible that the physical universe has always existed in one form or another. Why do we need to complicate our very limited understanding of the universe by saying it was created by something. Even if there is some kind of God I don't think that knowing it, worshiping it, or following some ancient superstitious dogma is important. If it were this "God" would have made that clear which it hasn't. All the religions I have researched come off as being obvious human creations. If a "God" exists it likely has no interest in us let alone what we do or what we believe. Belief in the divine is driven by two main factors. Ego (of course the gods are concerned with human affairs because we are important) and fear of death (when I "die" I'll be whisked away to a magical paradise and live there blissfully forever). As far as I can tell Gods only exist within the realm of human imagination.

Also, your argument has the universe springing out of nothing as well. The only thing missing from the Atheists perception of things is the God part. You believe the universe is the way it is today because it was shaped by an invisible magical being. Atheists believe the universe is the way it is today by matter and energy interacting with each other by the natural laws of physics. Honestly, which belief system is more rational?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Some blind people have developed a primitive form of echo location, they have a little machine that transmits a sound and they can navigate from the echoes they are hearing.

Also if you watch the metallica documentary called"some kind of monster" you'll see a sound engineer doing identifying which part of a room where there was some interference.

-Q

 

[Peacewise]

Nothing mathematically impossible about evolving 4 traits anyways.

 

[Zadok]

[/font][/color]

This is just another ol' "irreducible complexity" argument. Fact is, many bats don't echolocate and still use eyesight. (For instance, Australian bats). So no, these 4 things didn't evolve "simultaneously." The brain translating information into 3d images is already present in most mammals -- even we have limited ability to echolocate in stereo sound. So no, that didn't "have to evolve simultaneously" either.

A brief googling shows that scientists have recently linked bats to their pre-flight ancestors, so there's another problem solved. It really doesn't take that much for echolocation to specialize from there. I don't really see the problem, seems like the details are all that need to be worked out.



How does the existence of intelligence here "justify" intelligence elsewhere? That doesn't make sense. It may well justify that it's possible for there to be intelligence elsewhere (since we know it's happened at least once), but it doesn't justify that there exists intelligence elsewhere.

I am not aware the bat problem is solved. I stated that it is mathematically impossible to evolve all 4 traits at once. There is no proof that any pre bat creature possessed some but not all 4 traits. The bats you speak of evolved later and are not an evolutionary bridge or missing link. The pre-bat creatures you speak of did not possess any of the 4 traits.

As to your use of the word “justify”. I see no definition that in order to “justify” something there must be proof. Something can be justified by rhetorical logic alone. I justify that there is greater intelligence than man: First by the fact that intelligence is known to exist by a process of evolution. Second that evolution is not an isolated process and that in scientific terms the universe is isotropic. Therefore, by the logic of an isotropic universe that by definition is evolving; evolving intelligence must exist throughout the entire universe. If you have proof that the universe is not isotropic – I will entertain you notions but until then – when something lacks proof can we say it is not rational? I think that is your opinion?

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

Nothing mathematically impossible about evolving 4 traits anyways.

Tell me the mathematical possibility of evolving one of the traits at any particular time then let’s go to the possibility of 2 traits at precisely the same time. I will give you a hint of how to approach this – Try using fractals. By time you get to 4 then let's consider the time available for all this to happen.

I am not saying bats did not evolve – only that it is not possible with our current understanding of evolution. If you can account for what is missing – I would so much like to see your proof.

I am talking to people that require proof before they believe something – am I not? Or do we just require proof for things we do not “want” to believe. And I think that is why some on this forum delight in criticizing others – because they believe things without proof.

For the record I am not of that thinking. I prove what I can and rely on rhetorical logic when I must.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

As to your use of the word “justify”. I see no definition that in order to “justify” something there must be proof. Something can be justified by rhetorical logic alone. I justify that there is greater intelligence than man: First by the fact that intelligence is known to exist by a process of evolution. Second that evolution is not an isolated process and that in scientific terms the universe is isotropic. Therefore, by the logic of an isotropic universe that by definition is evolving; evolving intelligence must exist throughout the entire universe. If you have proof that the universe is not isotropic – I will entertain you notions but until then – when something lacks proof can we say it is not rational? I think that is your opinion?

Zadok

Justification can indeed be metaphysical, so let's examine your claim:

1) Intelligence exists in a part of the universe.
2) The universe is isotropic.
3) In isotropic systems, characteristics found at one part are found throughout.

Therefore, intelligence is should be found all over the universe.

Here I'll have to question premises 2 and 3.

The universe is indeed isotropic, but not perfectly. Also if an event is very improbable, it may not occur more than once even in an isotropic system. Consider an isotropic system like a checkerboard where on each square there sits a deck of cards -- it's completely possible that only one square would draw a royal flush in the first 5 cards even if there are many such squares in the system.

Ultimately though I do agree that it's likely there is other life in the universe because the odds support it. I wouldn't go that extra step, as you are, and saying that it must exist and must be intelligent.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

False dilemma much?

"1. A Creator created everything;..." ---- LPH
"This is not a scientifically coherent sentence."
Therefore, by focusing on the structure of my sentence; are you admitting that a Creator could have created everything?

"And it [is] highly improbable that these physically objects have wandered aimlessly in outer space only to later collide with each other several trillions of trillions times until they started a pattern that eventually eons later evolved into our universe filled with conscious living beings." ---- LPH "You get a cookie for using highly improbable instead of impossible. But that's it.
That said. It's also highly improbably that you will wear a specific set of clothing, in a specific day, and meet specific people who are your friends at a certain place and time. Perhaps eat a certain meal and use very specific words in that particular conversation. Highly improbably does not translate into..it must be supernatural!"

But my suggestion begs the question of: Where did these physical objects come from? And what cause them to start moving in the first place?

"And even more unbelievable is for the intangible ordered conscious to have evolved from nothing or uncreated physical objects floating in outer space while waiting for some randomly energy or physical force to make them collide trillions upon trillions of times (if that much) enough into each other until they produce an ordered conscious. " ---- LPH

"This is word soup."
In other words, you do not know where conscious comes from. Well, at least you're honest. I for one believes that God created conscious. Since he was in the beginning.

"If scientists were to be true scientists, their study forces them to consider ALL possibilities, including the existence of a creator. To do otherwise, would cause them to make fallacious statements that there is no possibility of being a creator; even though they have not searched the entire universe. " ---- LPH

"Being open minded makes your brain fall out. That said. It's more interesting to me that the universe keeps showing that it doesn't require a Creator. Not to mention your argument is classic cosmological argument. That's been shown to be bad logic for a long time now."

However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

 

[DeitySlayer]

My belief in God is growing, thats another proof of him to me. I know myself, my intrest only grows in things that I believe in. If I hold no intrest in a woman, I don't see her anymore, so it is with knowledge. Intrest in Knowledge then is another proof of God. I like the things it does to my Consciousness, how it opens it beyond the simple cares of this world.

Peace.

Here are your premises:

1) My interest only grows in things I believe in
2) I am interested in God

Conclusion:

3) Therefore I believe in God

Note the phrase 'I BELIEVE'. Just because YOU believe, that does not make it an absolute TRUTH. It makes it a personal, opinionated belief.

 

[DeitySlayer]

However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

But this just throws up another problem.

If you're arguing that the Universe is too complex to have come about naturalistically and therefore needed a creator, then how can you in the same breath say that this hugely MORE complex creator could have just been undesigned?

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

So OTHER forumites I have a question. Is manipulating quotes considered a violation of any rules because well I don't appreciate you doing that LovePeaceHappiness. Either way I'm telling you right now. Do NOT do it again ok.

Now to address stuff.

1. Please look up what the false dilemma is please. Then you will no why I posted it.
2. Try being more specific. Simply saying..there are physical objects where do they come from, why do they move is not really a question.
3."Word soup" means when someone jumbles together an incoherent sentence ie it's just bunch of words together not a coherent idea. It's also btw a straw man.
4. Not how the scientific method works. If you want science to take your assertions seriously. Then present a serious hypothesis first then test it. Religion does not do this. More than likely it can't.

I am unsympathetic to religions inability to prove itself or that science has risen to be the better, more accurate method to observe and understand the universe.

It's like complaining that phrenology was supplanted by neurology or alchemy by chemistry.

 

[mickiel]

Here are your premises:

1) My interest only grows in things I believe in
2) I am interested in God

Conclusion:

3) Therefore I believe in God

Note the phrase 'I BELIEVE'. Just because YOU believe, that does not make it an absolute TRUTH. It makes it a personal, opinionated belief.

I can agree its personal opinionated belief, I agree. I believe its absolute truth also.

Peace.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I can agree its personal opinionated belief, I agree. I believe its absolute truth also.

Peace.

'You believe' it is absolute truth is different from 'it is' absolute truth.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

you're right, a scientific approach to the universe does require us not to rule out possibilities simply because we dont like them. and then test them against the data.
like the possibility being discussed in another thread (not seriously, of course) that the universe is merely a program running it's course. there's the possibility that the universe was sneezed into existence, and the coming apocalypse will be the Great White Handkerchief. the whole universe could be a dream in one persons head and we all, including RF could be figments of one persons imagination. or there could be an invisible person in the sky who's not altogether good at creating things, but just loves doing it.

they all make just about as much sense. which is why it's fortunate that we've come up with a more naturalistic method for explaining the universe and our speculation doesn't have to wander so much these days.

 

[mickiel]

'You believe' it is absolute truth is different from 'it is' absolute truth.

Well its different, yes DS, but I have to judge these things by my own senses and understanding. I don't understand how complex somethings can be birthed from absolute nothings. I do partly understand how a Creator can create, so I park my belief in that.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well its different, yes DS, but I have to judge these things by my own senses and understanding. I don't understand how complex somethings can be birthed from absolute nothings. I do partly understand how a Creator can create, so I park my belief in that.

You have previously stated that the existence of a creator and the notion that a creator exist are "facts" that were "academic".

Are you now willing to retract those statements and admit it is just a belief?

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Well its different, yes DS, but I have to judge these things by my own senses and understanding. I don't understand how complex somethings can be birthed from absolute nothings. I do partly understand how a Creator can create, so I park my belief in that.

Peace.

Bolded for emphasis. That is your problem there. The assumption that such it what science claims.