Establishing the Creator (Atheist runs away when Muslim asks probing questions)

[9Westy9]

Is that all you require of a God, really?

pretty much

 

[Photonic]

Maybe he rattles off a list of things you've never told anyone about yourself, and tells you to get a part time job, which sets off a chain of event ending in the police nabbing a serial killer? (This was how Joan was convinced in the pilot of Joan Of Arcadia.)

Anyway, wouldn't something along those lines, demonstrating benevolence and foresight at least bordering on omniscience, be more persuasive than appeals to Clarke's Law?

At any rate, hypotheticals are fun, but I think the real world is pretty conclusive proof that God really doesn't care how or if you pray.

Well, I could argue that it might all be a hallucination for all I know. Who's to say.

Not to mention, that could also be linked to Clarke's Law anyways. So who knows.

 

[Storm]

pretty much

OK. In certain respects, lions are vastly superior to you. Nuclear warheads are more than capable of wiping us out. Are these Gods? Why or why not?

Well, I could argue that it might all be a hallucination for all I know. Who's to say.

Not to mention, that could also be linked to Clarke's Law anyways. So who knows.

Sure you could, though it's hard to say that you hallucinated something reported in the local paper.

Also, much as I love the oft-mentioned Law, I think it's a rather feeble defense against that particular scenario.

All the same, see the last line in the post you quoted, requests the devout-if-bizarre believer.

 

[9Westy9]

OK. In certain respects, lions are vastly superior to you. Nuclear warheads are more than capable of wiping us out. Are these Gods? Why or why not?

They're only superior in certain aspects rather than all aspects. Also lions and warheads aren't omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent

 

[Photonic]

OK. In certain respects, lions are vastly superior to you. Nuclear warheads are more than capable of wiping us out. Are these Gods? Why or why not?


Sure you could, though it's hard to say that you hallucinated something reported in the local paper.

Also, much as I love the oft-mentioned Law, I think it's a rather feeble defense against that particular scenario.

All the same, see the last line in the post you quoted, requests the devout-if-bizarre believer.

While it would be very strange to have some advanced alien take some convoluted path to show you he is God, it is already possible to read the human brain in some ways. So Clarke's Law does hold some sway in the scenario. It would be...unusual though.

 

[Storm]

They're only superior in certain aspects rather than all aspects. Also lions and warheads aren't omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent

See? "Superior to me" is not your only standard for Godhood.

While it would be very strange to have some advanced alien take some convoluted path to show you he is God, it is already possible to read the human brain in some ways. So Clarke's Law does hold some sway in the scenario. It would be...unusual though.

Yeah, pretty much. "Feeble" wasn't meant to mean "total fail."

 

[9Westy9]

See? "Superior to me" is not your only standard for Godhood.

Seems so

 

[DunyaDawah]

Now we're talking, or at least, you stopped trolling and started actually debating.

Now, explain how the known universe and fundamental particles prove a creator, specifically a conscious creator, using scientifically verified evidence, experiments, whatever.

Hi, despite your consistant fear of establishing mutual criteria and your lack of addressing questions in the manner you would like questions to be addressed, I will state that logically speaking everything known to the intelligent mind had a purpose. If we look at the building blocks of the universe we will find that the evidence is pointing to the condition currently known about the universe and the fact that all we do know clearly establishes that had it not been for what has come before we would not have what we know now. Or simply put, all the evidence about the universe that we currently possess points towards a purpose.
Please logically rebut in your response. We will then there after move on to the very same evidence in depth.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hi, despite your consistant fear of establishing mutual criteria and your lack of addressing questions in the manner you would like questions to be addressed, I will state that logically speaking everything known to the intelligent mind had a purpose. If we look at the building blocks of the universe we will find that the evidence is pointing to the condition currently known about the universe and the fact that all we do know clearly establishes that had it not been for what has come before we would not have what we know now. Or simply put, all the evidence about the universe that we currently possess points towards a purpose.
Please logically rebut in your response. We will then there after move on to the very same evidence in depth.

You're using the teleological argument? Okay. Are you willing to state that God wanted the Holocaust? Are you also willing to state God wants people to die of cancer and incurable congenital diseases? Does God desire that we have mentally handicapped people?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of vestigial limbs and organs? Obviously they were intended to exist, since they exist. The appendix? Did God really desire that men have nipples, and if so, why?

 

[YmirGF]

Greetings DunyaDawah! Forgive my intrusion into your thread, but I was amused by your use of "logic" here.

I will state that logically speaking everything known to the intelligent mind had a purpose.

That is about as sweeping a generality as one could muster. Do you have any proof to support this amusing notion or are you just projecting your own confirmation bias?

If we look at the building blocks of the universe we will find that the evidence is pointing to the condition currently known about the universe and the fact that all we do know clearly establishes that had it not been for what has come before we would not have what we know now.

Obviously, but how does that superficial observation support your supposition of inherent purpose? I see no connection, per se.

Or simply put, all the evidence about the universe that we currently possess points towards a purpose.

One wonders how one would arrive at such a certainty. My guess is that this is merely projection of deeply held beliefs superimposed on natural order and thus, giving the illusion of purpose that exists in your mind but is not, in fact, supported by reality.

Please logically rebut in your response.

'Tis an odd way to make ones case, to be sure. I tell you the sky is purple and then demand you rebut my conjecture. Fascinating, though, if the truth be told, amateurish.

We will then there after move on to the very same evidence in depth.

One holds ones breath in rapt excitation.

 

[Storm]

One holds ones breath in rapt excitation.

I wouldn't do that, were I you. He went 'to bed' a few days ago.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I wouldn't do that, were I you. He went 'to bed' a few days ago.

Despite being online during that lapse in time.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

While it would be very strange to have some advanced alien take some convoluted path to show you he is God, ....

If he did so, he would probably become God. I mean, many of us would accept that "God" is no longer "That Guy in the Bible" but rather "an advanced space alien who defines himself as God and wishes to be called by that name."

And those folks would accept that God exists, I guess.

 

[DunyaDawah]

You're using the teleological argument? Okay. Are you willing to state that God wanted the Holocaust? Are you also willing to state God wants people to die of cancer and incurable congenital diseases? Does God desire that we have mentally handicapped people?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of vestigial limbs and organs? Obviously they were intended to exist, since they exist. The appendix? Did God really desire that men have nipples, and if so, why?

Thank you for your reply. Your response has gone into 'excited mode' respectfully. I stated that the building blocks of the universe ... and I restricted my post to the universe. Can we logically address the building blocks of the universe then move on to the other issues you have raised which are evidentially quite superficial. Please address my previous post with an evidential response and please restrict the 'excite mode' (only a request).

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Thank you for your reply. Your response has gone into 'excited mode' respectfully. I stated that the building blocks of the universe ... and I restricted my post to the universe. Can we logically address the building blocks of the universe then move on to the other issues you have raised which are evidentially quite superficial. Please address my previous post with an evidential response and please restrict the 'excite mode' (only a request).

I wasn't excited, just jumping the gun a little, but sure let's go down to the basics. Present evidence that there is intent behind quantum indeterminacy. Present evidence that there the spin of quantum particles isn't random.

If you can do that, then we can move up to higher configurations of matter if need be.

 

[Storm]

Thank you for your reply. Your response has gone into 'excited mode' respectfully. I stated that the building blocks of the universe ... and I restricted my post to the universe. Can we logically address the building blocks of the universe then move on to the other issues you have raised which are evidentially quite superficial. Please address my previous post with an evidential response and please restrict the 'excite mode' (only a request).

Oh, you're back.

Sleep well?

 

[DunyaDawah]

Greetings DunyaDawah! Forgive my intrusion into your thread, but I was amused by your use of "logic" here.
That is about as sweeping a generality as one could muster. Do you have any proof to support this amusing notion or are you just projecting your own confirmation bias?

Obviously, but how does that superficial observation support your supposition of inherent purpose? I see no connection, per se.

One wonders how one would arrive at such a certainty. My guess is that this is merely projection of deeply held beliefs superimposed on natural order and thus, giving the illusion of purpose that exists in your mind but is not, in fact, supported by reality.

'Tis an odd way to make ones case, to be sure. I tell you the sky is purple and then demand you rebut my conjecture. Fascinating, though, if the truth be told, amateurish.

One holds ones breath in rapt excitation.

Hi. I would rather we deal with the evidence in the context of the current thread. The evidence that I have raised will answer your points. I would also suggest that if you consider my observations to be merely superficial then our discussions concerning the evidence will bring that out.
Thirdly, your opinion regarding certainty would be addressed again with the evidential element and finally, there is a big difference between conjecture and the assessment of evidence. Dealing with conjecture only may lead to silly conclusions and is a very infantile way of dealing with evidential matters respectfully. I would adjure you to consider the evidence as it is being raised. I do not mind your opinions.

 

[DunyaDawah]

I wasn't excited, just jumping the gun a little, but sure let's go down to the basics. Present evidence that there is intent behind quantum indeterminacy. Present evidence that there the spin of quantum particles isn't random.

If you can do that, then we can move up to higher configurations of matter if need be.

I did state that we address the issues of evidence we are sure of and not what is currently being theorized. I did state that the response was on the basis of a logical approach. I do however note that you are not responding to my request for answers and you keep asking (which I do not mind). Please do give answers and then make requests.

 

[McBell]

Hi. I would rather we deal with the evidence in the context of the current thread. The evidence that I have raised will answer your points. I would also suggest that if you consider my observations to be merely superficial then our discussions concerning the evidence will bring that out.
Thirdly, your opinion regarding certainty would be addressed again with the evidential element and finally, there is a big difference between conjecture and the assessment of evidence. Dealing with conjecture only may lead to silly conclusions and is a very infantile way of dealing with evidential matters respectfully. I would adjure you to consider the evidence as it is being raised. I do not mind your opinions.

The problem here is that you have not presented evidence, you have merely made empty claims.

 

[Storm]

Hi. I would rather we deal with the evidence in the context of the current thread. The evidence that I have raised will answer your points. I would also suggest that if you consider my observations to be merely superficial then our discussions concerning the evidence will bring that out.

You raised evidence? Sorry, I must have missed that. Could you kindly point me to the relevant post?