God isn't real. Prove me wrong.

[leroy]

I see no evidence or reasoning to believe this to be so.

A brain capable of wondering about philosophical questions does not make an organism less likely to die nor more efficient in finding a mate to reproduce with.

 

[Segev Moran]

Granted evolution is true, he share a common ancestor with chimps…. I have no problem with that.

Me neither. no one should.

The point is that evolution (mutations + natural selection) by itself would have not crated a brain that wonders about philosophical questions, because these brains are unnecessary complex, consume too much energy and have no selective advantage. ¿why did natural selection selected brains with the ability to ask philosophical questions if this ability has no selective advantage?

Obviously there was a great advantage. Hence humans rule earth.

As a theist evolutionist I can always say that God guided the process in such way that these types of brains would eventually evolve.

Indeed you can.

I was just conceding your point, the fact that we can even wonder about the existence of God is evidence for the existence of God.

I agree.
I have to explain though when i say proof of god, i didn't mean that in the form of a proof of a superpower deity existence, rather as you stated, a guiding force.

 

[Segev Moran]

We don't actually know that this is so,

You know for sure as we invented the term evolution as a name for the process that nature acts by.

since we do not understand the forces that have generated this specific existential universe, as opposed to any other. And even more than that, we don't know what determined these forces and set them forth, or why (if there is a 'why').

Agree. This still doesn't mean evolution has a will.
It will be the same as saying Gravity wants to pull you down to earth. It is not so. Gravity is the name we give to the force that pulls you down.
This force's nature might be something that was designed to do what it does, yet gravity per say is the name of that force. not a representation of a gravity entity.

Yes, this is so because science cannot explore such a metaphysical question. That's why we humans engage in art, and religion, and philosophy, and so on.

Agreed.
Yet recently i have to say i see science proving many of the statements found in the bible.

 

[PureX]

A brain capable of wondering about philosophical questions does not make an organism less likely to die nor more efficient in finding a mate to reproduce with.

A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Proving that the natural world had a cause, wound automatically prove that the cause is not natural (supernatural)

The cause of mater by definition has to be inmaterial

The cause of time, by definition has to be timeless

The cause of the first computer that has ever existed by definition has to be something that is not a computer

The cause of the firs “blue thing” that has ever existed, by definition has to be “not blue”

In the same way the cause of the first natural thing that has ever existed by definition would have to be something “not natural”

My only burden is to show that the natural world had a cause,

You are assuming that nature has not always existed in one form or another, an assumption that you cannot support with verifiable evidence.

 

[karbaa]

A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.

alright - alright ( O most intelligent person ) just atleast tell us that if you place bottle of oxygen near bottle of hydrogen. than will they combine without your help ?

what is your answer ?

 

[QuestioningMind]

What you demand as verification precludes the possibility of it occurring. This is both illogical and intellectually disingenuous.

Then I guess 'it' will never occur, because verification IS demanded.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Please make an effort and try to understand what I am saying, because I am not making any controversial claim at this point.

The cause of the first "natural thing" that has ever existed, by definition has to be "something not natural" (or supersnatural) this is necessarily true.

If you claim that the first natural thing came from something natural the it would be the first natural thing

There are only 2 options
Ether nature had a supernatural cause or nature is causeless

In order for your assertion to have any validity whatsoever you must first demonstrate that nature has not always existed. You have provided zero verifiable evidence for the assertion that nature required a cause, thus your entire claim can be dismissed as unfounded.

 

[karbaa]

now ( all brainwashed idiots ) atleast tell us that if we place bottle of oxygen near bottle of hydrogen. than will they combine without your help ?

come on ( most respected sirs ) tell us the damn answer. ( if you are son of `1 man ) and that is another thing is none is `1 mans son/duaghter in western countires.

 

[leroy]

In order for your assertion to have any validity whatsoever you must first demonstrate that nature has not always existed. You have provided zero verifiable evidence for the assertion that nature required a cause, thus your entire claim can be dismissed as unfounded.

Granted, at this point I haven't done anything to show that nature has a begining and a cause.

I am just stablishing the fact that if nature had a cause this would imply that something supernatural excists

The question on whether if nature had a begining and a cause or not, is a scientific question, that can be addressed on scientific grounds.

The implication is that at least in principle it is possible to show that there is something supernatural

So if I provide good arguments for the idea that the natural world had a begining would you granted that there are good reasons to conclude that there is something supersnatural?

 

[leroy]

A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.

You don't need to contemplate about suicide in order to have a selective benefit.

All you need is an instinct.

Our brain is unecesairly too complex.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Granted, at this point I haven't done anything to show that nature has a begining and a cause.

I am just stablishing the fact that if nature had a cause this would imply that something supernatural excists

The question on whether if nature had a begining and a cause or not, is a scientific question, that can be addressed on scientific grounds.

The implication is that at least in principle it is possible to show that there is something supernatural

So if I provide good arguments for the idea that the natural world had a begining would you granted that there are good reasons to conclude that there is something supersnatural?

I'd love to hear your 'good' arguments that support the notion that the natural world had a beginning. I'm not really sure why you didn't start off with such arguments, because until you can verify that nature had a beginning, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on.

 

[leroy]

I'd love to hear your 'good' arguments that support the notion that the natural world had a beginning. I'm not really sure why you didn't start off with such arguments, because until you can verify that nature had a beginning, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on.

Because I was answering to the first post from this thread thatthat st that even in principle it would be imposible to show that God excists.

Some good reasons to think that the natural world had a begining:

1 the big bang: in the 20s it was a controversial theory but today nearly all scientists accept this theory . The standard model states that everything including space and time begin to excist nearly 14b years ago

2 bgv theorem: if you want to argue that there was something before the big bang the bgv theorem shows that nearly all aletranive models even if true, do not avoid the necessity of a begining

3 the second law of thermodynamics: according to this law entropy increases as time passes, given the don't have an entropy of 100%

4 the idea of an actual infinite is absurd: if the universe has always existed, that would imply than an actual infinite number of events has occurred, but as David Hilbert has shown an actual infinite of something can't excist

If you want to argue that the universe is eternal you would have to:

1 show that there was something before the big bang

2 provide a model that would avoid the bgv theorem

3 explain how your model accounts for the high entropy in the universe

4 show that the idea of an actual infinite is at least possible

5 show that your model is empirically better than current models


So do you have any good arguments that show that the universe (the natural world) is eternal ?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because I was answering to the first post from this thread thatthat st that even in principle it would be imposible to show that God excists.

Some good reasons to think that the natural world had a begining:

1 the big bang: in the 20s it was a controversial theory but today nearly all scientists accept this theory . The standard model states that everything including space and time begin to excist nearly 14b years ago

2 bgv theorem: if you want to argue that there was something before the big bang the bgv theorem shows that nearly all aletranive models even if true, do not avoid the necessity of a begining

3 the second law of thermodynamics: according to this law entropy increases as time passes, given the don't have an entropy of 100%

4 the idea of an actual infinite is absurd: if the universe has always existed, that would imply than an actual infinite number of events has occurred, but as David Hilbert has shown an actual infinite of something can't excist

If you want to argue that the universe is eternal you would have to:

1 show that there was something before the big bang

2 provide a model that would avoid the bgv theorem

3 explain how your model accounts for the high entropy in the universe

4 show that the idea of an actual infinite is at least possible

5 show that your model is empirically better than current models


So do you have any good arguments that show that the universe (the natural world) is eternal ?

The BBT states that everything started to exist in it CURRENT FORM about 14 billion years ago. Prior to that the hypothesis states that everything existed as a physical singularity. Once the BB occurred the physical laws as we CURRENTLY experience them came into existence. PRIOR to that none of the current laws of physics existed.

 

[leroy]

The BBT states that everything started to exist in it CURRENT FORM about 14 billion years ago. Prior to that the hypothesis states that everything existed as a physical singularity. Once the BB occurred the physical laws as we CURRENTLY experience them came into existence. PRIOR to that none of the current laws of physics existed.

The singularity could have not last from eternity past because of cuantum collapse. (As this article explains)

[1204.4658] Did the universe have a beginning?

Not to mention that you are arbitrary assuming that there was something before the big bang and you are arbitrary assuming that the second law of thermodynamics didn't applied before the big bang

Do you have any positive arguments that show that the universe is eternal ?

 

[PureX]

I'd love to hear your 'good' arguments that support the notion that the natural world had a beginning. I'm not really sure why you didn't start off with such arguments, because until you can verify that nature had a beginning, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on.

He doesn't have to verify the proposition to propose it, nor does it have to be "verified" (via your standards) for it to be a viable proposition. No one here has the ability to determine the truth of the origin existence. And presuming unto yourself that right is both dishonest and arrogant.

 

[Kinan]

Prove me that there is not a 10'5" man standing behind you with a chainsaw in his hand

 

[QuestioningMind]

He doesn't have to verify the proposition to propose it, nor does it have to be "verified" (via your standards) for it to be a viable proposition. No one here has the ability to determine the truth of the origin existence. And presuming unto yourself that right is both dishonest and arrogant.

Of course he doesn't HAVE to verify anything in order to propose it, but it certainly helps if he wants people to agree with him. And he does have to verify his proposition if he wants ME to accept it. And how exactly am I being any more dishonest and arrogant to presume that I'm right than he is in claiming that he's right?

 

[PureX]

Of course he doesn't HAVE to verify anything in order to propose it, but it certainly helps if he wants people to agree with him. And he does have to verify his proposition if he wants ME to accept it. And how exactly am I being any more dishonest and arrogant to presume that I'm right than he is in claiming that he's right?

So you figure that the foolishness of others justifies your own?

 

[Socratic Berean]

Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.

So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.

Not a troll either (or an elf, gnome or other fairy tale creature). God is very real. Prove me wrong. (I’m sure many will reply.)