Ask an atheist

[Falconv1.0]

^Probably not.

Lol Eyada and his "science". We all believe what we want, no one can convince anyone unless they were diagnosed w/ cancer but lived. Stuff like that is God's work, but this is jibberish to every1 else here.

Do not **** on science to tell people that good things happening is the work of your God, that's trollbait.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Do not **** on science to tell people that good things happening is the work of your God, that's trollbait.

What I want to know is...why did he put the cancer there in the first place...? I mentioned earlier that if God actually DOES exist...he is awful at his work. I am amazed that the human body works as well it does, what with the fragility and ridiculous amount of flaws/problems that can occur. Jesus, if you can heal the blind, godammit, why not just heal blindness

edit: and what's the **** appendix for anyway, just so a miniature bomb can go off INSIDE US randomly? couldn't you have just put a third arm instead?

 

[Ganonsburg]

I am going to present a metaphysical thought experiment that shows why it is fallacious and unjustifiable to claim that God created the Universe. This is in response to the discussion in this thread about believing in God because the Universe needs a cause.

Imagine the Universe as a closed system; a single distinct object. (I recommend that you visualize it as a closed sphere as that will be helpful for this exercise, although the Universe is almost certainly not actually spherical based on our current evidence.) Inside the Universe, all of the scientific laws we are aware of hold sway. Inside this "Universe", all things exist in Space and Time. Since an infinite regress of Time is impossible given our current observable reality, this so-called "Universe" necessarily had a beginning.

So, we've established the existence of a closed system that had a beginning. This object, "the Universe", is distinct from whatever may surround it (if anything). Again, visualizing the Universe as a closed sphere may be helpful here. Inside the sphere, scientific laws hold true. Inside the sphere, Space and Time exist.

Now, the crucial point most people refuse to see:

We know nothing about what is outside this sphere.

It's easy to read over that sentence without really taking it in, so I'll repeat it:

We know nothing about what is outside this sphere.

We have never observed anything outside of it. We have no mathematical models that predict what it might be like outside the sphere. All we have ever known is what it is like inside the sphere; there is no logical basis for assuming, without evidence, that the rules that hold sway inside the sphere also apply outside of it.

It is tempting to imagine this "outside the sphere-ness" as being empty space, but that is fallacious. "Space" is something that exists inside the sphere. Saying that there is "empty space" surrounding the sphere is completely unjustifiable; we don't know that "space" exists out there.

What would the absence of Space be like? I have no idea, and neither do you. No human can even begin to imagine that.

Similarly, it is tempting to imagine the "outside the sphere-ness" as being eternal, but that is also fallacious. "Time" exists inside the sphere; we have no idea whether or not it exists outside as well --and we especially have no reason to believe that an infinite amount of Time (which is what "eternal" implies) exists out there. Perhaps it is "Timeless" then; perhaps Time doesn't even apply out there.

What would that be like? Again, I have absolutely no idea, and neither does anyone else.

It is also tempting to imagine that the rules of Cause and Effect hold sway outside the sphere, but that is fallacious. Cause-Effect is a law that holds true inside the sphere; we have no logical basis for assuming that it also holds outside of the sphere.

What would it be like if the Cause-Effect relationship did not hold? I have no idea, and cannot even begin to imagine what that would mean. No one can.

Continuing ad nauseum, it becomes clear that we cannot justifiably claim to know anything about what it might be like "outside" the sphere.

So:

We have firmly established that we do not actually know anything about what is outside the Universe.

We have established that we cannot even imagine what it is like out there.

Thus, I submit the following:

It is completely nonsensical and fallacious to discuss anything that supposedly lies outside of the Universe. In other words, it is completely nonsensical and fallacious to discuss any supposed "beginning" of the Universe that is external to the Universe, because we, as humans, lack the understanding necessary to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it. This includes the idea of "God" as some sort of external creator of the Universe.

An example to illustrate my point:

It is easy to type the following:

"The Universe had a beginning. However, anything that has a beginning has a cause. The Universe didn't cause itself, so there must be something outside of the Universe, not subject to any laws of the Universe, that created the Universe. God is this cause."

That was easy. But it is also completely meaningless gibberish. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean it as a simple statement of fact. Because that statement is completely meaningless if you actually explore its implications.

"Anything that has a beginning has a cause" is a law that holds true inside the Universe, but the next part of the claim goes on to invoke a mystical entity that exists outside the laws of the Universe. i.e., The mystical entity exists in a place where the statement "Anything that has a beginning has a cause" is not necessarily true. In fact, the mystical entity is specifically cited as violating the laws of the Universe; thus, the mystical entity invalidates the claim "Anything that has a beginning has a cause". With that statement invalidated, the Universe finds itself no longer in need of a cause, thus eliminating the need for the mystical entity in the first place.

Thus, by invoking this mysterious external entity, the statement invalidates itself and the entire thing devolves into meaninglessness.

This shouldn't really be surprising given that humans are completely devoid of any meaningful understanding of what it would be like for something to be "outside the laws of the Universe". Thus, any statement that invokes an entity that is "outside the laws of the Universe" will necessarily break down into meaninglessness, because our very understanding of "outside the laws of the Universe" consists entirely of meaningless gibberish.

Hopefully this makes it clear why arguments of the form:

1.) Establish that the Universe had a beginning.
2.) Establish that the Universe had a cause.
3.) Establish that the Universe didn't cause itself.
4.) ???????????
5.) God is the cause!

are fallacious. This includes things like the Cosmological argument and numerous other classical arguments for the existence of God.

The thing is, that thing that's outside the universe that caused the universe to exist has a name....which is God. Maybe it's not a being, or an object, or whatever, but the name we as humans have given it is God. So, by DEFINITION, God is indeed the cause.

Which is why I said which god(s) is/are the cause is the real problem.

What I want to know is...why did he put the cancer there in the first place...? I mentioned earlier that if God actually DOES exist...he is awful at his work. I am amazed that the human body works as well it does, what with the fragility and ridiculous amount of flaws/problems that can occur. Jesus, if you can heal the blind, godammit, why not just heal blindness

edit: and what's the **** appendix for anyway, just so a miniature bomb can go off INSIDE US randomly? couldn't you have just put a third arm instead?

According to the Bible (I'm assuming you're specifically addressing YHWH, so I'm going to talk as such), we caused this to happen for ourselves. We chose to sin, and we must pay the price. But just as it took one man's sin to bring death for the entire world, it took one man's perfect sacrifice to bring salvation for the entire world. So yes, it's our fault, but we have a choice. Of course, we're still sinful in nature, but those who accept the gift of life have had their sins forgiven. But because we have sinned, we will still suffer consequences. That's why He allows stuff to happen to us.

That, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. You wouldn't believe God existed even if he miraculously healed everyone right now.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

The thing is, that thing that's outside the universe that caused the universe to exist has a name....which is God. Maybe it's not a being, or an object, or whatever, but the name we as humans have given it is God. So, by DEFINITION, God is indeed the cause.

Which is why I said which god(s) is/are the cause is the real problem.



According to the Bible (I'm assuming you're specifically addressing YHWH, so I'm going to talk as such), we caused this to happen for ourselves. We chose to sin, and we must pay the price. But just as it took one man's sin to bring death for the entire world, it took one man's perfect sacrifice to bring salvation for the entire world. So yes, it's our fault, but we have a choice. Of course, we're still sinful in nature, but those who accept the gift of life have had their sins forgiven. But because we have sinned, we will still suffer consequences. That's why He allows stuff to happen to us.

That, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. You wouldn't believe God existed even if he miraculously healed everyone right now.

^This.

tbh science can go screw itself cause people are soo off to have their decisions and beliefs revolve around it. "Miracles are an illusion because science said so." LOL End of Story.

 

[Reaver197]

I find it so very ironic to see someone posting a message on an internet forum, from a computer, saying that science can go screw itself.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

I find it so very ironic to see someone posting a message on an internet forum, from a computer, saying that science can go screw itself.

^I agree wholeheartedly.

@Eyada: As for what is outside this sphere, can only be speculated, since we lack knowledge of what is actually outside of the universe. We know it has an edge, yet we have nothing that can travel fast enough that could possibly tell us what is out there.

Therefore, unless the theoretical design of a certain theoretical physicist holds its own and actually somehow works. We will never have anything capable of such a thing, we will never have anything capable of reaching the edge of the universe, leaving it shrouded in mystery and speculation for the duration of our existence here in the universe.


To say that we "cannot imagine" what is outside of the Universe is not necessarily true. We are thinking animals capable of logic, and while we do not know whether the laws of the Universe are existent outside of the Universe, we can make speculations based assuming whether either one is true or not.

As for what I speculate...well, it could be anything we can imagine, since we lack the knowledge or any indicator thereof what may be there.

God? Another Universe? Another Dimension? The absence of existence? True nothingness? The direct, other side of our universe, suggesting that the Universe is like a very hollow "Earth" and that the end of the Universe is a warp in space?

Unless we gain information hinting at what maybe outside of this sphere, speculation sovereigns the question.

@Ganonsburg: Did you not extract anything from what he just said? Also, please consider what I said to him.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Hehe my friend, my ways to this site are w/ a Wii. Betcha half of this community has a crap computer but they use it anyway.

Just sayin'. It's dumb sometimes.

 

[Pink Reaper]

^I agree wholeheartedly.

@Eyada: As for what is outside this sphere, can only be speculated, since we lack knowledge of what is actually outside of the universe. We know it has an edge, yet we have nothing that can travel fast enough that could possibly tell us what is out there.

Therefore, unless the theoretical design of a certain theoretical physicist holds its own and actually somehow works. We will never have anything capable of such a thing, we will never have anything capable of reaching the edge of the universe, leaving it shrouded in mystery and speculation for the duration of our existence here in the universe.


To say that we "cannot imagine" what is outside of the Universe is not necessarily true. We are thinking animals capable of logic, and while we do not know whether the laws of the Universe are existent outside of the Universe, we can make speculations based assuming whether either one is true or not.

As for what I speculate...well, it could be anything we can imagine, since we lack the knowledge or any indicator thereof what may be there.

God? Another Universe? Another Dimension? The absence of existence? True nothingness? The direct, other side of our universe, suggesting that the Universe is like a very hollow "Earth" and that the end of the Universe is a warp in space?

Unless we gain information hinting at what maybe outside of this sphere, speculation sovereigns the question.

Humanity cannot for any reason begin to understand what exists outside the realm of the universe. I cant even explain to you WHY you wouldn't be able to understand it because that would require ME to understand an area that exists outside of the logic and the rules that we hold the universe to.

However I will say this: assuming the universe at one point did not exist, in an area where laws of reality don't apply, it is entirely possible that an entire new reality could simply blink into existence. It doesnt have to be through some hands of "the creator" and it doesn't need to have reason, because it would come from an area devoid of reason and rules.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Humanity cannot for any reason begin to understand what exists outside the realm of the universe. I cant even explain to you WHY you wouldn't be able to understand it because that would require ME to understand an area that exists outside of the logic and the rules that we hold the universe to.

However I will say this: assuming the universe at one point did not exist, in an area where laws of reality don't apply, it is entirely possible that an entire new reality could simply blink into existence. It doesnt have to be through some hands of "the creator" and it doesn't need to have reason, because it would come from an area devoid of reason and rules.

Don't worry, this is my general thought w/o refering to God (or lol science) in any way:

This reasoning makes me feel as if the universe had an off button. *shivers*

 

[victra♥]

i like this thread. Gonna keep updated.

@Pink Reaper: That's a pretty awesome way of thinking. I never really thought it of that way before.

 

[ChivalRuse]

Humanity cannot for any reason begin to understand what exists outside the realm of the universe. I cant even explain to you WHY you wouldn't be able to understand it because that would require ME to understand an area that exists outside of the logic and the rules that we hold the universe to.

However I will say this: assuming the universe at one point did not exist, in an area where laws of reality don't apply, it is entirely possible that an entire new reality could simply blink into existence. It doesnt have to be through some hands of "the creator" and it doesn't need to have reason, because it would come from an area devoid of reason and rules.

Pretty far-fetched to say that a universe with such meticulous detail and such apparently intricate planning could be warped into existence by some thing or place that doesn't even make sense or have rules. Unless, of course, that thing or place is a supremely intelligent and powerful being that we might call God.

 

[3747373796432]

Why are you an atheist?

Because I'm not free. I'm not free because government and society controls me. I'd prefer not to believe that some omnipotent being has complete and total control over my life and that he would quickly send me and millions of others to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.

And according to the Bible, I can be ****ed eternally just for being the way I am, it asks you trive towards to not being human even though god doesn't have to deal with the temptations to violate his own ten commandments, because he doesn't feel lust, violence, anger, greed, or hatred. He just happens to be perfect, but he thinks I can go to hell because he didn't create me that way.

And from a scientific standpoint. It is pretty farfetched to say the universe just happens to exist without being created by some God. But where did God come from? And don't give me that "Alpha and Omega" crap.

 

[Falconv1.0]

^This.

tbh science can go screw itself cause people are soo off to have their decisions and beliefs revolve around it. "Miracles are an illusion because science said so." LOL End of Story.

That kind of thinking did not get us out of the Dark Ages dude. Yes, we are more willing to accept what we can see proof for and decide to be fact over the writings of people living in the sand or whatever.

You are insulting US more than we are insulting YOU, do you understand this?

 

[victra♥]

Pretty far-fetched to say that a universe with such meticulous detail and such apparently intricate planning could be warped into existence by some thing or place that doesn't even make sense or have rules. Unless, of course, that thing or place is a supremely intelligent and powerful being that we might call God.

before the universe there was nothing. Pink Reaper said it right. Who are we to say we understand what goes on before the universe? There's no guidelines and rule sets to determine ANYTHING. Anything can happen.

Our universe isn't intricately planned lol. Are you kidding me? Sure, it has the physical laws to harbor life, but if you think about how many universes there are, you're bound to stumble upon at least 1 universe that seems "intricately" planned.

I dunno. What is the purpose of saying a God created everything? I really don't get it. Maybe if it was a deist God or something. Even then, that doesn't really make much of a difference.

 

[Firus]

Hehe my friend, my ways to this site are w/ a Wii. Betcha half of this community has a crap computer but they use it anyway.

Because obviously the Wii wasn't created by science.

Useless nitpicking is useless, the point stands either way. It's absolutely ridiculous to use something created by science to say that science is stupid. It doesn't matter what the thing is or how good/bad it is, if it was created by science it was created by science.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

Humanity cannot for any reason begin to understand what exists outside the realm of the universe. I cant even explain to you WHY you wouldn't be able to understand it because that would require ME to understand an area that exists outside of the logic and the rules that we hold the universe to.

Which is why I said what it is: Speculation.

When there is no information to point anyone in a proper direction, speculations are made.

The example I made earlier are just that: speculation and nothing more, as I have no understanding of what is out there, or any way of obtaining such knowledge (nor does anybody else for that matter), all I can do is speculate.

 

[Rappster]

Are you a determinist?

2. Pretty much, yes
I really had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this one though, since it stands against pretty much everything I want to believe (that we're the masters of our own fate). This one really makes life seem extra hopeless sometimes, so I struggle to reconcile this with a lot of my opinions. Just because the truth hurts doesn't make it less true though.

What makes you a determinist?
is it a byproduct of your atheism?

 

[Pink Reaper]

Because obviously the Wii wasn't created by science.

THE WII IS MADE OF UNICORN HORNS, THE LAUGHTER OF CHILDREN AND THE BLOOD OF RUPERT MURDOCH

 

[Melomaniacal]

I just want to stop in and, at the risk of getting this topic closed, say that I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try and argue against science. No, I think it's absolutely stupid. I'm amazed at the fact that there is a massive group of people who are against learning. I can't even think of words that can adequately describe my amazement at that.

 

[Falconv1.0]

THE WII IS MADE OF UNICORN HORNS, THE LAUGHTER OF CHILDREN AND THE BLOOD OF RUPERT MURDOCH

Clearly this man knows his ****.

 

[victra♥]

i like the pink reaper

 

[Pink Reaper]

The Rupert Murdoch blood is why it prints money.

 

[Falconv1.0]

The Rupert Murdoch blood is why it prints money.

Ok, you are my favorite member on this board for at least a week.

 

[Fletch]

The thing is, that thing that's outside the universe that caused the universe to exist has a name....which is God. Maybe it's not a being, or an object, or whatever, but the name we as humans have given it is God. So, by DEFINITION, God is indeed the cause.

Are you even reading what he wrote? I guess this thing outside the universe could very well be God, but his point was that you have NO IDEA what is outside the universe. You can't just take that and say it must be God because we have zero understanding of the goings-on outside the universe and any laws that area would follow.

 

[_Keno_]

Are you even reading what he wrote? I guess this thing outside the universe could very well be God, but his point was that you have NO IDEA what is outside the universe. You can't just take that and say it must be God because we have zero understanding of the goings-on outside the universe and any laws that area would follow.

He is just doing what the people in the middle ages did: if we cannot currently explain something, then we shall say it was some sort of higher power. We can offer no evidence to the contrary, so he (or the government that creates this deity) is obvious right.
It saddens me that people still do this today.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

According to the Bible (I'm assuming you're specifically addressing YHWH, so I'm going to talk as such), we caused this to happen for ourselves. We chose to sin, and we must pay the price. But just as it took one man's sin to bring death for the entire world, it took one man's perfect sacrifice to bring salvation for the entire world. So yes, it's our fault, but we have a choice. Of course, we're still sinful in nature, but those who accept the gift of life have had their sins forgiven. But because we have sinned, we will still suffer consequences. That's why He allows stuff to happen to us.

It's not our fault. You can't choose whether or not to 'accept' the gift of life, how did you come to this conclusion? We are born without any choice whatsoever. We couldn't choose whether or not to be born - God creates us as sinful people then. God does not grant us a blank slate, he creates us as something filled with evil desires that tug at us all the time. Why does he choose to do it that way? Condemned before we even have a chance?

He then says, after you're born, "Apologize to me for being born with the sin I created in you, love me, and I'll give you everlasting life. If you don't love me, the alternative is to burn in a lake of eternal, torturous fire for literally longer than you can possibly comprehend."



Don't bull**** me here. You call that a choice?

I will never in my life grow to accept compulsory love, not from any man or any god.

That, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. You wouldn't believe God existed even if he miraculously healed everyone right now.

**** yeah I would! Why wouldn't I believe after that? If everyone's injuries all healed miraculously at the same time? I'd worship the **** out of him (not only would I have my precious evidence, but the healing would prove he actually DOES love us and isn't just letting us all suffer in a poorly-crafted experiment).

What makes you a determinist?
is it a byproduct of your atheism?

It pretty much started after I learned about drugs.
Basically, after I started studying how something like Opiates work, I realized how much science had suddenly killed the magic of things - we know what emotions are caused by certain chemicals now. We can even modify our own emotional state, just by popping in a pill or two with a few different chemicals.
This basically made the concept of a 'soul' obsolete. There was no longer anything fancy or mystical about the human mind - you can modify your supposed 'free will' and 'emotions' if you just know your chemistry well enough. The entire idea of independent will is an illusion - we're prisoners of our own urges.

In an effort to disprove this, I can suddenly jump out of my chair and say, "Hah, but I just proved I had free will by jumping out of that chair."

No, the chemicals in my brain determined ahead of time that I would try and jump from the chair, in an effort to prove I had free will.


Each human is basically a crapshoot. None of us gets to choose what chemicals, genes, or tendencies we'll end up with. Some people are sociopaths, some are more likely to be alcoholics, some are philanthropists, some are habitual liars - but they all do it because of the biological urges in the brain they were born with, all determined ahead of time.



This idea has thrown so many of my other perceptions out of whack, I was so frustrated I wanted to just forget about it. It gets harder to hate someone when you think in the back of your mind, "Godammit, why did that guy have to be born with the biological impulse to be a backhanded ********? Why couldn't he be born with a few chemicals to make him see the nicer side of life?" I never even know if I should blame *******s for being *******s anymore - or even if I should praise the peaceful, nice folk for being peaceful and nice!

Life was much simpler before determinism :/

edit: David Wong wrote an old, humorous take on the subject awhile ago. He probably explains it slightly better than I can: http://www.cracked.com/article_15746_embrace-horror.html

""Fool! When you were a babe at your mother's crotch, you had a brain built on the genes handed down by your parents! And they got theirs from their parents, all the way back to the first life formed by an accidental cell mutation! And everything you've seen or heard in your life since was fired into your brain as electrical nerve impulses from your eyes and ears. We can measure those impulses! They are physical things! And each of those impulses, what you called 'sights' and 'sounds' threw certain chemical switches in your brain, all of which can also be observed and measured! And those switches, as they turn as predictably as gears in a clock, are what we call 'thoughts' and 'emotions!' And what you know as your 'self' is just the accumulation of chemical changes made to a genetic blueprint! We could change it in a lab! We could make you fall in love! We could make your soul from scratch! EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER HEARD ABOUT FREE WILL VERSUS FATE CAN NOW BE MEASURED IN A LABORATORY! THE DEBATE IS OVER!"

 

[Beren Zaiga]

THE WII IS MADE OF UNICORN HORNS, THE LAUGHTER OF CHILDREN AND THE BLOOD OF RUPERT MURDOCH

The Unicorn Horns are what made the Wii-Mote possible. :D

 

[Mr.Freeman]

THE WII IS MADE OF UNICORN HORNS, THE LAUGHTER OF CHILDREN AND THE BLOOD OF RUPERT MURDOCH

Gives me more of a reason to buy it.

 

[Diakonos]

One's personal epistemology obviously comes into play. I think we too often forget this when making these types of arguments.

To me, the existence of a God makes sense of what I see around me, and harmonizes the existential paradigms of
(a) physical existence, particularly to the degree of complexity I see
(b) human consciousness
(c) morality

You know how if you look up a Christian worship song on youtube, there's always that one militant atheist who is trying to cause havoc on the comments? I had a few discussions with a couple of them last year (via private messaging). They are substantially long, but I think some were very useful showing what an educated train of thought looks like on each side. I can post them if it's helpful.

 

[gm jack]

Consciousness and morals can simply be thought as very nice survival tools for a species. If you are aware of your own existence, it lends itself to better self preservation as you can look at a situation and make more complex analysis of it.

Morals, and indeed, possibly a predisposition to religious beliefs could prevail as they work so as work for the benefit of a group. At a most basic level, not killing each other over arguments is very useful as a group hunter. While them being alive is increased competition for women, you are more likely to survive to reproduce if there are a lot of other males to help hunt.

The body is far from perfect. For example, the recurrent pharnygeal nerves run from the brain, around the right subclavian artery and the ligamentum arteriosum before returning to the larynx which they innervate. Pretty long course, especially in giraffes, due to a process in development.

While things are very complex, they are also far more long winded that they have to be. The body sees a lot of repetition and modification of what it already has. This makes perfect sense genetically, as it is far more likely that you can adapt, say, a transmembrane receptor than generate a new one. When you reduce everything down to it's core components, especially in prokaryotes, you can begin to see how things can come step by step.

 

[_Keno_]

To me, the existence of a God makes sense of what I see around me, and harmonizes the existential paradigms of
(a) physical existence, particularly to the degree of complexity I see
(b) human consciousness
(c) morality .[/color]

So you believe in a deity because it is the easiest way to describe the world around you? Complex existence is known to come from evolution, and as I see it, so does morality. We keep the behaviors that promote the survival of our species, while discarding everything else. This is pretty self-explanatory, since if we didn't do this, our race would have become extinct quite a while ago. Even the private life level, we keep good behaviors for self-preservation. For example, we don't rob banks or kill people without reason because we would probably go to prison. Even without prison, we probably wouldn't do this because we don't want others to do it to us. Its kind of like a ingrained pact between humans to not bother each other.

At least, this is how I see it.

I got ninja'd. =(

Oh well, breakfast > finishing my post.

 

[Diakonos]

Consciousness and morals can simply be thought as very nice survival tools for a species. If you are aware of your own existence, it lends itself to better self preservation as you can look at a situation and make more complex analysis of it.

Morals, and indeed, possibly a predisposition to religious beliefs could prevail as they work so as work for the benefit of a group. At a most basic level, not killing each other over arguments is very useful as a group hunter. While them being alive is increased competition for women, you are more likely to survive to reproduce if there are a lot of other males to help hunt.

The body is far from perfect. For example, the recurrent pharnygeal nerves run from the brain, around the right subclavian artery and the ligamentum arteriosum before returning to the larynx which they innervate. Pretty long course, especially in giraffes, due to a process in development.

While things are very complex, they are also far more long winded that they have to be. The body sees a lot of repetition and modification of what it already has. This makes perfect sense genetically, as it is far more likely that you can adapt, say, a transmembrane receptor than generate a new one. When you reduce everything down to it's core components, especially in prokaryotes, you can begin to see how things can come step by step.

The arguments for the evolution of morality are generally scientifically not so great. There has been quite a bit of discussion on it, but I am generally unconvinced. I can elaborate or link to some scholarship if desired. Most of these kinds of discussions rely heavily on philosophy (not in the scientific method in particular). I'm aware that pretty convincing theories can be made to independently address the issues I talked about. What I'm saying is that the existence of God explains these uniformly, in a way that matches up to what I experience around me. This is of course no deductive argument for God's existence (I have reservations as to whether such an argument is even possible), but it gives me something to think about.

I'm actually a (bio)chem student, so I know very much what you're talking about . I don't have much issue with latter things happening step by step (most of the time, at least), but rather the mechanisms through which they occur and especially origin. Statistically we have to step away from sheer science and evoke philosophy at that point. It is here that epistemology steps in, and the common ground dissipates.

This is why I feel disturbed intellectually when we as rational thinkers find it fit to deduce naturalism from the wonderful tool of science.

Thank you for your response!

 

[gm jack]

It's scientifically not brilliant because it was several billion years ago that it happened. If you read The Selfish Gene, although Dawkins model of genes as individual entities has since been disproven (I think, not so sure), it at least gives a very logical approach of how it could happen. The gist of it is that genetics makes evolution to at least some degree a common sense outcome, that has been shown in laboratories (essentially, E.Coli was able to digest a new food source, and would only occur from a certain point onwards in the "family tree" when repeated (if you went from before a certain point, nothing would change, but if you went after a point, it could redevelop the trait).

Things like morality are very subjective at the best of times, so trying to find origins is a bit of struggle, given we have fossils to work with, and not that many at that.

Once you have a single molecule, such as RNA, that is able to catalyse its own formation or the formation of a negative, you have sufficient information for evolution to kick in, as the molecules that make copies the best and are most stable survive the longest. Everything after that is simply an extra way to keep the central molecule (now DNA) replicating.

I know it is impossible to prove it isn't a God doing it, but I would prefer it to be a positive answer proving it was created, as opposed to assuming it because we can't find a better/easier answer. Do you think they could image computers once they have discovered electricity? For a while it was just making sparks for a party trick.

 

[rvkevin]

The arguments for the evolution of morality are generally scientifically not so great. There has been quite a bit of discussion on it, but I am generally unconvinced. I can elaborate or link to some scholarship if desired.

What part don't you find compelling?

I think the argument for the development of morality is similar to the development of the eye. We see it implemented in nature at gradual levels of development and conclude that it has natural origins. In particular, the use of in/out group thought, which aids in individual survival. More specifically, an organism will form sub-divisions within its environment to cooperate that will benefit the group (In human development, progressions such as Family, Tribe, National, and International communities create synergy). For example, Piranhas don't attack each other in a feeding frenzy, but they would be happy to attack something that isn't in their group. There are numerous examples of different species of animals demonstrating morality in some form or another. I'm not sure what the religious explanation for morality is, but if it doesn't incorporate animal morality, then I don't find it very credible.

 

[ChivalRuse]

before the universe there was nothing. Pink Reaper said it right. Who are we to say we understand what goes on before the universe? There's no guidelines and rule sets to determine ANYTHING. Anything can happen.

Our universe isn't intricately planned lol. Are you kidding me? Sure, it has the physical laws to harbor life, but if you think about how many universes there are, you're bound to stumble upon at least 1 universe that seems "intricately" planned.

I dunno. What is the purpose of saying a God created everything? I really don't get it. Maybe if it was a deist God or something. Even then, that doesn't really make much of a difference.

All I know is, something can't come from nothing (i.e., there had to be something that always existed). Are you familiar with R.C. Sproul's "A shoe can't create itself" argument?

It kind of builds on Anselm's age-old contigency argument that "if there was a time when nothing existed, and all things that can exist are contingent on some other thing that exists or existed, then nothing would exist today; but things do exist today, so there must have been something that always existed, namely God". Granted, the argument to some degree relies on the Scope fallacy, or the quantifier fallacy. But when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[GofG]

It's a pretty big stretch to go from "something must have existed forever" to "there is an agent (that is, a being with a will of its own) that created the universe and is personally watching over the human race, one of millions of civilisations that must exist in the universe (according to carl sagan anyway), and if we live our lives by his rules then when we die an imaginary piece of our extraphysical being gets to live forever in eternal bliss, but if we disagree with him or do not accept him as real (without evidence!), that same imaginary soul experiences an infinite amount of pain and suffering for eternity.

Let me tell you what is probable (science deals with probable, not possible; this is why science doesn't give a rat's *** about the existence of god: it's possible, not probable): Life on earth evolved many characteristics, but one of the defining characteristics of sentience is overestimating the amount of agency at work in its surrounding environment.

Agents, that is, other "beings", are always more dangerous than inanimate objects. ALWAYS. Whereas natural instinct and rudimentary prediction skills are very good at dealing with inanimate objects, they are absolute **** at dealing with other agents. This innate danger that agents present towards survival caused life on earth to become supersensitive to agency.

When we look at a stick on the ground, before our brain is even capable of telling what colour it is, our fight-or-flight mechanism tells us to get the **** out of there, there's a ****ING snake and it's gonna ****ING kill us. If we assume everything is an agent, we survive a hell of a lot more often when we DO run into an agent.

So we evolve an incredibly strong tendency to see agency in every aspect of everything, from shamanistic spirits whose whispers are the very cause of wind, to the Judeo-Christian God who created the universe.

But this instinct has nothing to do with reality! It is simply a survival technique we picked up sometime before we left the oceans!

It might be a good idea to assume that the stick is a snake, and that if we don't run the snake will bite and kill us. But that doesn't mean that after we examine the stick and prove that it is, in fact, a stick we still have to be afraid of the snake!

The agency argument also corroborates with the strange pattern of religions. There are no religions based on inanimate objects. There are no religions where things were produced by chaos, or by some non-living process with no personification. This is because religion is entirely and completely a side-effect of this long-standing primordial instinct to be afraid of every other creature and to see creatures everywhere.

It happened to get carried on into modern, present day, much like a lot of our instincts which came about from evolution (jealousy is purely detrimental to society nowadays, but back then it was about putting your seed in as many places as possible and keeping other men from doing the same, for instance).

I haven't read any part of this thread yet, but I'd imagine Pascal's Wager has come up or will very shortly come up. I'd just like to dispel that bull**** right now.

Do you, the theist, believe in God because you are afraid of Hell, or because you genuinely believe in God?

Right. So how could you possibly expect us to change our beliefs out of fear?

 

[Falconv1.0]

All I know is, something can't come from nothing (i.e., there had to be something that always existed). Are you familiar with R.C. Sproul's "A shoe can't create itself" argument?

That's terribly flawed. The human that created the shoe was created, so where did God come from? Go look over Pink Reaper's posts, he summed it up best.

 

[gm jack]

All I know is, something can't come from nothing (i.e., there had to be something that always existed). Are you familiar with R.C. Sproul's "A shoe can't create itself" argument?

Two very easy point against this.

1)There may have been stuff before the big bang, but its very nature would destroy evidence of it. For example, continual cycles of big bangs and big crunches.

2)It has been theorised the total energy of the universe is 0. This is relating to the whole energy is mass thing. If it were possible to bring all the energy and mass back to a singularity, it may cancel itself out, leaving nothingness. Very unproven, but an interesting idea.

Essentially, 0 split into positives and negatives. Still noting overall, but you can see the results of the nothingness.

 

[GofG]

2) Theories that do well with explaining phenomenon but which have zero evidence (such as the infinite-alternate-universe model of quantum physics which explains away the probabilistic aspects resolving quantum physics back onto a deterministic universe) are no better than religion and should be left at the door. :/

 

[Ganonsburg]

Two very easy point against this.

1)There may have been stuff before the big bang, but its very nature would destroy evidence of it. For example, continual cycles of big bangs and big crunches.

2)It has been theorised the total energy of the universe is 0. This is relating to the whole energy is mass thing. If it were possible to bring all the energy and mass back to a singularity, it may cancel itself out, leaving nothingness. Very unproven, but an interesting idea.

Essentially, 0 split into positives and negatives. Still noting overall, but you can see the results of the nothingness.

As for #2, that's the definition of an explosion. The sum of all energy is zero in an explosion. So if you believe that the universe came from an explosion, then yes, that would be a sensible theory.

As for everything else, I'm done with this thread. Evolving from a chemical vat is not probable in any sense of the word probable. In fact, numerous mathematicians have found that it is statistically impossible. But because everyone takes the words of scientists as if they were the word of God, they're going to disagree with this and tell me I'm stupid.

And guess what. I'm not anti-science. I've shown knowledge and acceptance of the laws of physics. I'm anti-scientists, but not in the sense of "I hate scientists." I'm simply capable of realizing that they're human too, and just like everyone else they can be wrong. You guys keep thinking that evolution is 100% correct and that scientists will never be wrong; I'll be over here getting my degree in mathematics and going out into the real world and doing something productive.