Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  Someone said life comes from chemistry. As soon as someone mixes some chemicals together and produces a life form, that at least would discredit biocentrism. That has not happened. Why not? Not enough time?

I propose an experiment: Science will continue to try to reproduce life via chemistry. You pray for a new life form to appear.

Which do you think will happen first?

(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  "We aren't saying that consciousness is produced by non-existence, we're saying that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain. As the brain develops it begins to produce the effect that we label consciousness."

Fine, but I am asking a different question. Where did life come from? Some say there was a quantum flutter and that caused one thing, then the next, and eventually there was life. But what caused the quantum flutter? The fact is you are alive and I am alive. One possible explanation is that life always was. That would be the simplest explanation, occam's razor.

You are mixing the beginning of the universe with the beginning of life. Those are different areas of scientific study.

Since organic life cannot exist without the chemical compounds that make up the organisms, organic life cannot "always" have existed. Occam's razor in this situation would be simple chemistry.

(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  If we are talking about life having come from "nothing" we have to be clear what we mean by nothing.

You are talking about life coming from nothing.

(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  I realized that the one overwhelming emotion that God feels is loneliness.

How can a perfect being experience loneliness? A perfect being is complete. It lacks nothing. It requires nothing. It is perfect.

(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  You can find many such first hand experiences both from near death experiencers, buddhists, and psychedelic experiencers.

And rats.

Rats and NDE

Doesn't that make you feel special?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-09-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  To try to answer three people in one post:

I think one of my problems here is I am not sure how certain words are defined by others.

Someone said life comes from chemistry. As soon as someone mixes some chemicals together and produces a life form, that at least would discredit biocentrism. That has not happened. Why not? Not enough time?

"We aren't saying that consciousness is produced by non-existence, we're saying that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain. As the brain develops it begins to produce the effect that we label consciousness."

Fine, but I am asking a different question. Where did life come from? Some say there was a quantum flutter and that caused one thing, then the next, and eventually there was life. But what caused the quantum flutter? The fact is you are alive and I am alive. One possible explanation is that life always was. That would be the simplest explanation, occam's razor.

If we are talking about life having come from "nothing" we have to be clear what we mean by nothing. Are we talking about a non-being nothing, or a being nothing? A being nothing is an experience I myself have had and so have many others. Here is a short description from erowid:
I discovered, to my horror, that reality is a cold, dark, lonely void. I no longer feared dying because 'dying' doesn't exist, only the void exists, and I was now trapped in that void. This was worse than dying. I realized that the one overwhelming emotion that God feels is loneliness. I also believed/feared that I could never return to the world I had known. The void had swallowed me and would never let me go.
https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=28211

You can find many such first hand experiences both from near death experiencers, buddhists, and psychedelic experiencers.

So yes absolute nothing does exist but it's not the end of existence [your being].

Here is Buddha's description of Nirvana:
“There is, monks, that state where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of the infinity of nothingness, no base consisting of the infinity of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Udana, p. 108)

“There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-formed. If, monks, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-formed, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, formed. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-formed, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, formed. (Udana, p. 109)

“Monks, this supreme state of sublime peace has been discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact. Monks, that is the supreme state of sublime peace discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact.”

Some people say Buddhism is atheistic. I'm fine with that definition of it, but it is not nihilistic.



.

What part of "near death experience" don't you understand? Consider

I'd say it's the near part. Facepalm
No one experiences death - there is no consciousness there.
The definition of death is a cessation of brain function, and with the cessation of brain function is the cessation of the person.
No experience, no memory, nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-09-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  Someone said life comes from chemistry. As soon as someone mixes some chemicals together and produces a life form, that at least would discredit biocentrism. That has not happened. Why not? Not enough time?

The main problem is that you keep looking for things to discredit biocentrism rather than evidence to support it. That may be because there is no evidence to support it. It is difficult to discredit something that has no credibility in the first place.

Our not having produced life in the laboratory is not very meaningful. We are still learning what constitutes "life" and how to build something that would exhibit it.

Quote:Where did life come from?

What do you think "life" is? There's no evidence that it is any sort of pre-existing force or that it has any existence outside of living organisms. The evidence leads to the conclusion that what we call life is an emergent property of sufficiently complex arrangements of chemicals. You are making it into a much bigger mystery than I see any need for. If you are going to wield Occam's Razor, start with the need for "life" to exist as a distinct entity.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
27-09-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(27-09-2016 11:48 AM)xear Wrote:  Here is a short description from erowid:

Descriptions from NDEs may be interesting to psychologists and neurologists but there's no reason to believe that the ravings of a dying brain are actually tapping into some deeper reality.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Why do people give credence to religious visions experienced during periods of oxygen deprivation? Life threatening injuries? Brain damage?

Wake up from a coma and talk about Cthulhu or aliens and everybody laughs.

Wake up from a coma and talk about jeebus, and everybody yells "Praise the lord!"

Go figure.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 07:44 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Yes, something can come from nothing. (Paraphrased)


This is "science"? This is "reason" to you?
Please show examples where something has come from nothing on earth.
Please explain "scientifically" speaking.

Quote:Anthropic Argument

... but also possible in another universe with the same different mass life would still exist, albeit in a different form than we know it. Second, the Universe itself isn't very fine tuned for life. The visible matter we see only makes up a small portion of the universe. Deadly gamma radiation all throughout the cosmos. The large, vast distances between planets, stars, galaxies. The size of the Universe itself. God needed to create something so large just so we could be born and occupy one planet out of the countless others?

"The universe isn't very fine tuned for life." That may be so, but earth most assuredly is. Why should we care if there is no life elsewhere? Why should that concern you in the slightest?

The Anthropic Principle is one of the most compelling scientific arguments against the nihlism propounded by atheists.
1. There is no evidence for the "free lunch" of our universe creating itself from nothing, much less "The Multiverse" so blithely claimed by those irrationally eager to counter the Anthropic Principle.
2. How is it that atheists switched from the universe is "so large" and wasteful, to The Multiverse, i.e. an infinite number of universes, all different. Why not all the same, like so many bubbles? Who dials the different constants, changing them, *nothing*?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-11-2016 07:44 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Yes, something can come from nothing. (Paraphrased)


This is "science"? This is "reason" to you?
Please show examples where something has come from nothing on earth.
Please explain "scientifically" speaking.

Quote:Anthropic Argument

... but also possible in another universe with the same different mass life would still exist, albeit in a different form than we know it. Second, the Universe itself isn't very fine tuned for life. The visible matter we see only makes up a small portion of the universe. Deadly gamma radiation all throughout the cosmos. The large, vast distances between planets, stars, galaxies. The size of the Universe itself. God needed to create something so large just so we could be born and occupy one planet out of the countless others?

"The universe isn't very fine tuned for life." That may be so, but earth most assuredly is. Why should we care if there is no life elsewhere? Why should that concern you in the slightest?

The Anthropic Principle is one of the most compelling scientific arguments against the nihlism propounded by atheists.
1. There is no evidence for the "free lunch" of our universe creating itself from nothing, much less "The Multiverse" so blithely claimed by those irrationally eager to counter the Anthropic Principle.
2. How is it that atheists switched from the universe is "so large" and wasteful, to The Multiverse, i.e. an infinite number of universes, all different. Why not all the same, like so many bubbles? Who dials the different constants, changing them, *nothing*?

When you quote a post pay attention to the date in the top left corner. This is from 2012 and you're not likely to get a reply from the OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
01-11-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I'll bite. Big Grin

(01-11-2016 07:44 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Yes, something can come from nothing. (Paraphrased)

This is "science"? This is "reason" to you?
Please show examples where something has come from nothing on earth.
Please explain "scientifically" speaking.

The fundamental (pun intended) dishonesty of your type of Christian never fails to amaze me.

1) Yes, it is science and reason. Putting quotation marks around it doesn't automatically make it ironic. A Universe From Nothing is quite literally the title of a recent book by atheist and top-level physicist Lawrence Krauss, explaining how it can happen, based on what we already know and are recently starting to learn about the universe's basic nature.

2) Why did you just add "on earth"? What does the location within the universe have to do with whether a phenomenon occurs?

3) Again, just for the record, "Putting Quotation Marks Around Something Does Not Make It Ironic or Falsified". Science is a method, not a type of speech.

(01-11-2016 07:44 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  
Quote:Anthropic Argument

... but also possible in another universe with the same different mass life would still exist, albeit in a different form than we know it. Second, the Universe itself isn't very fine tuned for life. The visible matter we see only makes up a small portion of the universe. Deadly gamma radiation all throughout the cosmos. The large, vast distances between planets, stars, galaxies. The size of the Universe itself. God needed to create something so large just so we could be born and occupy one planet out of the countless others?

"The universe isn't very fine tuned for life." That may be so, but earth most assuredly is. Why should we care if there is no life elsewhere? Why should that concern you in the slightest?

Is that what your religion is? An inability to see beyond the horizon? Why do you keep bringing up the earth, otherwise?

Acting like you're surprised that life evolved on earth, under Natural Selection, to be "tuned" for the conditions on earth is no more than restating the basic definition of what Natural Selection is. Don't try to pretend you're dropping some deep philosophical bomb on us, here. All you did was "scoop" Darwin and Wallace, from back in 1859.

However, you seem to have missed his point. If YOUR contention is correct, and the universe is not a random thing but the intentional creation of a Creator who made it specifically for us, it is a bit odd (to put it nicely) that the overwhelming majority of the universe is so hostile to our form of life EXCEPT for the tiny little speck on which we evolved. To us, the randomness and hostility of the universe is neither surprising nor troubling.


(01-11-2016 07:44 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  The Anthropic Principle is one of the most compelling scientific arguments against the nihlism propounded by atheists.
1. There is no evidence for the "free lunch" of our universe creating itself from nothing, much less "The Multiverse" so blithely claimed by those irrationally eager to counter the Anthropic Principle.
2. How is it that atheists switched from the universe is "so large" and wasteful, to The Multiverse, i.e. an infinite number of universes, all different. Why not all the same, like so many bubbles? Who dials the different constants, changing them, *nothing*?

Ah, man, you fundie types are so adorable when you try to think science-y thoughts.

The Anthropic Principle (TAP, for brevity) is not a scientific principle, let alone a "scientific argument", but a philosophical attempt to explain why we're here to observe our universe. Like most philosophical concepts, there are many versions of TAP, some poorly-defined, and no one can agree on the majority of its premises, let alone its conclusions.

Not only is it a bald-faced lie you have told about TAP being a "scientific argument", you have moved from basic lying into the realm of Utter Bullshit™ when you say that "atheists switched from" one set of arguments to the other. Most atheists are not physicists (though many physicists are atheists, that's true for most sciences... seems that the better one understands the universe, the less likely one is to be religious, and even less likely than that to be a scriptural literalist), and we don't NEED to "counter the Anthropic Principle", let alone feel "irrationally earger" to do so.

Also, it's not only atheists who are making the multiverse and other physics arguments you seem to attribute to atheism. There are Christians and members of all other faiths who work on the multiverse proposition (and related maths). By calling it an atheism thing, you are creating a false equivalence to begin what is a fundamentally dishonest argument.... and doing a disservice to those Christians who have a much better grasp of the subject than you do, yet find no issue with proposing that there may be many universes, whatever that may mean for their theological outlooks, as well as for atheist researchers who would be honest enough to say they discovered God the Creator™, if their research demonstrated such a thing existed. You slander them all with your lies, here.

So I'd like to take a moment to pause and remind you of what I so frequently have to remind other Christians who come here:

Lying For Jesus™ is still lying.

Finally, no one is "dialing" the switches, or whatever version of that metaphor you wanted. That argument presupposes that there is "some one" to do it, and that it's even possible to have other constants that function to make universes in the first place. It's nonsense, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not seeing that you were making such a presupposition in the first place. When you get a PhD in astrophysics, you can go argue with other astrophysicists about it... rather than coming to atheist forums to try to "GOTCHA!" the people with whom you disagree over subjects in which you clearly have a weak grasp.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
01-11-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-11-2016 07:44 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Please show examples where something has come from nothing on earth.
Please explain "scientifically" speaking.

Zero-point energy, no deities required. Physics is not on the side of ignorance.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
19-12-2016, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2016 04:42 AM by Gert Heide.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I've been listening to some podcasts with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris on The Atheist Experience. They often take calls from listeners. What surprises, nay, horrifies, me is the barely Neanderthal level of argument these people resort to. Most commonly, they start by asking Tracie and Matt why they don't believe in 'God'? When they're challenged to say what evidence there is for a deity, the fundies always say 'the evidence is the Bible, in which it is said that the Bible is true.' I don't think more than a small proportion at best of believers have arguments any more complex than that. Educated fantasists of course just love complicated justifications for theism. The sophistry of the various arguments [Intelligent Design, especially], they presume, will baffle opponents into silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gert Heide's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: