Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 02:33 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 02:30 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In fact, during its period of frozen winter hibernation, the frogs' physical processes — from metabolic activity to waste production — grind to a near halt.

Hibernation =/= dead

Near halt = not entirely stopped

Therefore, not dead.

dead things generally decompose, they have an active defense system in operation keeping the pathogens at bay.
Where-as a dead bird quickly decomposes.

Jesus narrative wasn't one of frozen and thaw. It was one of being asphyxiated and sliced with a sword and dead. If his body didn't rot during those three days it would have been because the author either didn't think of that detail or implied some magical anti rotting intervention. Jesus wasn't a frozen frog.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
04-02-2017, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 03:10 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 02:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 02:33 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Hibernation =/= dead

Near halt = not entirely stopped

Therefore, not dead.

dead things generally decompose, they have an active defense system in operation keeping the pathogens at bay.
Where-as a dead bird quickly decomposes.

Jesus narrative wasn't one of frozen and thaw. It was one of being asphyxiated and sliced with a sword and dead. If his body didn't rot during those three days it would have been because the author either didn't think of that detail or implied some magical anti rotting intervention. Jesus wasn't a frozen frog.
Dead things don't resurrect. (Water bear rebuttal)
Dead things don't come back to life after long periods of time (water bear rebuttal)
Dead things decompose. (water bear rebuttal)

If a water bear died in the vacuum of space it would not decompose due to lack of oxygen.
Define dead please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 03:21 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Firstly we would have to define God before we can say it doesn't exist.

This is true.

For any definition of "god" that is commonly used, though, we can reasonably conclude that it does not exist.

(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is evidence of some fine tuning of the universe.

No.

(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When you read these statistics does it give you the impression that it's more likely to have happened by chance or by design?

It doesn't matter what "impression" it gives anyone, myself or otherwise. What matters is whether or not any evidence can be presented that it actually happened by design.

There is none.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
04-02-2017, 03:24 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 12:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The argument I am making is simply this:
If it's highly unlikely that something is random then it usually has a cause.

You have not established that it is unlikely. You have merely asserted that, if the universal constants were generated randomly, it would be unlikely to see them in the way that they are.

I could go into a lengthy explanation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, followed by pointing out that you haven't even established that the only alternative to a designer is chance (as we have no idea if it would even be possible for the universal constants to be anything else, since we've never seen a universe made and don't know the constraints on the process). But I won't, because you will neither understand nor care.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 03:32 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If God's supposedly an immaterial being, and if atheists are asking for sample of his ectoplasm, than clearly their expectations are not a part of the claim itself, unlike in your elephant example.

Except that they are.

All non-deistic theists make claims about their god's characteristics, behaviors, and methods of intervention in this universe. These claims are demonstrably false, and we can reasonably conclude that these gods do not exist.

All deistic gods are garage dragons, and do not exist by definition.

Gods which theists assert interact with the universe in undetectable ways are also garage dragons.

(04-02-2017 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think it's the exact opposite, that there's a complete lack of evidence that unintentionality resulted in all of this, that we're just a cosmic accident, or some nicely formed puddle.

Literally all evidence we have indicates that this is the case.

Before responding, please take a moment to read up on the null hypothesis.

(04-02-2017 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Our most intuitive perceptions of reality is that we are part of a created order, that we have moral purposes, but where as I see direction, you seen an illusion. Your atheism demands this.

My atheism doesn't demand anything. Atheism is the conclusion, not the foundation.

And I don't see an illusion. I don't see anything at all. I have no sense whatsoever that we are part of a "created order" or have "moral purposes". Do not attempt to project your worldview onto others. Not everyone believes the same thing that you do.

"I believe this" is not an argument. It is not evidence. It is nothing but your own belief, which counts for exactly nothing when it comes to determining what is actually true.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-02-2017, 03:36 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 02:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is not merely that there is no evidence for gods; it is that there is no evidence where we would expect to find some.
The problem with this argument in relation to gods is that you are claiming to know where the evidence should be.

Special pleading. You could make the same statement for leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.

(04-02-2017 02:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In order to actually win this fight you must discover from your opponent where the evidence ought to be and then you can try and prove that the evidence isn't there.

See my previous responses. This is exactly what I was saying: we can do this with any non-deist god, unless-

(04-02-2017 02:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But most theists don''t offer any falsifiable claims.

-they try to make their god into a deist garage dragon, natch.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 03:45 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Firstly we would have to define God before we can say it doesn't exist.

This is true.

For any definition of "god" that is commonly used, though, we can reasonably conclude that it does not exist.

(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is evidence of some fine tuning of the universe.

No.

(04-02-2017 11:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When you read these statistics does it give you the impression that it's more likely to have happened by chance or by design?

It doesn't matter what "impression" it gives anyone, myself or otherwise. What matters is whether or not any evidence can be presented that it actually happened by design.

There is none.
It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data.

This is just a scientific observation. It does not mean that there isn't a better reason than fine tuning & it certainly does not mean that there is a God.

So what if the Theists can say it points in the direction of intelligent design? It's not a proven fact.

It doesn't mean Atheism is wrong.

It is also statistically improbable that black holes don't exist.
Are you going to yell out "No" to this as well?
Is there something wrong with people for believing that they do?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 03:42 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:37 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Statistical probability IS recognized in science as Evidence for the existence of something. Eg. Gravity, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data.

You don't understand what those words mean, you don't understand what the evidence says about the formation of the universe, and you don't understand what I said. And, as per usual, you are losing the thread of the conversation already, because you are incapable of carrying on an actual coherent discussion.

As I said, Shane, you have not even established that it was possible for the universal constants to have been anything other than what they are, designed or otherwise. You can't claim that there is evidence fine-tuning when you have no idea if it was even possible for anything to be tuned at all.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-02-2017, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 04:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:37 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Statistical probability IS recognized in science as Evidence for the existence of something. Eg. Gravity, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data.

You don't understand what those words mean, you don't understand what the evidence says about the formation of the universe, and you don't understand what I said. And, as per usual, you are losing the thread of the conversation already, because you are incapable of carrying on an actual coherent discussion.

As I said, Shane, you have not even established that it was possible for the universal constants to have been anything other than what they are, designed or otherwise. You can't claim that there is evidence fine-tuning when you have no idea if it was even possible for anything to be tuned at all.
That's like saying:
"The lack of evidence that none-black ravens exist means you cannot say all known Ravens are black."

You completely misunderstand why I used the words "based on current data"
As in:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
The above statement is a factual statement. It is not speaking about unknown data.
It is simply an observation based on current data & says nothing about an objective reality.
It's common knowledge statistics change with the advent of new data.
Eg. The age of the observable universe

The improbability of it being entropic is as follows:
Out of the 6 reasons given:
Based only on current data:
If Gravity was a-y & not z the early universe would have collapsed.
The possibility of it being z is 1/26.
(note: The actual probability was infinitesimally smaller according to Martin Rees)

You are practically claiming that the lack of evidence for the universe being able to exist any other way automatically nullifies the fine tuning argument.
As I said before:
That's like saying the lack of evidence that none-black ravens exist means you cannot say all known Ravens are black.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 04:22 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 02:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 02:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  dead things generally decompose, they have an active defense system in operation keeping the pathogens at bay.
Where-as a dead bird quickly decomposes.

Jesus narrative wasn't one of frozen and thaw. It was one of being asphyxiated and sliced with a sword and dead. If his body didn't rot during those three days it would have been because the author either didn't think of that detail or implied some magical anti rotting intervention. Jesus wasn't a frozen frog.
Dead things don't resurrect. (Water bear rebuttal)
Dead things don't come back to life after long periods of time (water bear rebuttal)
Dead things decompose. (water bear rebuttal)

If a water bear died in the vacuum of space it would not decompose due to lack of oxygen.
Define dead please.

I don't know much about the water bear.
Why doesn't it decompose?

Looking at wikipedia

Quote:Tardigrades are one of the few groups of species that are capable of reversibly suspending their metabolism and going into a state of cryptobiosis. Many species of tardigrade can survive in a dehydrated state up to five years, or in exceptional cases longer.[33] Depending on the environment, they may enter this state via anhydrobiosis, cryobiosis, osmobiosis, or anoxybiosis. While in this state, their metabolism lowers to less than 0.01% of normal and their water content can drop to 1% of normal.[9] Their ability to remain desiccated for such long periods is largely dependent on the high levels of the nonreducing sugar trehalose, which protects their membranes. Their DNA is further protected from radiation by a protein called "Dsup" (short for damage suppressor).[34][35] In this cryptobiotic state, the tardigrade is known as a tun.
It seems that they can go into a state of 0.01% of normal metabolism. but this isn't 0 metabolism. They are still alive, certainly not dead.


I would term dead as being in a state where the body decomposes. If mechanisms within the body are actively preventing it from decomposing then it is alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: