NEED Help with a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2017, 09:47 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 08:00 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Really though shouldn't it be atheists making such a case? The answer God is to the question why are we here and how did we come into existence? The fact of our existence raises the question are we the unintended result of mindless natural forces or was our existence intentionally designed and caused? Many of you act as if the question itself is illegitimate. Its not a fact that atheism is true, I don't know for sure God caused the universe and humans to exist, you don't know that God didn't. Best we can do is offer facts in favor of our positions.

We know enough to answer your questions: we were not intentionally designed, we were the products of evolution working on chance occurrences. God-of-the-gaps arguments are illegitimate, for reasons we have already explained to you.

I consider it a fact that there is no God. Given the nature of the world we actually observe, driven by chance occurrences and filled with "natural evils," the theistic God is improbable to the point of being nearly impossible. That's close enough to knowledge for me.

Why do you keep ignoring what we are actually telling you here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
07-11-2017, 09:53 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 08:52 PM)brunumb Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 08:00 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I've posted a link to my case for theism several times...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljr...m.rtf?dl=0

None of your facts requires any sort of deity to be involved:
The fact the universe exists
The fact life exists
The fact intelligent life exists.
The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform....
The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range...
The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist...

Your facts are equally consistent with naturalism. In neither case is there any known mechanism by which those facts became established. Do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate how those facts became established?
By the way, virtual universes don't actually exist so the weren't 'caused'. They are merely computer simulations.

These conditions are required for us humans to have reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator. Imagine if we could examine a chaotic lifeless universe if I argued it was caused by a Creator there would be far less reason to invoke a Creator-designer of such a universe. There would be much greater reason to believe it was the result of naturalistic forces. No exacting conditions are needed for a chaotic universe.

You're welcome to argue in this forum that...

The fact life exists
The fact intelligent life exists.
The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform....
The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range...
The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist...


Is just as well or better explained by mindless naturalistic forces that just haplessly stumbled on the formula to create a universe with laws of physics that cause planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies to exist. The laws of physics that allowed heavy metals and rocky material to become planets and allow the complex reactions necessary for life but completely unnecessary for naturalism or atheism to be true. Would anyone say to themselves the universe was caused by mindless lifeless forces therefore I predict the universe will produce both life and mind? Life and mind is not an expectation of naturalistic forces...its an anomaly.

To answer your question, I don't view theism as the only possible answer. If theism is false naturalism is the only game in town so I view it as second runner up to theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2017, 11:40 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 09:53 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Life and mind is not an expectation of naturalistic forces...its an anomaly.

I'm curious what you base that assertion on.

There was a theist on Amazon who claimed the Earth was special and unique in the universe, because this is the only place where god put life.
Of course, he's never been to other solar system to investigate them. Even so he was quite certain.

Your claim sounds much the same. A glorious guess.
Do you have any data that definitively prohibits the natural forces, all the ones we know and whichever ones we do not know off yet, from producing life?

"Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be; Not magic."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like M. Linoge's post
08-11-2017, 01:06 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 07:33 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The argument there is no evidence, no facts that support theism only convinces atheists already fully persuaded there is no God.
You know that how? Are you pulling that out of your ass as usual or are you a mind reader?


(07-11-2017 09:53 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  These conditions are required for us humans to have reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator.
I already told you that its green and pink universe creating pixies. I presented you my evidence as well. Your reading comprehension sucks.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
08-11-2017, 05:52 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 09:53 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 08:52 PM)brunumb Wrote:  None of your facts requires any sort of deity to be involved:
The fact the universe exists
The fact life exists
The fact intelligent life exists.
The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform....
The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range...
The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist...

Your facts are equally consistent with naturalism. In neither case is there any known mechanism by which those facts became established. Do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate how those facts became established?
By the way, virtual universes don't actually exist so the weren't 'caused'. They are merely computer simulations.

These conditions are required for us humans to have reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator. Imagine if we could examine a chaotic lifeless universe if I argued it was caused by a Creator there would be far less reason to invoke a Creator-designer of such a universe. There would be much greater reason to believe it was the result of naturalistic forces. No exacting conditions are needed for a chaotic universe.

You're welcome to argue in this forum that...

The fact life exists
The fact intelligent life exists.
The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform....
The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range...
The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist...


Is just as well or better explained by mindless naturalistic forces that just haplessly stumbled on the formula to create a universe with laws of physics that cause planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies to exist. The laws of physics that allowed heavy metals and rocky material to become planets and allow the complex reactions necessary for life but completely unnecessary for naturalism or atheism to be true. Would anyone say to themselves the universe was caused by mindless lifeless forces therefore I predict the universe will produce both life and mind? Life and mind is not an expectation of naturalistic forces...its an anomaly.

To answer your question, I don't view theism as the only possible answer. If theism is false naturalism is the only game in town so I view it as second runner up to theism.

"Life and mind" not being natural is your core argument. I call BS on your assertion, your claim is too vague to carry any weight.

Is it life or mind that is the determining factor of a deitie's influence? If there was just bacteria in the universe- then no deity?

If the most advanced life was a fish- then no deity?

Where is the demarcation point exactly? How much "mind" is necessary to reach the goddidit category?

Your assertion also lacks any details about what point this deity needs to step in to assure minds exist. Did it have to step in after primates evolved and then shape the brains to become intelligent enough to comprehend god concepts?

Or did it step in when life was still in the oceans and start this process then?

What specific point did a deity need to step in to force intelligence?

What specific point did a deity step in to create planets? Or stars?

What kind of evidence would suggest that this could only develop with a deity?

Be specific, you are simply making baseless unfalsiable vagaries until you do this.

It is up to you to be able to provide the specific demarcation points of a natural or supernatural process and then demonstrate that it could only proceed with a supernatural intervention.

What are the SPECIFIC points of natural and supernatural demarcation?

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
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
08-11-2017, 05:58 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 08:00 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I've posted a link to my case for theism several times...

You have offered nothing beyond argument from ignorance.

Quote:#1 is the existence of the universe. How can naturalism possibly be true without any nature? How can you or anyone say the universe is the result of naturalistic forces unless it existed?

You have not shown that it ever did not exist. Ignorance about the possible beginning of our universe is not a rational basis for belief.

Quote:It probably comes as a shock for you to realize two sides of an argument can use the same fact if they believe the fact better comports with their contention. Its up to the triers of fact to weigh the evidence.

You REALLY need to lose this "comports with" crap. It's been a dishonest tactic from the start as you continually equivocate on what is and is not evidence.

Quote:Unfogged already offered a fact he believes comports with naturalism, that 99% of the universe is unlivable.

Except that I wouldn't phrase it that way or use it as evidence that there is no god but I would not expect you to admit to the distinction.

Quote:A favorite among atheists is the fact that 'naturalistic' explanations have thus far always been discovered for all phenomena thus far.

That is a true statement and supports the contention that natural explanations are reasonable to expect.

Quote:Really though shouldn't it be atheists making such a case? The answer God is to the question why are we here and how did we come into existence? The fact of our existence raises the question are we the unintended result of mindless natural forces or was our existence intentionally designed and caused? Many of you act as if the question itself is illegitimate.

The question is legitimate. Believing that theism is a viable answer when it has never been shown to be the answer to anything and never been shown to even be possible is what is illegitimate.

Quote:Its not a fact that atheism is true,

Again, atheism is the rejection of the claim that theism has met its burden of proof and you've been told that repeatedly. Please stop misusing it.

Quote: I don't know for sure God caused the universe and humans to exist, you don't know that God didn't. Best we can do is offer facts in favor of our positions.

You have not offered a single fact in favor of your position. You have offered facts that do not contradict your position. The difference is glaringly obvious to everybody but you.

You seem to be basically intelligent but you are either outright dishonest or being wilfullly blind to what people are saying. We do not accept your definition of evidence to be valid and we are not willing to believe unsupported speculations only on the basis that they can't be proven false.

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
08-11-2017, 09:52 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(07-11-2017 11:40 PM)M. Linoge Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:53 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Life and mind is not an expectation of naturalistic forces...its an anomaly.

I'm curious what you base that assertion on.

There was a theist on Amazon who claimed the Earth was special and unique in the universe, because this is the only place where god put life.
Of course, he's never been to other solar system to investigate them. Even so he was quite certain.

Your claim sounds much the same. A glorious guess.
Do you have any data that definitively prohibits the natural forces, all the ones we know and whichever ones we do not know off yet, from producing life?

For one, the only way we have ever observed life and mind coming into existence is through procreation from life and mind. Do you agree that is the only known observable reproducible method in which it occurs? Its alleged that life and mind came about by happenstance through forces that didn't intend life, didn't intend intelligent beings to arise and for that matter didn't intend planets, stars or galaxies or an entire host of conditions for life as we know it to occur. I don't deny its possible it occurred that way but I'm skeptical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2017 11:29 AM by unfogged.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(08-11-2017 09:52 AM)drewpaul Wrote:  For one, the only way we have ever observed life and mind coming into existence is through procreation from life and mind. Do you agree that is the only known observable reproducible method in which it occurs?

Are you claiming that "god" is alive in the same sense that we mean for life on earth?

Quote: Its alleged that life and mind came about by happenstance through forces that didn't intend life, didn't intend intelligent beings to arise and for that matter didn't intend planets, stars or galaxies or an entire host of conditions for life as we know it to occur.

You've changed the question. We may not have observed life coming from non-life (although abiogenesis experiments do point to that being possible and the line between life and non-life is not a sharp one) but we have plenty of evidence that evolution by natural selection produced "mind" through a gradual process without intent. The gradations of "mind" exhibited by living creatures today undermines your argument pretty much completely.

Quote:I don't deny its possible it occurred that way but I'm skeptical.

You are not skeptical. You are incredulous.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
08-11-2017, 10:21 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(08-11-2017 09:52 AM)drewpaul Wrote:  Its alleged that life and mind came about by happenstance through forces that didn't intend life, didn't intend intelligent beings to arise and for that matter didn't intend planets, stars or galaxies or an entire host of conditions for life as we know it to occur. I don't deny its possible it occurred that way but I'm skeptical.

Re the highlighted section, and something I think is lost on some people trying to "understand" the universe and it's creation, is that most of everything that has been created is 100% unintentional and is seemingly caused by faults in particles.

For example, if I have this understood correctly, if the big bang happened as we expected it to, [and we know it did happen due to us being able to currently observe the universe expanding, meaning it would have all come from a singular point], then all atoms/particles would be distributed evenly throughout space.

But how do we get anywhere from 100% perfectly distributed particles across all of space? Well, Stephen Hawking theorizes that to do so, some of the particles would have to be at fault/decay, leaving gaps. Others would have been produced with a larger mass, meaning gravity comes into play, caused particles to group together. This process went on and on, causing further "bangs" and objects to form, until literally by chance, what was present in one area caused the first star to ignite. And the process continued for countless years, until the first stars themselves would decay and explode, causing new atoms produced in their hearts to be distributed again, and again, until those building blocks formed together to create planets and so on and so forth.

Life happening on this planet in particular, due to being in a habitable zone to allow for water, or at least conditions to allow life to evolve quick enough to adapt to it's environment, again is pure chance. Starting with single celled organisms in the deep oceans of the past, thought to be brought forth from the the thermal vents. The purpose of it's life is none-existent, IE nobody created it to do something, but the organism would evolve to work in a certain capacity to obtain food/energy, and linking all back to the whole reason the universe was created, faulty particles/atoms....this is why everything from organisms to stars eventually dies...the blueprint of everything is built on fault, the faulty atoms that caused the universe to group together, and at this point, organisms evolved to reproduce itself to "extend" it's life, to keep eating, and as this point, pro-creating also.

And again, this goes on and on, until you get to today. Are we much more overtly complex than singular cell'd organisms, of course we are, but everything humans do today is just because we basically can (how we live, survive, culture etc) because out basic needs need to be fulfilled: Eat, sleep, procreate and reproduce ourselves.

Life, essentially, is a way clone ones self/pass on your genes, to keep fulfilling its own sell made purpose to attempt to preserve ourselves. This doesn't relate to the universe in terms of "why" we exist at all, because we'll all die, and all life on earth cease to exist, and the universe would be non the wiser. But life is more of a by product of a "perfect storm" where the right circumstances came about by chance, to somehow, create the right mix of conditions/chemicals that the first organism came to be.

Anyway, that's how I understand it, so sorry for rambling, and if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

The Helpful Atheist - An Information Blog
Last updated: 08/11/2017 - Want to contribute, drop me a PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
08-11-2017, 10:29 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(08-11-2017 09:52 AM)drewpaul Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 11:40 PM)M. Linoge Wrote:  I'm curious what you base that assertion on.

There was a theist on Amazon who claimed the Earth was special and unique in the universe, because this is the only place where god put life.
Of course, he's never been to other solar system to investigate them. Even so he was quite certain.

Your claim sounds much the same. A glorious guess.
Do you have any data that definitively prohibits the natural forces, all the ones we know and whichever ones we do not know off yet, from producing life?

For one, the only way we have ever observed life and mind coming into existence is through procreation from life and mind. Do you agree that is the only known observable reproducible method in which it occurs? Its alleged that life and mind came about by happenstance through forces that didn't intend life, didn't intend intelligent beings to arise and for that matter didn't intend planets, stars or galaxies or an entire host of conditions for life as we know it to occur. I don't deny its possible it occurred that way but I'm skeptical.

Skepticism is what you apply to things that you believe, but have no direct evidence to warrant the belief. That is what honest skepticism is. That is what intellectual honesty is all about.

For you to ignore this fact is the very reason why those of us here view you as being intellectually dishonest. The reality here is that no one here gives a damn whether you believe in God or not, but rather every non religious person here understands and values intellectual honesty not only from each other, but also from theists such as yourself.

If you are wondering why people here are adopting a harsh attitude towards you, now you know why. Intellectual honesty demonstrates personal integrity, and if you refuse to demonstrate it then you will continue to be harshly chastised.

Do you not think it's a shame that atheists are more honest than Christians? We certainly are, because we see you with a belief system that you refuse to recognize for what it is; a belief system.

Instead, you proclaim it to be some kind of truth, without ever offering up a shred of evidence to warrant it as being a truth.

Do you not understand that nothing is truthful until it is proven to be truthful?

Learn from this. You will be better off, even if you remain a theist.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: