New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
I'm just curious, even if we agreed that there was a god, how could you possibly derive any useful information about it?

What if this god ceased to exist as a result of the tremendous energies of the big bang. Maybe the big bang was it's suicidal act that caused the existence of the universe. That would mean that this god no longer exists, that would mean every religion is wrong and no concept of god is right, because it simply doesn't exist.

What physical evidence could you give of an existing god?

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
22-07-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 02:37 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm just curious, even if we agreed that there was a god, how could you possibly derive any useful information about it?

What if this god ceased to exist as a result of the tremendous energies of the big bang. Maybe the big bang was it's suicidal act that caused the existence of the universe. That would mean that this god no longer exists, that would mean every religion is wrong and no concept of god is right, because it simply doesn't exist.

What physical evidence could you give of an existing god?

God's last words: "Hey, guys, watch this!"

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
22-07-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 02:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 02:37 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm just curious, even if we agreed that there was a god, how could you possibly derive any useful information about it?

What if this god ceased to exist as a result of the tremendous energies of the big bang. Maybe the big bang was it's suicidal act that caused the existence of the universe. That would mean that this god no longer exists, that would mean every religion is wrong and no concept of god is right, because it simply doesn't exist.

What physical evidence could you give of an existing god?

God's last words: "Hey, guys, watch this!"
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Here, hold muh beer!

Oh shit!!

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
22-07-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Rocket,

Quote:However, Kirk (and his colleague) make several of the same arguments you are making, including the "magic" part you and I were discussing earlier, and I thought the video would make the best way of answering you. I still do. You should watch it and understand what my position is before you engage with me, no?

I haven't made a case for theism yet, I only questioned the notion that atheists make no claim about this issue. If atheists make no claim why even bother with a discussion board? The claim atheists make whether through lack of belief or disbelief is that all that we see and observe was caused unintentionally by mindless forces that somehow came into existence.

The bearded dude

Quote:The Big Bang Theory is a claim about the universe's earliest knowable origins and a description of its current state from t=0 to now. It is a scientific claim supported by multitudes of evidence (Red Shift, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc).

I don't dispute the big bang theory or the estimated age of the universe.

Quote:Life is redox chemistry, which can and does occur abiotically. Life originated from the basics of redox chemistry in deep sea hydrothermal vents. The evidence for this is the similarity of the redox chemistry among all life as well as the common ancestry of all life. The early Earth (as evidenced through geology and geochemistry) shows us the conditions of the early Earth and our observations of deep sea hydrothermal vents show that they contain the necessary ingredients for life to be able to begin.

There are lots of theories of how life may have come about from non-life.
Zn-World hypothesis, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Thermosynthesis, Clay hypothesis and many others. They all have flaws and there is no consensus.

Unfogged...

So atheism is the non-thinking persons automatic position? The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is false. The reason you reject evidence in favor of theism is because you believe there is a better explanation (or at least a preferred one).

Quote:I did not say "non-thinking person". Nice strawman. I have looked at the evidence presented to me so far for theism and I have found it all based on faulty logic and/or wishful thinking. If you think you have evidence that doesn't fall into those categories please present it.

A default position doesn't require any thought does it? I didn't expect you to say I found the evidence in favor of theism to be compelling but I obstinately remain an atheist anyway. The merit of any arguments I present don't rise or fall depending on what you think about them.

Quote:Laptops are not self-replicating organisms and they are not naturally occurring. There is no process we have ever observed that could reasonably explain a laptop self-assembling. The same is not true for what we observe in nature.

The point is how a laptop works and performs can be explained via the mindless laws of physics just as the universe operation can be explained via the mindless laws of physics. Except a laptop was created by intelligent beings. This demonstrates your statement 'Everything we have investigated so far turned out to be the result of "mindless" processes' isn't evidence its mindless forces all the way down.

Quote: I just think it is what is most likely true given the abundance of evidence we have for "mechanistic processes" and the lack of evidence that can only be explained by a conscious mind.

No problem you have an opinion based on some facts just as I do. Its up to the undecided to decide who makes the better case.

Quote:Your incredulity is not an argument.

Nor is yours...

Quote:There is no evidence that it is not a mindless, blind algorithm. In fact, replication, mutation, and differential reproductive success are provably sufficient to result in evolution. That you don't believe that it can explain the diversity of forms we see is probably indicative of your not understanding that the commonalities of all life vastly outweigh the differences.

I'm not disputing evolution its boring as hell and not necessary to a theistic argument. I do however remain skeptical of its grandiose claims. Even one of your fellow atheists agreed its not evidence atheism is true.

Quote:Evidence consists of salient facts, some may support a position, some may contradict it.

Correct, another word for salient is probative value.

Quote:No, the evidence is consistent with that claim, and there is no evidence contradicting it.

In your opinion...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:06 PM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 08:31 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  A default position doesn't require any thought does it?

All positions require thought if only to determine whether the claims being presented warrant changing that position. Your attempt to imply that anybody remaining at the default position is not thinking is an obvious attempt at baiting.

Quote:The merit of any arguments I present don't rise or fall depending on what you think about them.

They do to me. If I do not find your arguments compelling then they have no merit for me.

Quote:The point is how a laptop works and performs can be explained via the mindless laws of physics just as the universe operation can be explained via the mindless laws of physics. Except a laptop was created by intelligent beings. This demonstrates your statement 'Everything we have investigated so far turned out to be the result of "mindless" processes' isn't evidence its mindless forces all the way down.

You are again making a dishonest argument. You know very well that I was talking about what we know about how the universe and life evolved. Jumping from that to an example of something that is definitely known to have been deliberately designed is not a reasonable comparison. The fact that minds are able to direct design does not mean that any case of perceived design requires that a mind be behind it, especially when the same thing can be created by mindless processes.

Quote:No problem you have an opinion based on some facts just as I do. Its up to the undecided to decide who makes the better case.

Agreed. I await the facts that convinced you that a god exists.

Quote:I'm not disputing evolution its boring as hell and not necessary to a theistic argument. I do however remain skeptical of its grandiose claims. Even one of your fellow atheists agreed its not evidence atheism is true.

That was actually a reply to somebody else but since I think I was the "fellow atheist"... the point was that natural processes appear to be sufficient to explain what we see. It may not prove that no god exists (which is not the same thing as proving that "atheism is true") but it also doesn't support the position that a god is necessary. Again, we await your evidence.

By the way, it'd really be easier to keep conversations distinct if you didn't merge all the replies like that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-07-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 08:31 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote: I just think it is what is most likely true given the abundance of evidence we have for "mechanistic processes" and the lack of evidence that can only be explained by a conscious mind.

No problem you have an opinion based on some facts just as I do. Its up to the undecided to decide who makes the better case.

Except you have not provided any facts. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
Quote:Your incredulity is not an argument.

Nor is yours...

I have not expressed any incredulity. I have stated that you have provided no evidence for your position and that until you do, it can be dismissed.

Quote:
Quote:There is no evidence that it is not a mindless, blind algorithm. In fact, replication, mutation, and differential reproductive success are provably sufficient to result in evolution. That you don't believe that it can explain the diversity of forms we see is probably indicative of your not understanding that the commonalities of all life vastly outweigh the differences.

I'm not disputing evolution its boring as hell and not necessary to a theistic argument. I do however remain skeptical of its grandiose claims. Even one of your fellow atheists agreed its not evidence atheism is true.

I didn't say that it was - I was responding to your mischaracterization of evolution.

Quote:
Quote:Evidence consists of salient facts, some may support a position, some may contradict it.

Correct, another word for salient is probative value.

That is non-responsive.

Quote:
Quote:No, the evidence is consistent with that claim, and there is no evidence contradicting it.

In your opinion...

If so, show us the evidence contradicting it. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

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
23-07-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
mmmmm yes....I enjoy when theists proponents ask questions like..."what are the odds conditions would be perfect to support the start, and evolution of life on earth?"

Well apparently at the minimum at least 1 in 400 +billion....as that is how many planetary objects the hubble telescope can see.....those are pretty good odds, after 400+ billion different mixtures of gases, temperatures, and conditions, one would surmise it isn't a big reach to concede that it would be right for life at least once...what IS a big reach is the made up story of a super genie universe creator who made all of this with a wiggle of his 5th appendage. Sadly there exists not one shred of proof for this super genie, and a pragmatic analysis of the universe as we can see it thus far does not suggest intelligent design...what it does suggest is math.....chance and circumstance....eventually the numbers line up....life.

Nothing in the real world reflects substantiation of any of the gods created by man, including the anthropocentric Abrahamic based Christian god.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
23-07-2015, 08:34 AM
New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(22-07-2015 08:31 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Rocket,

Quote:However, Kirk (and his colleague) make several of the same arguments you are making, including the "magic" part you and I were discussing earlier, and I thought the video would make the best way of answering you. I still do. You should watch it and understand what my position is before you engage with me, no?

I haven't made a case for theism yet, I only questioned the notion that atheists make no claim about this issue. If atheists make no claim why even bother with a discussion board? The claim atheists make whether through lack of belief or disbelief is that all that we see and observe was caused unintentionally by mindless forces that somehow came into existence.

The bearded dude

Quote:The Big Bang Theory is a claim about the universe's earliest knowable origins and a description of its current state from t=0 to now. It is a scientific claim supported by multitudes of evidence (Red Shift, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc).

I don't dispute the big bang theory or the estimated age of the universe.

Quote:Life is redox chemistry, which can and does occur abiotically. Life originated from the basics of redox chemistry in deep sea hydrothermal vents. The evidence for this is the similarity of the redox chemistry among all life as well as the common ancestry of all life. The early Earth (as evidenced through geology and geochemistry) shows us the conditions of the early Earth and our observations of deep sea hydrothermal vents show that they contain the necessary ingredients for life to be able to begin.

There are lots of theories of how life may have come about from non-life.
Zn-World hypothesis, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Thermosynthesis, Clay hypothesis and many others. They all have flaws and there is no consensus.

Unfogged...

So atheism is the non-thinking persons automatic position? The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is false. The reason you reject evidence in favor of theism is because you believe there is a better explanation (or at least a preferred one).

Quote:I did not say "non-thinking person". Nice strawman. I have looked at the evidence presented to me so far for theism and I have found it all based on faulty logic and/or wishful thinking. If you think you have evidence that doesn't fall into those categories please present it.

A default position doesn't require any thought does it? I didn't expect you to say I found the evidence in favor of theism to be compelling but I obstinately remain an atheist anyway. The merit of any arguments I present don't rise or fall depending on what you think about them.

Quote:Laptops are not self-replicating organisms and they are not naturally occurring. There is no process we have ever observed that could reasonably explain a laptop self-assembling. The same is not true for what we observe in nature.

The point is how a laptop works and performs can be explained via the mindless laws of physics just as the universe operation can be explained via the mindless laws of physics. Except a laptop was created by intelligent beings. This demonstrates your statement 'Everything we have investigated so far turned out to be the result of "mindless" processes' isn't evidence its mindless forces all the way down.

Quote: I just think it is what is most likely true given the abundance of evidence we have for "mechanistic processes" and the lack of evidence that can only be explained by a conscious mind.

No problem you have an opinion based on some facts just as I do. Its up to the undecided to decide who makes the better case.

Quote:Your incredulity is not an argument.

Nor is yours...

Quote:There is no evidence that it is not a mindless, blind algorithm. In fact, replication, mutation, and differential reproductive success are provably sufficient to result in evolution. That you don't believe that it can explain the diversity of forms we see is probably indicative of your not understanding that the commonalities of all life vastly outweigh the differences.

I'm not disputing evolution its boring as hell and not necessary to a theistic argument. I do however remain skeptical of its grandiose claims. Even one of your fellow atheists agreed its not evidence atheism is true.

Quote:Evidence consists of salient facts, some may support a position, some may contradict it.

Correct, another word for salient is probative value.

Quote:No, the evidence is consistent with that claim, and there is no evidence contradicting it.

In your opinion...

Abiogenesis hypotheses have their limits based on our ability to test them given that some of them require a lot of time that can't be simulated.

The point is that nature doesn't require super-nature or supernatural explanations.

God isn't just an unnecessary assumption, it's an assumption based on no evidence or reason or logic. Gods are irrelevant.

Now, if you've got evidence to show a god is plausible such that it could be assumed reasonably a god is plausible, then you might have something interesting to contribute. Please show me a god is plausible.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
23-07-2015, 08:38 AM
New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
Theist: god exists.
Atheist: I reject your claim that your God exists.

Where is the atheist's claim?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: New Atheist Dukes it Out with Seasoned Pastor
(23-07-2015 08:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Theist: god exists.
Atheist: I reject your claim that your God exists.

Where is the atheist's claim?

You CLAIM you reject it.. but do you really? Or are you just claiming to reject it...

checkmate lunatics. Hobo

whoas, 42 people have liked that OP and I'm not one, I refuse to be one.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: