Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2011, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2011 02:03 PM by Thammuz.)
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Quote:There is more evidence for Gods existence than ever before in human history.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-argum...nce-of-god

beside this, if you don't know, theism is a better default position, than atheism.

(25-05-2011 12:38 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 12:20 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  why I should presume there is a god unless otherwise demonstrated?

because there are all the reasons presented. If you discard them, what remains is chance , or physical necessity. If there is some other possible explanation, i have no idea of. To me, these two are the only alternatives. So if you discard theism, you should at least be able to explain, why one of the two alternatives are MORE compelling an credible. Any answer on this ?



@ ElShadai: First of all, I'd like to state that I find your tone is extremely boorish and disrespectful. A minimum of respect for your opponent would be in place, especially here. We really value that.

Secondly: you immediatly require an answer to every possible problem humankind has encountered. I'll be honest, most of us don't know it. Nobody has seen a real-life dinosaur, nobody was around when life started. But through scientific processes, we are getting to know more and more about it.

As skeptics, we noticed the bible and qu'ran weren't correct at all and that they contradicted most scientific discoveries. We didn't reject God because we like to be kranky bitches, but because it made no sense at all.

As some of my friends said, YOU have the burden of proof. You state claims based on a book that is demonstrably false. Enlighten us then, give some REAL and SCIENTIFIC proof for your claims.

If theism is a better default position, I'd like to know why. What you have so far is:
-an all-explaining starting point without proof
-a holy book that has been debunked but that you use anyway

Our starting position is this:
-We don't know how it started, but we want to find out
-old religious books seem to contradict scientific discoveries
-We don't say god doesn't exist for sure, and as long as we don't have real evidence for it, we'll act as if he doesn't exist. We don't discard him, we're just waiting for proof, REAL proof.


Come on, get real. Who has the better default position? If God exists, he just has to appear once, just once to everyone in the world and say "haha, fooled ya all, I fucked with science for fun". If he really made everything, surely he can do such a small appearance. We'd all kneel down and kiss his ass 24/7. But he doesn't appear...

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 01:04 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 12:38 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 12:20 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  why I should presume there is a god unless otherwise demonstrated?

because there are all the reasons presented. If you discard them, what remains is chance , or physical necessity. If there is some other possible explanation, i have no idea of. To me, these two are the only alternatives. So if you discard theism, you should at least be able to explain, why one of the two alternatives are MORE compelling an credible. Any answer on this ?

I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure and I'd like to know for sure before I precede, lest I argue against something you never said. So, I hate to ask for this, but could you elaborate further?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 01:05 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 12:38 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  because there are all the reasons presented.

None of which are valid.

(25-05-2011 12:38 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  So if you discard theism, you should at least be able to explain, why one of the two alternatives are MORE compelling an credible. Any answer on this ?

They are more credible because they require nothing to exist that we don't already know about.

It would behoove you to read up on the definitions of ontologically positive and ontologically negative claims and how the burden of proof applies to each before attempting to continue this conversation.

"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
25-05-2011, 01:06 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 12:38 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 12:20 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  why I should presume there is a god unless otherwise demonstrated?

because there are all the reasons presented. If you discard them, what remains is chance , or physical necessity. If there is some other possible explanation, i have no idea of. To me, these two are the only alternatives. So if you discard theism, you should at least be able to explain, why one of the two alternatives are MORE compelling an credible. Any answer on this ?


Wow. The Dichotomy Center called, they want their belief system returned by Friday.

So, to you, either a magician in a cloud waved his magic wand and poofed everything into existence... OR... it was all just random "chance." Those are the only 2 options available.

And we have to choose one and provide evidence.


Here's a thought. Instead of choosing a conclusion and trying to find the evidence puzzle pieces to make it fit. How bout you look at the evidence, the laws of nature, physics, probability, the chemicals that make up this universe and how they interact with each other, and then draw a conclusion based on what is observable.

It's been proven that life can form from non-life and that all the basic necessary chemicals were present in the primordial "soup" to create life. So if life can emerge on it's own, where does this need to include a "Divine Friend who is interested in your moral choices" come from?

Everything as far back as the right before Big Bang can be explained scientifically. Stop adapting the superstitious beliefs of a tribal era who couldn't explain how rain occurred, and so devised the concept of a rain deity and spent their days trying to please it.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
25-05-2011, 01:55 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 01:06 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Wow. The Dichotomy Center called, they want their belief system returned by Friday.
Tongue

[Image: 4.gif] Well said, as to all the rest as well.
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 03:15 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 01:03 PM)Thammuz Wrote:  nobody was around when life started. But through scientific processes, we are getting to know more and more about it.

that is correct. We learned for example that life needs codified information, stored in DNA. In fact, in just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes would fill at least 1,000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. Scientists now think this is hugely underestimated.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287-inf...-a-creator

Complex systems whether mechanical or biological require energy, matter AND intelligent programming of information content. Such understanding is plainly obvious when one has experience in software programming as well as engineering and mechanical design. Fully functioning complex machines and systems require precise programming of information. Turning on and off computers or entering random data into a computer does not create operational programming functions. In the same way the vastly more complex and sophisticated programming of DNA and its double helix complex structure does not lend itself to the lack of intelligent design. The mathematical possibility of such a complex structure arising in a primordial "soup" through random chance was calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle to be one in 10 to the 30,000 power or in simple terms- statistically impossible.

The truth is that thousands of scientists are coming to this realization all over the world and many have joined creation based research organizations. Unfortunately the evolution establishment seems to be operating it's own "Inquisition of belief" if you will of those brave enough to question evolutionary theory.

Quote:As skeptics, we noticed the bible and qu'ran weren't correct at all and that they contradicted most scientific discoveries.

which ones ?

Quote:We didn't reject God because we like to be kranky bitches, but because it made no sense at all.

right. and my question was : why do the alternative, either chance, or if there must be physical necessity, make more sense to you ? if you want to make a comprehensive research, it has to go in every direction.

Quote:As some of my friends said, YOU have the burden of proof.

And i have opened this topic to give oportunity to the members to present evidence for their case. Seems difficoult, though......

Quote:You state claims based on a book that is demonstrably false.

demonstrably ? i wanna see that......

Quote:Enlighten us then, give some REAL and SCIENTIFIC proof for your claims.

codified information in every cell is the signature of a creator. Show me codified information, which, traced back leads to chance as origin, and i will consider the alternative possibility. Nobody has been able so far. So we have empirical , detecteble, clear evidedence life was created by a intellgent being.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287-inf...-a-creator

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Quote:If theism is a better default position, I'd like to know why. What you have so far is:
-an all-explaining starting point without proof
-a holy book that has been debunked but that you use anyway

i do not need to present proofs. a more compelling answer is enough. and i have presented it. there are several reasons to believe in God. And the reasons are VERY good.

Quote:Our starting position is this:
-We don't know how it started, but we want to find out

See information codified in DNA then. It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Quote:-old religious books seem to contradict scientific discoveries

again : show why.


Quote:-We don't say god doesn't exist for sure, and as long as we don't have real evidence for it, we'll act as if he doesn't exist. We don't discard him, we're just waiting for proof, REAL proof.

you will never find proof, either way. so your right philosophical question should be:
how can we best explain our existence ? God is in my view by far the best answer.

Quote:Come on, get real. Who has the better default position? If God exists, he just has to appear once

Jesus has made miracles, that only God can do. And he has claimed himself to be god. and he has given proof of it, through his ressurrection. Why do you think millions of people have given their life for him, specially the apostles, which were eye witnesses of his miracles ?




(25-05-2011 01:04 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  could you elaborate further?

To make naturalism, on which atheism is based of, credible, you need to formulate POSITIVE evidence that leads to naturalism as best explanation for our existence. How do you imagine our universe formed without cause ? Either the universe had no cause at all, and existed eternally, without beginning, or it came into being through the Big Bang. If you believe this, than you have two options : either it was caused by something, or was caused by nothing. It self caused itself. These are the two alternatives you have. Elaborate them, and show why one of them is more compelling, than a intelligent , timeless, eternal, spaceless, very powerful creator, that created everything through his power and will.


(25-05-2011 01:06 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It's been proven that life can form from non-life and that all the basic necessary chemicals were present in the primordial "soup" to create life. So if life can emerge on it's own, where does this need to include a "Divine Friend who is interested in your moral choices" come from?

then its about time to catch the life prize of one million dollars. Why nobody has catched it yet ?

http://www.us.net/life/

The Origin-of-Life Prize" (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 03:34 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain this shit.

You accept Jesus and miracles without questioning it, but you expect me to give you a PHD-level explanation of every scientific discovery?

My claims are clear and logical, don't reverse them. If you want to believe a human can survive in a whale belly for 3 days, fine. If you think pi=3, fine. If you think evolution is false, ignore the evidence. I'm fine with it. If you don't want to know about contradictory scriptures in the Vatican vaults, fine. If you wish to deny history books and older stories of gods and virgin births that were used as a basis for the christian story, fine. If you think the great flood really occured, even though there is no geological evidence for it, fine.

But don't you think that I'm impressed by your pseudoblabbering and arrogant behaviour. The absence of evidence for something that probably doesn't even exist in the first place doesn't make your own theory more plausible. Try Russel's teapot.


PS: learn some manners. I'm getting really irritated by the way you talk.

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 03:37 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Complex systems whether mechanical or biological require energy, matter AND intelligent programming of information content.

Really now? Would you care to define "complex systems" for us?

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Such understanding is plainly obvious when one has experience in software programming as well as engineering and mechanical design.

As I am currently earning my master's degree in computer engineering and computer science, I think I can safely say that no, it isn't.

Try again.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Turning on and off computers or entering random data into a computer does not create operational programming functions.

You obviously understand little about evolution or abiogenesis.

Have you ever heard the saying that a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters, typing for an infinite length of time, will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare? If so, you should be able to understand precisely why entering random data into a computer can create code which compiles and runs correctly.

Beyond that, life is not a computer program. Your analogy only "works" (by which I mean doesn't work; see above) when one assumes that the only possible states for life to exist in are "fully formed" and "nonexistent". Life is a series of chemical reactions. There are hundreds of intermediary reactions necessary to get to a functioning life form. With enough random chemical interactions over a large enough area, with a large enough supply of ingredients, and with a timescale of sufficient size - like early Earth - life's formation is not only possible, but likely.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  The mathematical possibility of such a complex structure arising in a primordial "soup" through random chance was calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle to be one in 10 to the 30,000 power or in simple terms- statistically impossible.

Is English your first language? "Unlikely" does not mean "impossible". In fact, given that there are literally quadrillions of planets in the universe, all of which have existed for billions of years, even if only one in every six billion had the opportunity to develop life, it's practically guaranteed that at least one of them would.

Your entire argument is nothing but the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  The truth is that thousands of scientists are coming to this realization all over the world and many have joined creation based research organizations.

Really? I suppose that's why creationism is forced to rely on the scientific expertise of lawyers, then.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  which ones ?

The ones which contradict the entirety of Genesis, for a start.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  right. and my question was : why do the alternative, either chance, or if there must be physical necessity, make more sense to you ? if you want to make a comprehensive research, it has to go in every direction.

And if you're going to keep asking this question, you need to listen to the answers which have been given. Both myself and others in this thread have already explained to you why "God did it" is neither compelling nor logical.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  And i have opened this topic to give oportunity to the members to present evidence for their case. Seems difficoult, though......

No, it's perfectly easy. You simply don't understand the idea of the burden of proof, so this is all going over your head.

The burden of proof is on theists. Therefore, the evidence in favor of nontheism is the lack of evidence for theism.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  demonstrably ? i wanna see that......

Read Genesis.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

No definition or support for this claim is given. Bare assertion fallacy. The argument is dismissed.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  i do not need to present proofs.

Yes, you do.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  there are several reasons to believe in God. And the reasons are VERY good.

No, they aren't.

Ignoring my posts won't make them go away. You're only making a fool of yourself by refusing to acknowledge the objections raised in favor of simply spouting the same nonsense repeatedly.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Jesus has made miracles, that only God can do. And he has claimed himself to be god. and he has given proof of it, through his ressurrection.

Which is unproven.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Why do you think millions of people have given their life for him

Argument from popularity fallacy.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  specially the apostles, which were eye witnesses of his miracles ?

Bare assertion fallacy.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  To make naturalism, on which atheism is based of, credible, you need to formulate POSITIVE evidence that leads to naturalism as best explanation for our existence.

No. You only need to negate everything else. Naturalism is the default position.

This is not something that you can argue. It is built into logic. The system which requires the existence of nothing except that which is already established (in this case, naturalism) is automatically the default position. The only way to change this is to prove that this system is false.

The burden of proof is on you.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  How do you imagine our universe formed without cause ? Either the universe had no cause at all, and existed eternally, without beginning,

No. The universe can have a beginning without a cause. Time only exists within the universe. Without time, there is no causality, no need for a cause to produce an effect or for an effect to be preceded by a cause.

I've told you this before. Pay attention to what is being said to you or go away. We are not interested in being preached at. If you want to participate here, you need to be willing to actually listen to what is being said.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
25-05-2011, 03:44 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 01:06 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It's been proven that life can form from non-life and that all the basic necessary chemicals were present in the primordial "soup" to create life. So if life can emerge on it's own, where does this need to include a "Divine Friend who is interested in your moral choices" come from?

then its about time to catch the life prize of one million dollars. Why nobody has catched it yet ?

http://www.us.net/life/

The Origin-of-Life Prize" (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).


This is the most ridiculous site I've seen since www(dot)squirrelswearingtophats(dot)com (not a real site).

The site offering to "pay a million dollars" for something that's already been proven (by the many experiments and models over the last 50 years) is hosted on a free public domain name similar to the geocities and angelfire sites of old. I couldn't possibly guess why credible scientists wouldn't jump at the opportunity to answer the challenge of a site that appears to have been designed using the pre-built template commonly found in photo album sites.

Hmmmm.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 03:54 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:44 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  This is the most ridiculous site I've seen since www(dot)squirrelswearingtophats(dot)com (not a real site).

The site offering to "pay a million dollars" for something that's already been proven (by the many experiments and models over the last 50 years) is hosted on a free public domain name similar to the geocities and angelfire sites of old. I couldn't possibly guess why credible scientists wouldn't jump at the opportunity to answer the challenge of a site that appears to have been designed using the pre-built template commonly found in photo album sites.

Hmmmm.

As an exercise for the class, let's compare and contrast the "Origin of Life Prize" with the James Randi Educational Foundation's Million-Dollar Challenge. Which one looks more legitimate?

By the way, the MDC accepts proof of miracles as a winning entry.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: