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, 09:53 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Continued references to bible forums, scripture quotes presented as evidence, logical fallacies overflowing from every post, and such ridiculous claims like "the KCA has not found a compelling rebuttal" which is laughably untrue, which you would see if you actually looked at some of the discussion on this forum.

I'm slowly losing hope that anyone can reach you.

You have to step outside of your Theist bubble and use the same logic that rational people use. Scripture is not evidence, claims have to be backed with observable, objective data (you can't just say "well God is magical and outside the boundaries of physics and logic"), and you will always find supporting evidence if you limit your studies within the boundaries of your theist networks (of course Kent Hovind agrees with you... but neither of you are right).

"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, 09:57 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 09:26 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Edit: And please explain to me how you accept microevolution but not macroevolution. You do realize that macroevolution IS microevolution, just observed along a long enough timeline?

its upon the one that makes the claim to show he's right. So far, neodarwinists have not been able to present compelling evidence to back up this claim.


(25-05-2011 09:46 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Look at another site!! if you reference that page anymore I'm leaving, and I am trying to entertain you here. Getting all of your answers from one source is completely groundless especially seeing as how fallacious the articles have been.


heaven forum is my personal virtual library, where i unite sources from all the web. if you feel its fallacious, you should be able to show why you think so.

Quote: All that we are born atheists means, is that before theism is discussed it is not something someone worries about at all.

how do you KNOW ?




(25-05-2011 09:53 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I'm slowly losing hope that anyone can reach you.

what are you looking to reach me for, and why ?
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:16 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Quote:God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

So basically you are trying to slap us with an argument based on Aquinas ways.

The most concise answer to this argument is: "Who created God?", which in turn raises the question "Who created God's creator?", and so on ad infinitum.

If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is unsound, or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is invalid. In fact, the argument is clearly self-contradictory.

The typical response to this is that God always existed. This attempt to terminate the infinite regress is flawed as an uncaused god is posited as the first cause, but the notion of the universe being uncaused or containing its own cause is rejected out of hand. If we are to posit that the universe had to have an uncaused god to set it into motion, why not save a step and say "the universe always existed?"

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:30 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 09:29 PM)ElShadai Wrote:   'GassyKitten'
I think context is important. ElShadai, is an old Hebrew name for "god". So, god joined an atheist website to argue in circles, positing false claims, unscientific fallacies, Biblical nonsense and refuted affirmations that a false idol does exist and he can (not) prove it to us who know it's simply not true.

show why you think so.
This, your thread, is proof of that. You have yet to prove anything you claim of your god's existence. Smile

Quote:Tell you what Elshadai, besides getting off on thinking you're riling up the damned here, prove with Theism what created god.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god

Sure enough, there you go. Offering "proof" exactly as was predicted earlier in this thread and just as ineffectually as predicted, too.

I forget who it was that posited the suggestion you are the former member, Philosopher, who use to frequent this forum. However, I suspect they are indeed correct, though that SN was before my time.

I'll see your link and raise you a better one. Read carefully. Smile

The Illogic OF God


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change form
—The First Law of Thermodymics
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:40 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 10:16 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well.

where did i make the claim , that :

nothing moves without a prior mover ?

please do not put words in my mouth.

Quote:If we are to posit that the universe had to have an uncaused god to set it into motion, why not save a step and say "the universe always existed?"

because all scientific evidence goes clearly against that claim.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t199-evi...-beginning

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Ban..._come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07...ervations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.[/quote]
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:41 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 10:30 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I forget who it was that posited the suggestion you are the former member, Philosopher, who use to frequent this forum. However, I suspect they are indeed correct, though that SN was before my time.

I think you are talking about me Big Grin, I mentioned a philosopher yes, but it was on another forum, the philospher I was talking about, was in a Mexican blog, I'm Mexican of course, but I suspected that this guy was the same person because both arguments and manners are very similar, but apparently I'm wrong, this guy and the "philosopher" I was talking about before are unrelated, this guy has nothing to do with my post on the Philosophy section.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:44 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 10:30 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I'll see your link and raise you a better one. Read carefully. Smile

The Illogic OF God

which of these arguments most convinced you, and why ?
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 10:52 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
@ElShadai, I never claimed you claimed about the unmoved mover, I mentioned that because the uncaused being argument and the unmoved mover argument are pretty much the same thing, thats all, I'm not trying to "put words in your mouth". Peace,

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 11:00 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
I want you to read the book because it will be more beneficial for you to read the entire book than to hear what I took from it. If I just posted a few lines you wouldn't get the entire journey. As I said afterwards you can have me read a book I'm fine with compromising and both of us looking to an idea. Or do you feel that there are no authors on your beliefs that can describe it better than you? I know that there are better authors on evolution called evolutionary biologists. I'm an activist which does not predispose me to the immense information Dawkins has. Go to a library and borrow the book for free.

Weak and strong disbelief.... I see no possibility of there being a god because I do not think creating something makes something worthy of respect. You want to know what kept me from accepting Christianity when my parents tried to get me into it? Animals are not lower life forms!!! I was 6 and I complained hard enough I got out of it. That doesn't make me a strong atheist (by your definition), because at no point was the existence of god anything more than a story for me. I grew up surrounded by baptists and a baptist family, I saw the benefits of religion everywhere. None of it allowed me to see god as something more than a story. I had the desire as a child to be able to believe because it would be simpler but whenever I thought that I would remember that I need answers. Actual answers rather than Jesus loves me praise the lord. My back story has been addressed in many parts of the forum, suffice to say I had a damaging childhood.

If I were to look at the idea of weak and strong which are horrid word choices seeing as how weak is diminutive, I would consider weak atheism (atheism) as not having a belief in a god which in general asserts the idea that there is no god, why? Because you have no belief in a god, and gods require belief. Strong atheism (anti-religion) would be the desire to spread your non-belief and invalidate the beliefs of gods. Your explanation was the difference between having no concept of religion and denying a particular religion. According to you then, you are a strong atheist to many religions such as Norse mythology. And it is indeed true that you could be classified as an aIslamist if you disbelieve the Qur'an though you have a belief and you know the cute thing about this? Your disbelief in the Qur'an is seen as nothing because you have a belief in Christianity. The only reason an atheist doesn't make sense is because we check no to all of the above for the question "which religion do you ascribe to?". If the question was not asked then we would never need the term. This is the same as going on a bus and telling people you don't play basketball. You not playing basketball says very little about you because it's just discussing one of the multitude of things you don't do. It would be much faster to say what you do. The issue with this is that since many atheists have battled through religion to reach their point we all have differing views. There is no doctrine to ascribe to. In the question of religion we put N/A.

Forums like this exist, because we often feel pressured by the fact that many feel we should have a belief generally theirs. The reason I came here was because I was being so smothered by religion I was going to start being militant and attacking it at every chance. I would prefer not to be like that, and this forum allows me to release those stresses that most people just don't get. About how something that doesn't matter to me at all is so important to everyone that they have to insist I care.

There is no god for me, a creator doesn't get that title for creating me or the universe. The universe is not so wonderfully built that I would say there is some higher life form meticulously crafting everything and making it all perfect. What constitutes a real god to me? That would be a higher being that uses it's far advanced capabilities directly for us and makes sure that we do not suffer too much or live confused with our own minds. Caring and compassionate are words I can't ascribe to the fathom of this universe having a god. Life exists by consuming life. That alone is a terrible premise for something that could start things any way it wants to. I look at the world and I see beauty alongside horrors, there is no meticulous plan being held up there is an average mean between extremes.

Complexity is always the silliest argument I can think of by people who demand we believe in a story that says the less you know the better (The Story of Adam and Eve: The Constantine 1 revision found in Genesis). There is no great advantage to bodies being complex. If a creator were to fashion life in any way it desired we could be more like clay. Simply being given magical animate capabilities we would have no need for complex systems like our internal organs. This would mean we have no hunger, need to expel refuse, affliction to diseases, etc. It would be a much more wondrous creation than a complex system built on millions of millions of chemical reactions. Which can easily have a misfire or even succumb to a virus and hurt us. The fact that our bodies and minds have needs, is what creates all the need for superiority and competition. If we did not need things we would not have wars. All of the complex rules that make for limitations suggest that the system created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex. Complexity is just such an odd argument because complexity does not mean perfection it just means advanced.

I need to go to sleep now so I'll leave you to the wolves. Have fun

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 01:50 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2011 03:05 AM by Thammuz.)
A
First of all: stop quote mining people over here.
Secondly; I will now use your tactics against you. Inability to answer a question or parts will result is dismissal of your arguments, since they are all based on assumptions and faith instead of scientific discoveries.

(25-05-2011 09:01 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 03:34 PM)Thammuz Wrote:  You accept Jesus and miracles without questioning it

Quote:who told you i did not question them ? Its exactly my questioning that brought me finally to believe, the gospels are compelling.

Why are they compelling? What proof do you have? Can this be controlled in any way? If not, your argument's basis is invalid and based of faith rather than evidence.

If you wonder why I make this statement, try a basic argumentation course.


Quote:no, i am not demanding that much. A link to good scientific papers on the web do it.

So far you have rejected every scientific explanation that didn't fit in your ideology. I suppose you will immediatly reject authors such as Nietzsche, Darwin and Dawkins?

If people come up with arguments, try reading them and use proper logic and scientific backup to state your claims. If you manage to do that, we can continue the discussion.

Quote:this topic is not meant to defend difficult parts in the bible. If you make your own google research, you will find aknowledgeble explanations to each question.

If I want "proof" that the earth is flat, I can find websites too (check the flat earth society). Look back at my former claims about scientific errors and rebuke them: in other words: prove me that pi=3. Check this website for bible contradictions. They prove fallacies in the bible. feel free to control any bible you like and control its accuracy. It will prove that biblical arguments can be invalid. No cherry picking, the theory must be watertight!


Quote:
Quote:If you think evolution is false, ignore the evidence.
Microevolution is a proven fact. Macroevolution is not. That is a fact as well.

Have you even read about basic evolution? If it's not a fact, explain why. Use verifiable scientific backup. If not, your argument will be invalid.


Quote:
Quote: If you don't want to know about contradictory scriptures in the Vatican vaults, fine.

there are many apocryphic scriptures. so what?

So you acknowledge that the bible in its current form is man-made due to the different concils that debated over which parts should be added or not? Thus, the current bible versions are a result of cherry picking and not of scientific, verifiable research.

Therefore, the bible can't be trusted as a true and complete source. Also, see my former quote for the contradictions.


Quote:
Quote: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.

how do you KNOW that ?

Get educated about ancient polytheism. Try Horus for starters (and yes I know there was a golden dildo involved, slight changes can occur) If you want a philosophical discourse about what knowledge and the ability to know is, we can discuss Diogenes to Nietzsche, but that's beside the point.


Quote:
Quote: If you think the great flood really occured, even though there is no geological evidence for it, fine.

you should educate yourself better.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._flood.htm


Using a YEC-website isn't proof. Their claims have been rejected by the scientific community on numerous occasions. Why did you choose this one and not another one?

If you think the scientific community isn't right, I'd like to know why. Also, present proof for the errors of every major scientific discipline (geology and the likes) to make it watertight. If not, your argument will be invalid.



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


are not YOU calling my writings pseudoblabbering and arrogant behaviour ? Isnt it you to need some manners ?

Your quotes have been debunked by the forum members and the scientific community, therefore it can be categorized as pseudoblabbering, yes. If I seem arrogant, try checking ALL my other posts and see how I react to other people. You can then conclude that my reaction is unique for your case. If you wonder how this originates, try reading about social psychology and perception.


Quote:
(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.

Please explain why.

The argument of irreducible complexity has been debunked on numerous occasions. Surely a well-educated fellow as yourself must be able to find that information. The human eye argument, for example, has been completely debunked. Your question will be how and why. Read a real science book about evolution then.


Quote:
Quote:You obviously understand little about evolution or abiogenesis.

why is it obvious to you ?

Because of the false arguments you use that have long been debunked. If you ask why, re-read your post and get a real book (or a dozen) about evolution written by and evolutionary biologist. Your question will answer itself.



Quote:
(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.

Quote:Is English your first language? "Unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

can you read ?

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.

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Abiogenesis hasn't found out everything yet, but they are working on it. Their claim is not to disprove God, but to find HOW it happened. Your basic assumption that god did it is an argument from ignorance. Why do you think God dit it? Can you prove it? If not, your argument is invalid. Absence of proof for one thing isn't proof for the other.


Quote:
Quote: 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.

No, its not.

Your argument is based on irreducible complexity. As stated above, it has been debunked. Your argument is invalid, try again.


Quote:
Quote: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.

And chance shall be ?

We didn't talk about chance. Stop with your false dichotomy. Absence of evidence for A isn't evidence for B. That's basic logic and argumentation.

How did everything start? we don't know (yet). We just don't make assumptions based on a debunked 2000yo book. We look into things. If we find proof that God exists, fine, he exists then. Just don't turn it around to make it fit into your world view. This is the last time I'm going to say this.



Quote:
Quote:Read Genesis.

i have read Genesis. so what ?

And yet you didn't find any possible error? Everything is verifiable to you? That's a little unfair considering you act as the ultimate skeptic for our claims. Why do you use double standards?



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

Then i suppose you are able to present codified information, which arose naturally, without intelligence involved ? that would be a scientific sensation.

Intelligent design has been debunked. Even if design were true, it wouldn't be intelligent. When considering evolution however, it makes sense. If wondering why, read a book. Try obsolete human body parts for starters.

When talking about abiogenesis, same argument fallacy as previous quotes.



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

Oh yes? Why? And why the Judeo-Christian God? Why not the others? have you check the statements for every other religion?
The manual (bible) has been debunked (previous quotes). On what do you base your claims? How can you be sure those claims are true? What scientifically verifiable evidence do you have for your claim?


Quote:
(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.

I don't think so. There is a reason, why these people gave their life for this cause. Otherwise, they would have all fooled themself.


Same thing goes for other religions. Aztec human sacrifice for example. Why do you think you're right for this particular religion? Why are other religions different? Don't use double standards.



(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  have you ever read the new testament ?

I read Harry Potter too, but that's not an argument. There even are differences between the gospels. And the church conveniently hides some other gospels. Why? Something to hide?

And even if they all told the same story; what are the facts? How can you check it? EVIDENCE! that's what we want.


This is the last time I will answer to your questions and statements if you keep using double standards for others and debunked assumptions as evidence. Having the last word doesn't make you a winner.

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: