Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2011, 02:53 AM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Quote:evolution does not explain the origin of life, the fine tuning of the universe, and the origin of the universe itself.

You see what you did here. You dismissed a perfectly good suggestion because you claim that Evolutionary Scientists cannot explain "The Origin of life etc..." But Evolutionary science goes way beyond the biological into more scientific methods such as radiometric dating, carbon decay and many other facts that are outlined in the book.

Quote:In regard of Dawkins. I have little respect for him, after reading the God delusion book. his arguments are really ridiculously weak.

I've read the God Delusion too and although I sided with what he said I didn't feel it was backed up with enough evidence for those that did not already know of the tests and experiments that prove his points. The Greatest show on Earth is a more factual documentation of the actual explanations about WHY we know evolution to be true and HOW we can investigate back in time to the origin of life. Like I said, it's not a stab at faiths and makes no mention of religion so you really should read it before you pass judgement on it. I don't reject all works related to Christian authors just because they wrote one book I didn't agree with.

That sounds more like someone who doesn't want to know the truth and is content with what he thinks he knows. Is that who you are? If you are not prepared to read the evidence then what are you doing here?
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 04:54 AM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 11:00 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  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.

as said, i have read Dawkins God delusion book, and i was truly disappointed by his weak and superficial arguments. I have very little respect for this author, and he does not deserve my further time and attention.

Quote: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.

The possibility of God to exist does not be based on the fact, if something is worth of respect , or not.

Quote: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!!!

If they are not :

do you eat meat ?
do you kill sometimes a fly or moskito ?

what makes you think, human kind with its superior intellect , and hability of thinking and complex , advanced communication, is on the same level as animals ?

Quote:Actual answers rather than Jesus loves me praise the lord.

i searched for answers, and i got the ones i looked for. Have you done the same ?

Quote: My back story has been addressed in many parts of the forum, suffice to say I had a damaging childhood.

I am truly sorry for that. I know of many people, which had also a suffered life , but when they found Jesus, their life changed drammatically in many ways.

Quote:If I were to look at the idea of weak and strong which are horrid word choices

that are not my definitions.

Quote: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?".

I don't ascribe to a religion. I confess Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.

Quote: 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.

How do you know he does not do that ?

Quote: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).

what revision are you talking about ?

Quote: If we did not need things we would not have wars.

I rather say wars are the consequence of sin, not because we have needs. Otherwise, we would be always i a state of war somehow.

Quote:All of the complex rules that make for limitations suggest that the system created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex.

Like a enciclopedia britannica ? can you imagine that it created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex ?

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

the wolves here do seem not to have teeth.....Sleepy
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 05:38 AM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
I like how the title of this thread implies Theism is an explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2011 05:50 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 04:54 AM)ElShadai Wrote:  as said, i have read Dawkins God delusion book, and i was truly disappointed by his weak and superficial arguments. I have very little respect for this author, and he does not deserve my further time and attention.

You've read one book by him that was not discussing his field of research. I offered to read without bringing along a bias any book you suggested if you would read this book. Why not just try to read a second book by someone you may not agree with on personal beliefs.

The possibility of God to exist does not be based on the fact, if something is worth of respect , or not.

A god is something worshiped and revered I state that that means respected. You're not gonna pray to RNA if it is found to be the creator of everything all in itself.

do you eat meat ? yes, just like a large part of the other animals in the world I eat what I was made to eat, omnivores eat meat and vegetation.
do you kill sometimes a fly or moskito ? generally no, sometimes yes, but this is the same as a horse swatting off horseflies. It is not in my best interest as a living being if I allow possible threats to myself to simply exist. that is a common action within the animal kingdom. Not extermination but a claim for territorial dominance.

what makes you think, human kind with its superior intellect , and hability of thinking and complex , advanced communication, is on the same level as animals ?
because superiority is not a measurable thing. Every species is going to believe that they are the most superior because of the need to maintain their own existence. Humans have their reasons and are not capable of understanding the reasons of other species.

i searched for answers, and i got the ones i looked for. Have you done the same ? what are your answers towards transsexualism and the simple concept of sex vs gender? what answer do you have for why the world isn't simply a punishment? My questions didn't get answered in church yes these were as a young child. I needed to understand what male and female were in a way beyond what others did, and I needed a reason to see the world as worth something after being molested at 5 years old.

I am truly sorry for that. I know of many people, which had also also a suffered life , but when they found Jesus, their life changed dramatically in many ways.

I saw what you were suggesting throughout my childhood and you know what the best part about it was? I also saw what happens to them when they can't keep lying to themselves and faith loses it's luster.

I don't ascribe to a religion. I confess Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.
Do you then not call yourself a christian? Calling yourself a christian is ascribing to a religion.

How do you know he does not do that ? Easily, by the fact that this god you're discussing would disprove of my very existence. I had needs that the world did not accept and went through all sorts of horrors throughout life. This is proof to me that I'm not being watched over, at least by something compassionate.

what revision are you talking about ?
Constantine 1 was the Roman emperor who decided to promote christianity within Rome. He had many priests gather together and discuss which of the many stories were to be added to the book (there were too many and of course many variations). The story of Adam and Eve in its entirety is a much longer tale with a lot more explanation. The story that appeared in genesis is a shortened version. Another wonderful thing about Constantine 1, after determining what was the correct religion and how best to believe it he had people killed for not agreeing. This is the reason christians seem so numerous. For a long time not agreeing meant death. If you kill enough non-christians then people will avoid the argument.

I rather say wars are the consequence of sin, not because we have needs. Otherwise, we would be always i a state of war somehow. We are always in a state of war somehow. Modern advancements in our own understandings of society have lessened the impact but it continues still.

Like a enciclopedia britannica ? can you imagine that it created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex ? An encyclopedia is an inanimate object that was never given the "breath of life" you cannot seriously claim an analogy between inanimate and animate object and expect a real response.

I'm doing this your way since apparently that will help you read what I'm saying. And as far as us not having teeth, we just aren't bringing forth any serious research or discussions with you until you actually prove to us there's a reason to spend that much time on it. So far you have proven to have no interest in what we are saying.

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, 05:48 AM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
"I don't ascribe to a religion. I confess Jesus Christ as my lord and savior."

I felt compelled to reply to this one. How do you know his name is Jesus Christ? Did he tell you that in one of your talks? You know, since you don't have a religion to listen to. Or maybe you just decided to cut out all that other stuff, because it was all wrong except the part about Jesus being a god.

Pick and choose all you want, it doesn't make things true cause you decide it is. I think I would just have to leave it at this, funny how your god believe everything you believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 06:02 AM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 04:54 AM)ElShadai Wrote:  as said, i have read Dawkins God delusion book, and i was truly disappointed by his weak and superficial arguments. I have very little respect for this author, and he does not deserve my further time and attention.

What arguments? Specify each and every one. How were they superficial? provide proof of every claim you make and give a scientific background that can be checked.

Quote:The possibility of God to exist does not be based on the fact, if something is worth of respect , or not.

Fairies exist! the world was created out of the anus of a pink unicorn!
Sounds ridiculous? Well, so is your claim. Things are based on facts or not. If they aren't, they are to be classified as assumptions or fantasy.

Quote:
Quote: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!!!

If they are not :
do you eat meat ?
do you kill sometimes a fly or moskito ?

what makes you think, human kind with its superior intellect , and hability of thinking and complex , advanced communication, is on the same level as animals ?

This question can be reversed. Why are animals supposedly worth less? Explain your claim. What classifies a being as superior or inferior? On what do you base these statements?

Side questions: If your all-knowing loving god created a perfect world:
-why did he create carnivores that devour other species? Seems kinda horror-like to me.
-why did he create gazelles with evasive skills and cheetahs with tremendous speed? Come on, whose side is he on? Does he like spectacles?
-Why the hell did he create impure animals in the first place?

When considering evolution, the first 2 questions actually make sense. Not from a religious point of view.
3rd question doesn't make sense at all, unless you consider the theories of pigs as disease carriers etc.


Quote:
Quote:Actual answers rather than Jesus loves me praise the lord.
i searched for answers, and i got the ones i looked for. Have you done the same ?

Good for you. But if you're happy with 2+2=5 (or a similar claim), don't expect us to take you seriously. There is a difference between wanting to believe something to be true and the actual truth.

Filling a gap with God doesn't help. We accept gaps, we see them as challenges, not as threats.


Quote:I am truly sorry for that. I know of many people, which had also a suffered life , but when they found Jesus, their life changed drammatically in many ways.

A non-argument. There are plenty of role models and I'm sure Jesus isn't the best one, for example:
-he doesn't speak out against slavery (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
-he condones the killing of children speaking out against their parents (Mark7:10)

If that is your view on society, I hope you never ever get in charge of anything.


Quote:
Quote: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?".

I don't ascribe to a religion. I confess Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.

Fanatic ramblings, unfit for this forum. If you wish, you may submit proof from another source than the bible. We'll gladly try to debunk that

Quote:
Quote: 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.

How do you know he does not do that ?

Clearly, you haven't been to a third world country were innocent children are starving or dying of AIDS. But if that is part of his plan, he cannot be classified as a loving God.

Quote:
Quote: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).

what revision are you talking about ?

A note about translations. Recent findings question the translation of 'rib' as incorrect. Why would God create man with an extra rib and then use it to create a woman. Sounds kinda crazy, doesn't it?
'Rib' should be translated as 'side/shadow'. In this context, man and woman might be considered as equals instead of having a master-slave relation. Contemporary bible text are the results of centuries of faulty translations. How can you base your whole belief system on that? That as sensible as using Google translate to translate a security manual for a high voltage tower and using that as a good basis to work.

Mignon R. Jacobs, Gender, Power, and Persuasion: The Genesis Narratives and Contemporary Perspectives, Baker Academic, 2007, p. 37.

Quote:
Quote: If we did not need things we would not have wars.

I rather say wars are the consequence of sin, not because we have needs. Otherwise, we would be always i a state of war somehow.

Consequence of sin? I have yet to see a secular humanist (=sinner) start a war for one of the mentioned reasons. We don't. We don't see the need of destroying other people. Following your logic, do you condone witch burnings and crusades?

(Don't even try the Stalin argument or the origin of moral laws, I'm tired of explaining those)

Quote:
Quote:All of the complex rules that make for limitations suggest that the system created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex.
Like a enciclopedia britannica ? can you imagine that it created itself through constant revisions becoming more and more complex ?

Your answer is completely besides the point. Try the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit'.


Quote:
Quote:I need to go to sleep now so I'll leave you to the wolves. Have fun
the wolves here do seem not to have teeth.....Sleepy

Well, maybe if you ignore every claim made behind the safety of your computer. One thing is sure, we won't kill you like real wolves. But that doesn't make your claims any less ridiculous.

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 09:12 AM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(26-05-2011 04:54 AM)ElShadai Wrote:  as said, i have read Dawkins God delusion book, and i was truly disappointed by his weak and superficial arguments. I have very little respect for this author, and he does not deserve my further time and attention.

Excuse me Sir. So do Atheists think the same about the Bible. Its a collection of some pathetic morals and hard to believe stories, with no evidence, to even comprehend reading a second time, forget about believing and wasting whole lives following it.
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 09:23 AM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 09:29 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 04:44 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  That's not exactly how I look at it. Naturalism makes one positive assertion, and rejects one assertion. It makes the assertion that the natural world exists, and rejects the notion that the supernatural world exists.It's always up to the positive claim to provide the burden of proof

According to Wiki :

Naturalism is the belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world

that is a positive assertion, and needs positive evidence as well to back up the claim.

,
Quote: so when someone claims the supernatural world exists, naturalism doesn't have to supply a rebuttal, only react to evidence given. It does, however, make the positive claim that the natural world exists, which does require evidence to be put out since it is a positive claim. The evidence of the natural world existing is rather obvious though, since we live in the natural world.

naturalism asserts, ONLY the natural world exists. So naturalists need to provide positive evidence for such claim.

Okay, I think I lost you on my last point. Naturalism states that only the natural world exist. That is correct, no argument there. But that statement, "Only the natural world exists" cannot be evaluated as is. First, we need to ask ourselves what the natural world is, and what is not the natural world. The natural world is the world dictated by natural laws. The one we live in, right now. What is not the natural world? The world that is not dictated by natural laws, A.K.A. the supernatural world. Take note here, Naturalism's statement "Only the natural world exists" takes two, not one, two stances. The stance that natural world exists(putting emphasize on the existence of the natural world), and that only the natural world exists(putting more emphasize on the notion that no other world exists). The natural world exists, and the supernatural(I'm using the rather lax definition of "Any world outside of the natural world" here) world does not. Two claims comprise naturalism. Hopefully I have you so far.

Now, we just evaluate those two claims independently. Naturalism is a philosophical stances that makes two stances. First, it says the natural world exists. Hopefully we all agree, the natural world does exist. Secondly, only the natural world exists. Since we already previously stated and established that the natural world exists, we don't need to include that aspect into the second part, letting us focus primarily on it's main point; that the supernatural world does not exist. That is a rejection of a positive claim. The first claim, the positive one, does have evidence. The second claim, the negative one, doesn't require evidence.

Just to hammer this point home, let's go abstract(I know, yay, right?). X and Y are dichotomous but all inclusive. Either something is X, or something is Y. We have examples of X. Strong, sturdy proof of X. X is essentially undeniable. We have, to date, no evidence of Y.Y, while having it's own definition distinct from X, appears not to exist. Now, that this point, we can substitution anything in, provided if follows the previously laid out premises. Let's say that out system consists of of Earth and Mars, and just Earth and Mars. X can be life that started on Earth. It's almost undeniable that life is on Earth. Y can be life on Mars. We have no evidence of life on Mars. So, let's make a belief that life, within the two stated planets, Earth and Mars, only exists on Earth. This is more or less the same structure as "Naturalism states that only the natural world exists". So, since the belief that life, between Mars and Earth, only exists on Earth is as positive a claim as naturalism, does that mean it need to provide proof that life doesn't exist on Mars? And if we cannot definitively prove that life doesn't exist on Mars, does that mean that the default position should be life exists on Mars?

(25-05-2011 09:29 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
Quote:But, since you are asking, I'll go ahead and dive into the Big Bang as best as a person who lacks a Ph.D. in Quantum Mechanics and/or Physics can. To my understanding of the big bang, the universe was condensed into a singularity. There was no space or time, and because of this it's in doubt if the law of case and effect can even be applied.

why not ? from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. That should be unquestionable. Absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and from it never something can arise.

Quote:In fact, because the universe was so dramatically different, we really aren't sure what laws can be applied. The Big Bang doesn't deal so much the universe prior to it, but what did happen(expansion). Some speculate that a quantum event(which even in our modern universe escapes the law of cause and effect) could have caused it. But here's the real noteworthy part; we don't know. We don't know what caused the Big Bang(or the creation of the universe if you want to broaden it), and that's okay. We don't have to choose an idea if we aren't comfortably sure on it.

see above.

the kalaam cosmological argument has not found a compelling rebuttal.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument

First of all, if you are honestly reading my posts, I thank you. I realize I'm getting a little bit long here, and you are a very popular guy here. You first says, in regards to the Big Bang, that nothing can only produce nothing. But the Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing. It just says that our universe use to exist in a radically different state, condensed into a singularity. It still existed, and it can't be rightfully described as nothing. I know it's common for it be described as nothing, but that's because such concepts as the universe fitting into a singularity, or that space and time didn't exist tend to scare the general public away.

Next, you use this:
p.1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
p.2. The universe began to exist.
c.1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. That cause was God.

So I'm going to go ahead and assess it.
p.1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
That is the law of cause and effect. Quantum Mechanics doesn't respect that law so much though. There are several instances in out natural world that events appear to be uncaused. But more to the point; before the Big Bang, there was no time or space, and it's speculated that because of this the law of cause and effect couldn't exist. So you're premise one is iffy at best.

p.2. The universe began to exist. I don't want to get into an infinite regress, and besides, yes, I agree that the universe has a beginning.

c.1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. That cause was God.
Again, see my response to p.1. And another thing here; that "God" is extremely vague. Let's say the universe did have a cause; a Quantum event, which appears to be one of those uncaused events I mentioned earlier. Would that be an acceptable god? Not even a being, or an object in any sense, but just an event that happened for no reason. The proof basically says that it'll call whatever caused the universe(be it a god, aliens, the human race from the future, or a random Quantum event) a god. Now, if you are willing to define god as a Quantum event, then I wouldn't be an atheist in respect to your god, as I'm pretty sure they exist. But, I'm fairly certain you would like to add more characteristics to your god than just a random event. There is a bridge to gap, even if I gave you your entire proof, to get to what would be traditionally called a god.

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
26-05-2011, 09:36 AM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
We really need to teach logic in primary schools. It would make a lot of this so much simpler, and up test scores drastically for the US.

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, 09:38 AM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: