A question for atheists

 Come on people. The evidence is all around you. The earth and all the life here. Birds,trees, grass, fishes, animals, cats and dogs. Did these things form of their own making?
  
   If they did where are all the in between animals and plants, we should be able to see them (in betweens) if they are evolving.

   It takes less faith to believe in the creation of God. than to believe that millions or billions of years ago some mud and primordial soup started to live and breathe. Man is special, created in the image of God.

  

I was merely showing that Hoppy's lack of understanding of the Biological Classification System is not evidence of an "Intelligent Designer."

Like that picture states "Bread goes in toast comes out, you can't explain that."

Not to mention lack of understanding of Evolution and Abiogenesis as well.

I was merely showing that Hoppy's lack of understanding of the Biological Classification System is not evidence of an "Intelligent Designer."

Like that picture states "Bread goes in toast comes out, you can't explain that."

Not to mention lack of understanding of Evolution and Abiogenesis as well.

Oh, derp. Clearly I'm still learning how to read. I'll revise.

Come on people. The evidence is all around you. The earth and all the life here. Birds,trees, grass, fishes, animals, cats and dogs. Did these things form of their own making?
 
   If they did where are all the in between animals and plants, we should be able to see them (in betweens) if they are evolving.

   It takes less faith to believe in the creation of God. than to believe that millions or billions of years ago some mud and primordial soup started to live and breathe. Man is special, created in the image of God.

Nice description of biological classification How does [this] relate to the existence of a god? To claim that the complexity of the universe is evidence for a deity is an argument from incredulity, which is basically the logical fallacy of being stupid. Just because you think something is complicated, does not mean its origins are of a divine or magical nature.

Let me restate my comment. Hoppy states that he only sees plants and animals. Then he makes a comment about mud and not being able to watch evolution. He then comes to the conclusion that there must be an Intelligent Designer.

I corrected his error and was saying there are six kingdoms, not two like he mentions. Saying we came from mud is also a misunderstanding of Abiogenesis. Then he said he can't watch evolution. This is do to the fact that he doesn't understand the factors involved in evolution. Time being the first one coming to mind. Understand? His conclusion of there being an Intelligent Designer was due to a lack of knowledge. 

I should also note that I never implied anything about the complexity of the universe proves that there is no god.

Yes, I completely misunderstood your post, life, the universe, and everything. We are in agreement.

This thread was going well until people started feeding the trolls. Just ignore them when they post on this board, unless it's specifically a troll topic, e.g. anything by Wardogg. But back to the debate, I'd also like to know what we're really talking about here. Are we talking about evidence for Yahweh or a god in general?

Even if it could be proven that the world and all life on it was intelligently designed, why does it have to be by an all powerful being?  Why does it have to be one being? 

What if all life on Earth was designed by a race of highly advanced humanoids? 

Even if it could be proven that the world and all life on it was intelligently designed, why does it have to be by an all powerful being?  Why does it have to be one being? 

What if all life on Earth was designed by a race of highly advanced humanoids? 

I think it's more that the arguments for an intelligent creator rely on the transcendence of the creator. It doesn't necessarily make them a 'god', but at least require them to dwell in a space that is metaphysically outside of ours.

Quote from: Lorddave on February 26, 2011, 09:39:57 AM

Even if it could be proven that the world and all life on it was intelligently designed, why does it have to be by an all powerful being?  Why does it have to be one being? 

What if all life on Earth was designed by a race of highly advanced humanoids? 

I think it's more that the arguments for an intelligent creator rely on the transcendence of the creator. It doesn't necessarily make them a 'god', but at least require them to dwell in a space that is metaphysically outside of ours.

Why?
In 1,000 years if our technology keeps advancing, we'll likely have the power to create all sorts of new species that are more complex than bacteria or Viruses.  Does that mean humans will be on a different space that is metaphysically outside of the one we're currently in?  I think not.  The creation of life exists within our physical realm.  Heck, we do it all the time.

I'm not talking about the creation of life, but the possible creation of cosmic order. I think the evidence for Evolution driven by Natural Selection throw out the classic 'intelligent design' theory. But There is still reason to believe there may be an external entity that established the physical and moral order of the universe.

Relevant: Read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke.

I'm not talking about the creation of life, but the possible creation of cosmic order. I think the evidence for Evolution driven by Natural Selection throw out the classic 'intelligent design' theory. But There is still reason to believe there may be an external entity that established the physical and moral order of the universe.

I would think that the evidence for Evolution shows that order tends to happen, even in a seemingly chaotic system.

I know, but it can't account for why it is that way.

I know, but it can't account for why it is that way.

Well that's easy:
If it didn't work, we wouldn't be here.

  I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm asking why it works. There may be no explanation for it, at least none that we can know, but that's not to say there is no explanation.

Sometimes in random systems, order will emerge, and sometimes it has the property of keeping itself around.

But the question of why things are the way they are still remains. Why do the laws of physics and all the rest exist? Like I said, we don't have the answer and maybe never will, but that doesn't mean there is no answer.

But There is still reason to believe there may be an external entity that established the physical and moral order of the universe.

Jumping in to clarify..
And what is that reason? Because order exists, you see reason to believe in external entities?

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 10:04:05 AM

But There is still reason to believe there may be an external entity that established the physical and moral order of the universe.

Jumping in to clarify..
And what is that reason? Because order exists, you see reason to believe in external entities?

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on February 26, 2011, 09:03:51 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 10:04:05 AM

But There is still reason to believe there may be an external entity that established the physical and moral order of the universe.

Jumping in to clarify..
And what is that reason? Because order exists, you see reason to believe in external entities?

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

But then you gotta ask yourself how that being of Order came to be.  You do this infinitely until the only logical conclusion is that at some point something just worked and that's it.

I know, but I also can't necessarily discount that it's creators all the way down. Ultimately, there is no way to know and no real reason to believe one way or another. Maybe theoretical physics is out best way to get close to the truth, but maybe they're just as far away as anyone else.

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

I agree that the gods are defined in such a way that they can't be disproved, but the notion of a prime mover seems nonsensical to me, especially as he himself would become part of the infinite regress.

I'm glad you aren't excluding the possibility of a god, but I have to ask... when there are infinite possibilities that could be imagined and used in place of explanation, do you contend that the notion of a god creature, is any better than the infinite other speculations that could be devised?

Why do the laws of physics and all the rest exist?

Are you asking why our particular laws (for instance, those of Newton) are the way they are as opposed to any alternative laws of physics, or are you asking why any laws even exist?

The god aspect of this discussion leads me to think the latter, but I won't assume as much yet...  

If nature was consistent in any other way, we would still have laws of physics. Perhaps you are asking why there is even consistency, since laws are actually just assigned to model the unchanging properties of nature.

If so, I'd say that the root of this question is meant to unveil 'the explanation', which already concedes to the point of a cause. (To acknowledge an explanation is to acknowledge cause(s).)

To have causality, you must have a causal relationship. If A → B, A causes B. It wouldn't be a cause if A sometimes meant the result B. Otherwise B could be the result of something else or 'random'. It wouldn't even necessarily be a correlation...

When you have universal causes leading to universal results, you can establish universal laws. Those laws, whatever they may be can be given names and understood separately as different laws of physics.



I've been meaning to ask, is that your cat?

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

I agree that the gods are defined in such a way that they can't be disproved, but the notion of a prime mover seems nonsensical to me, especially as he himself would become part of the infinite regress.

I'm glad you aren't excluding the possibility of a god, but I have to ask... when there are infinite possibilities that could be imagined and used in place of explanation, do you contend that the notion of a god creature, is any better than the infinite other speculations that could be devised?

I'm not necessarily arguing for a god creature that literally crafts the universe like a human crafts a table. What I'm interested in is whether or not there is a transcendent or metaphysical super/substructure of the cosmos that gives life purpose. My favourite theory is Aristotle's, where man is both a rational and political animal. Of course, it's possible that the universe simply exists without any purpose, but I think Aristotle makes a relatively convincing case against that idea.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on February 26, 2011, 10:33:17 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

I agree that the gods are defined in such a way that they can't be disproved, but the notion of a prime mover seems nonsensical to me, especially as he himself would become part of the infinite regress.

I'm glad you aren't excluding the possibility of a god, but I have to ask... when there are infinite possibilities that could be imagined and used in place of explanation, do you contend that the notion of a god creature, is any better than the infinite other speculations that could be devised?

I'm not necessarily arguing for a god creature that literally crafts the universe like a human crafts a table. What I'm interested in is whether or not there is a transcendent or metaphysical super/substructure of the cosmos that gives life purpose. My favourite theory is Aristotle's, where man is both a rational and political animal. Of course, it's possible that the universe simply exists without any purpose, but I think Aristotle makes a relatively convincing case against that idea.

I like to think that the Universe exists without purpose.  That means that any sentient life in said universe isn't bound by any purpose and therefore can do anything it wants.  In essence, having no boundaries allows us to be anything.

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 01:31:36 PM

Why do the laws of physics and all the rest exist?

Are you asking why our particular laws (for instance, those of Newton) are the way they are as opposed to any alternative laws of physics, or are you asking why any laws even exist?

The god aspect of this discussion leads me to think the latter, but I won't assume as much yet...  

If nature was consistent in any other way, we would still have laws of physics. Perhaps you are asking why there is even consistency, since laws are actually just assigned to model the unchanging properties of nature.

If so, I'd say that the root of this question is meant to unveil 'the explanation', which already concedes to the point of a cause. (To acknowledge an explanation is to acknowledge cause(s).)

To have causality, you must have a causal relationship. If A ? B, A causes B. It wouldn't be a cause if A sometimes meant the result B. Otherwise B could be the result of something else or 'random'. It wouldn't even necessarily be a correlation...

When you have universal causes leading to universal results, you can establish universal laws. Those laws, whatever they may be can be given names and understood separately as different laws of physics.



I've been meaning to ask, is that your cat?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here with your causal argument. And no it's not my cat, I wish.

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 10:48:15 PM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on February 26, 2011, 10:33:17 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

I agree that the gods are defined in such a way that they can't be disproved, but the notion of a prime mover seems nonsensical to me, especially as he himself would become part of the infinite regress.

I'm glad you aren't excluding the possibility of a god, but I have to ask... when there are infinite possibilities that could be imagined and used in place of explanation, do you contend that the notion of a god creature, is any better than the infinite other speculations that could be devised?

I'm not necessarily arguing for a god creature that literally crafts the universe like a human crafts a table. What I'm interested in is whether or not there is a transcendent or metaphysical super/substructure of the cosmos that gives life purpose. My favourite theory is Aristotle's, where man is both a rational and political animal. Of course, it's possible that the universe simply exists without any purpose, but I think Aristotle makes a relatively convincing case against that idea.

I like to think that the Universe exists without purpose.  That means that any sentient life in said universe isn't bound by any purpose and therefore can do anything it wants.  In essence, having no boundaries allows us to be anything.

That's the general modern consensus, but I think it's lacking in many key areas. I also think the biggest danger is our loss of humanity through the ultimate transhuman consequences of technology and existential metaphysics. I think humanity contains a dignity that should not be lost.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on February 26, 2011, 10:33:17 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on February 26, 2011, 09:43:36 PM

I simply don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Obviously I don't think there is any imposition into the natural order anymore, but I can't necessarily exclude the possibility of a prime mover or external law maker.

I agree that the gods are defined in such a way that they can't be disproved, but the notion of a prime mover seems nonsensical to me, especially as he himself would become part of the infinite regress.

I'm glad you aren't excluding the possibility of a god, but I have to ask... when there are infinite possibilities that could be imagined and used in place of explanation, do you contend that the notion of a god creature, is any better than the infinite other speculations that could be devised?

I'm not necessarily arguing for a god creature that literally crafts the universe like a human crafts a table. What I'm interested in is whether or not there is a transcendent or metaphysical super/substructure of the cosmos that gives life purpose. My favourite theory is Aristotle's, where man is both a rational and political animal. Of course, it's possible that the universe simply exists without any purpose, but I think Aristotle makes a relatively convincing case against that idea.

If there is another realm, how could it establish purpose? Absolute purpose seems unachievable to me. (I still contend even god couldn't assign objective purpose since everything he dictates is just that, a dictation.) I can think of no example where adding a realm increased value to anything outside it, aside from understanding. 

And I if I'm not mistaken, doesn't Aristotle's rational political animal cite humans' implicit need for laws and structure? That strikes me as an admission that man craves purpose... even if purpose is merely a human invention. Then again, I don't recall ever reading anything that resembled a  premise conclusion form, just conjecture and definitions to fit his perspective. Valuable as that may be, I can't take it as a solid argument.

That's the general modern consensus, but I think it's lacking in many key areas.

Can you describe those areas?

I also think the biggest danger is our loss of humanity through the ultimate transhuman consequences of technology and existential metaphysics. I think humanity contains a dignity that should not be lost.

Interesting. I want to understand it more, as it sounds a little vague.
Would Vulcans have that dignity?   

Is this dignity based on the importance of emotion, or the appreciation of the universe?
Vulcans are portrayed as a race that is driven by self-actualization, but they exclusively use rationality in their endeavors.

I like to think that the Universe exists without purpose.  That means that any sentient life in said universe isn't bound by any purpose and therefore can do anything it wants.  In essence, having no boundaries allows us to be anything.

Interesting. It makes me wonder what boundaries or implications a purpose would actually impose. And if it is completely without consequence, influence, or implication, does it really exist or matter?