Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The universe suggests a Creator. Who? Based on its values of intelligence, order, fine-tuning, and decay (laws of thermodynamics), suggests (to me) an intelligent, eternal, invisible, immutable, and incorporeal Being, which has been identified in the Bible as the Great Mind. Offer reasons why this conclusion is not logical? Once again, I'm working from the known to the unknown, as you are.
@ Gabriel
Thanks for slimming it down. It's still a big topic in itself.
You want "us atheists" to offer reasons for why your conclusions isn't true. But I would definitively first want to know how you have reached your conclusion, because none of this suggests to me the conclusions you have reached.
1) "Based on its values of intelligence, order, fine-tuning, and decay (laws of thermodynamics), suggests (to me) an intelligent, eternal, invisible, immutable, and incorporeal Being."
It "suggests" to you, why? Why a "Who"? Why with the specific properties you mention (an intelligent, eternal, invisible, immutable, and incorporeal Being)?
I see no reason for this.
2) "...which has been identified in the Bible as the Great Mind."
I certainly don't think so. The Bible speaks of a lot of things and has no credibility due to it's questionable origins. The same goes for The Tanakh, The Quran, the scriptures of Hinduism, Sikhism, and so on.
In what way does the origin of The Bible convince you that it's a book that is not as false as all other religious scriptures?
Gabriel - "Offer reasons why this conclusion is not logical?"
Why don't you provide the logic you used---in detail---to reach this conclusion, instead of offering it as fiat.
For example: "based on its values of intelligence, order, fine-tuning, and decay", how did you deduce god is invisible or immutable?
@Gabriel
A clear case of jumping to a conclusion and then justifying a book of allegory to fit your misguided illogic.
"The universe suggests a Creator."
How? The universe doesn't suggest anything of the sort. You can't see a pattern and then JUMP TO A CONCLUSION like that. It just doesn't make sense. It's like you theist seeing jesus in a piece of toast.
"Once again, I'm working from the known to the unknown, as you are."
You aren't working from the known. You are interjecting a conclusion. an assumption, from some made up myth.
For example: A flower is red. Conservatives are red. Therefore all red flowers are conservatives.
Gentlemen,
I've offered nothing as a "fiat" because I stated "to me this suggests," which indicates a speculation. My postulation is based on the evidence of nature - from the known to the unknown. When one dissects the inner workings of nature it reveals properties of intelligent workings, order, and fine-tuning principles. With these facts, I then logically consider who or what is responsible. Based on reason and experience, the only thing responsible for these properties is mind/intelligence. And as I mentioned, this is how the Bible describes the Creator, as MIND. Mind gave rise to the world and aIl of its properties. If you have another suggestion, I would like to hear it. What is responsible for the intelligent workings of nature, its design, its order, and fine-tuning principles? Do you deny that the world possesses these attributes? If so, why? If not, then how did they get here?
"When one dissects the inner workings of nature it reveals properties of intelligent workings, order, and fine-tuning principles. With these facts, I then logically consider who or what is responsible. Based on reason and experience, the only thing responsible for these properties is mind/intelligence."
Yes. The aliens from the Andromeda galaxy I posited earlier.
"And as I mentioned, this is how the Bible describes the Creator"
I see you still haven't figured out that the bible has zero credibility, in all matters both midevil and benign.
"What is responsible for the intelligent workings of nature, its design, its order, and fine-tuning principles? Do you deny that the world possesses these attributes? If so, why? If not, then how did they get here?"
(1) Why is your god any more credible than aliens from space?
(2)Yes.
(3) 4 words: Skepticism without religious influence.
@Gabriel
You say that nature has an order when dissected. The fact is that Stephen Hawking proves just the opposite. On his show, 'Thinking Like a Genius', he proves that there is a randomness unmatched by anything, even the most complicated computers are not to replicate such randomness. He further proves that this randomness can create what we see as patterns. Even IF, and it's a big "if", there is a universal pattern to everything, you cannot jump to a conclusion that there is a god that created it. That is a total and unwarranted assumption of the first magnitude.
But back to your pattern theory. Take a tree. If you extract the DNA of a tree and try to reproduce the tree, you WILL get the same species, but not exactly the same tree. Branches will shape differently, the growth rate will vary, and the tree will not even look the same, only similar. In fact, the DNA will have changed.
This is called "random variation". It is a huge obstacle in producing organs from DNA. DNA and nature are SO random that duplication, or more to the point, exact duplication is not really achievable. DNA will alter itself without interjecting any outside influence.
So no there is no "pattern", or "intelligent design", and nature is random. And BTW the bible does not describe the creator as "MIND". That is a false state that is actually a lie. It actual says "...the mind of the creator...", which altogether different in context.
"Intelligent design" is an excuse for the bible being inaccurate. It is a phrase adopted by the 20th-century religious apologist. Nowhere in the bible will you find the phrase "intelligent design." It is a phrase made up by people who oppose to the fact that is evolution.
You pose the questions "What is responsible for the intelligent workings of nature, its design, its order, and fine-tuning principles? Do you deny that the world possesses these attributes? If so, why? If not, then how did they get here?"
1) The question is flawed because nature is random.
2) As far as how we got here, there is no answer, but that doesn't mean we should just assume it was by a god. That is jumping to an unproven unsubstantiated conclusion.
I would like every single christian to stand trial and be judged just how they accept that there is a god. If they were on trial and were judged by the prosecution presenting a case on nothing more than an assumption and then jumping to an unproven conclusion, these christians would realize just how preposterous their faith is.
I know that it is off topic, but what exactly does "@" do? I know what it does on pinterest but not here.
It doesn't do anything, it just means "at". As in that the post is addressed to a specific person.
Sometimes it's hard to see who a reply is for. And if you reply to someone, but want to post on the main tread it's very helpful to mention who it's for.
I often use it for attribution when I quote another post to avoid confusion about who said what.
e.g.
@Hawk Flint
"I know that it is off topic, but...."
@Algebe,
@The Pragmatic,
Thank you both.
Gabriel - "What is responsible for the intelligent workings of nature, its design, its order, and fine-tuning principles? Do you deny that the world possesses these attributes?"
Yes; let's say I'm very skeptical.
@ Gabriel
Personally, I think you only tried to cover yourself by saying "it suggests to me", because later you slipped up and continue with:
- "With these facts, I then logically consider..."
Regardless of this, you are still skipping the entire part of how you reached your conclusions by simply restating your loosely defined premise and the conclusion.
And there are two separate topics of discussion here:
1)
- "When one dissects the inner workings of nature it reveals properties of intelligent workings, order, and fine-tuning principles. With these facts, I then logically consider who or what is responsible. Based on reason and experience, the only thing responsible for these properties is mind/intelligence."
- "Mind gave rise to the world and aIl of its properties."
Your conclusion here requires a lot of explaining.
EDITED TO ADD:
----------------------------------
If your going to postulate a supernatural intelligence who did the fine tuning of the universal fundamental physical constants, you can just as easily just postulate the constants themselves.
----------------------------------
2)
- "And as I mentioned, this is how the Bible describes the Creator, as MIND."
The Bible according to your specific interpretation does, yes. Many other Christians would disagree with your version of interpretation and many different interpretations of almost any other religious text would also describe this creator.
You keep giving the Bible special meaning among all religious scriptures and I don't understand why. You need to elaborate on how you have reached your conclusion that the bible among all religious texts is the one that is genuine.
(Both of these points are whole topics by themselves)
Gabriel,
What are the specifics of the 'fine tuning' to which you have referred? What specific things are fine tuned? Why do you consider these things fine tuned (requiring a tuner) as opposed to just being what they are?
Gentlemen,
No one has offered a serious alternative to my conclusion warranted by the evidence of natural processes. Really? The best you have is aliens, which begs more questions, like who made them. I've already mentioned that my conclusion of an Eternal Creator, who is mind, teaches us in the Bible that He is the first and last, meaning He is, was, and has always been. I then I get another lecture about the functions of evolution (i.e., random variation) to disprove a discussion of cosmology viewpoints. Hey @mykcob4! This discussion is not about the workings of evolution, it is about following the clues of nature to its logical end. I see that no one really argues against the properties of nature possessing intellectual properties, order, and fine-tuning principles. Why? Because you would be foolish to do so. When one studies the functions of a living cell, he is witnessing a mini-factory scene, where the nucleus, cytoplasm, mitochondrion, et. al. are doing their job as if commanded to do so and in an orderly fashion. Question: How does organic matter possess the wherewithal to move and behave this way? When one studies the properties of this universe, he witnesses laws and processes, such as the distance of the planets and the importance of them, in order for life to exist here on earth. Question: How does organic matter know where to place planets for life to exist and then set up laws for life to succeed? The list can go on and on concerning the intelligent design of the universe, its order, and fine-tuning principles, and thus the reason with THESE FACTS that the only CONCLUSION based on logic, reason, and common sense is MIND/INTELLIGENCE is responsible for it. Someone or Something (A BEING) has to have ordered these things, an entity that is beyond the natural world and is immaterial. If not, then offer a better explanation. If you are going to offering a material being then naturally I am going to ask several questions: (1) Who made them? (2) Is organic matter then eternal? If so, give proof.
The problem we are left with when merely contemplating nature is the problem we are having now, speculation and guesswork. For this reason, the Creator did leave behind additional information to identify Him. And this is where a study of the holy books comes into play. The problem and the challenge is, people have to research through these books to determine which one is actually the correct one, seeing that men are prone to lying and deception. So out of all the "claimed" holy books, the only one that is consistent with life is the Holy Bible because it gives a description of our Creator and life that are logical and reasonable. Yes, the Bible does teach that "God is MIND" (Jn. 4:24) and is eternal, invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal (1 Tim. 6:16; Job 9:11; Num. 23:19). God says he is the ONLY CREATOR and the one responsible for the workings of nature (Rom. 1:19-20). I don't just believe because it says it, I believe it because this is what I see in nature. I see the evidence of intelligence, order, and fine-tuning that only an INTELLIGENT MIND could make happen. The reason I have rejected all of the other so-called holy books is because they either present the Creator as a being that is inconsistent with logic or the doctrine they claim to have from this being is inconsistent with laws of morality and ethics.
For the hundredth time, give me an alternative to my conclusion. One that is serious. And explain why you have come to that conclusion. Thanks.
@ Gabriel
Can't you answer questions of how you have reached *your* conclusions?
Your reasoning is critically flawed, but you want to continue from your conclusions. There is little point in having that discussion.
"For the hundredth time, give me an alternative to my conclusion. One that is serious. And explain why you have come to that conclusion. Thanks."
I'm not angry at all, I just want you to actually see this message:
YOU CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, BUT DEMAND THAT OTHERS PROVIDE COUNTER CONCLUSIONS AND EXPLAIN THEM?!?!?
I'm convinced that you have no idea why you started believing in the Bible as opposed to any alternatives.
It must have started somewhere? When did you first feel that "I believe in the bible"? When did you first feel that "I believe in Christianity"? Why won't you discuss it? Are you afraid of venturing there?
"The reason I have rejected all of the other so-called holy books is because they either present the Creator as a being that is inconsistent with logic or the doctrine they claim to have from this being is inconsistent with laws of morality and ethics."
I have heard very similar arguments from Muslims. And saying that this is so, doesn't magically make your interpretation infallible. What steps did you take to come to this conclusion?
I'm giving up on you Gabriel.
How is your behavior any different than a person who claims that Scientology is true, because Scientology says so. Then says, if you do not agree provide alternate conclusions and prove them!
And when asked about his own conclusions, refuses to elaborate.
I can't see the difference.
Gabriel, why won't you answer the questions posed to you? You seem to be ignoring them. Your 'do as I say, not as I do' behavior has become terribly tedious. You have the power to fix that if you would just answer the question people are asking.
Gentlemen,
I've answered your questions, but they are unsatisfactory to you. It is you all who keep skirting the issues and arguments posed by me. This is the reason you haven't answered any of my questions. For the millionth time, my conclusion of an eternal, immaterial and invisible Creator was first thought upon by me from the natural world, called "general revelation". Its properties I've shown and listed haven't been disproven. Now, since the natural world doesn't speak and cannot reveal its Maker; therefore, we must seek this Being by looking at, what is termed "special revelation," meaning something in addition to the general revelation of nature. And the reason why special revelation was needed is because we get no where, like in these discussions, when everyone and anyone can postulate anything they like and think about Who or What created us. Then yes, we are simply left with the conclusion: "I don't know!", to which I would logically reply, if you don't know, then why do you take measures in disproving my conclusion but don't with the same fervor debate against those who say that we may have come from aliens, eternal matter, and/or several brains. Seems very hypocritical! For this reason, there has to be an interest in books that speak of what created us, because it is very possible that our Creator wanted to reveal Himself in a more personal way. This takes us to a look at "holy books". From these books it is up to us to read, investigate, and come to a logical conclusion, comparing it with the what we experience in life - general revelation. Through the process of logic and deduction, we then submit to the book that fits with the properties of this world. For example, life comes from life, intelligence suggests intelligence, order suggests a Creator; in short, the world boasts cosmic synergy, which from logic and experience only comes from a Someone or Something capable of ordering it in that fashion. After considering all of these "holy books" only one naturally rises to the top and explains things that are consistent with what a Creator should be - mind, thought, invisible, immaterial, eternal, and incorporeal - The Holy Bible. If a holy book suggested that this Creator was a person I would quickly reject it because people decay and are capricious. If a holy book said that this Creator was an animal, I would quickly reject it because animals don't fit the criteria for intellect. If a holy book said that this Creator was nature, I would quickly reject it because the natural world doesn't think, but simply does what it has been programmed to do. If someone or a book claims something that is inconsistent with logic, reason, and common sense, then I would reject it. What else do you want from me Mr. Pragmatic? I've been crystal clear.
As anyone played the game Clue? If you have, this is what I am doing. Like a detective, studying and looking at the clues and evidence, I then deduce from the known to the unknown. Question: How is my conclusion without any merit? And if you have a better conclusion, then let me consider it. What is tiresome are your statements of "It's not me to prove or give a conclusion!", then why are you arguing then? You want to viciously attack my conclusion, but you don't offer anything in return. What can you offer other than "I don't know" that will continue a strong dialogue.
And Mr. Pragmatic, I'm not saying I am true because I say it is, I've said that my speculation/conclusion seems to be accurate based on the logic and reasoning following it. If not, disprove it. And I've mentioned the Muslim belief already, but you don't take time to read long posts. What I said then was, the Muslim religion came from the Jewish religion, from which the Holy Bible came from; therefore, they serve the same God, but they call Him by a different name (Alah), which incidentally you can't find in the Old Testament Scriptures, and they serve under a different prophet (Muhammad), not Jesus Christ, who God says was the final prophet of His. If one carefully compares the Koran and Bible, there are tons of differences, and the reason why the Koran and the Muslim faith is rejected is because it is inconsistent with common sense moral and ethical principles, which the Bible, namely the New Testament teaches. The Bible teaches that there is only ONE religion acceptable to God; all others are feign. And yes I am aware that anyone can make this claim, but a claim is baseless if he or she can't back up with evidence of general and special revelation.
@Gabreil
UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!!!!! You claim that YOUR god is the true god because YOUR bible (new testament) Morals and ethics?
The bible doesn't teach morals. It teaches hatred and prejudice. It isn't even consistent in WHAT supposedly teaches.
BTW my non-learned friend. It's spelled "Allah" and it means god dumbass.
Christianity. The Aramaic word for "God" in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God".
Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllahWikipedia
And you boil your logic of reality and life down to playing "Clue"? UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!
BTW jerk, you haven't answered anyone's questions. What you have done is skirted the issue by posting more inane bible jargon that aren't facts nor are they relevant.
And don't ever use the term "logic" again. You don't deserve to use that term. You don't know what it means. You don't have a "CLUE" about logic.
"General revelation, special revelation," What a bunch of unadulterated horseshit! I think that you are just making up shit as you go along. Get the fuck off this forum. You're a goddamned idiot if ever I saw one!
Oh and before you think that you can report me for foul language...read the guidelines:
Forum Guidelines
No trolling
No spamming
No unrelated topics
No scams
No racism
No homophobic, or sexist comments
No non-English posts
No links to gory pictures or harmful websites
No threats of harm
No advertising or self-promotion
@mykcob4:
*Stands straight up, clapping as loud as he can*
I am book marking this page simply to be able to come back and read that post again.*Continues clapping*
@ Gabriel
"Mr. Pragmatic, I'm not saying I am true because I say it is, I've said that my speculation/conclusion seems to be accurate based on the logic and reasoning following it. If not, disprove it."
You are making claims, then demanding disproof of it if anyone disagrees. Don't you see how silly that is?
I can make any claim I want, lets say "the evidence in nature shows us that there is no god". Then I can demand that you must agree or disprove it: "if you think I'm wrong, disprove it!"
But this is not how a rational discussion is conducted: I would be wrong to demand proof against my claim, instead of giving proof that supports my claim.
I can just as easily demand proof for a claim like "Gigantic fire breathing dragons does exist, I have seen evidence and my cousin has seen one. If not, disprove it."
Anyone can see that this is just ridiculous. And anyone can see that more than a claim of "evidence in nature" or "I have seen evidence" is needed as evidence.
Are we in agreement?
You keep reiterating your "evidence" and basis for your conclusions: "this is what I see in nature. I see the evidence of intelligence, order, and fine-tuning that only an INTELLIGENT MIND could make happen."
That is not evidence, not proof, not a valid explanation of how you reached your conclusions. You say that we avoid answering your questions, but we simply do not agree with your premises, your "logic" or your conclusions.
You want to continue the discussion from your conclusions, that I (we) do not agree with. They are baseless, without proof, without evidence, without logic, without coherence. There is no point in continuing a discussion from such a point.
Hence my counter questions that you seem to want to avoid no matter what.
Gabriel,
In order to show you how confusing and incomplete your replies are, I have selected one of your longer recent posts and have used [ ] to insert questions that indicate points needing expansion or evidential support. (If a few of these questions have been answered previously, just patiently supply the answer once again.) I have inserted some blank lines to make the mass of text more readable.
One of your biggest problems, Gabriel, is that you don't communicate well. Minor points that are supported by several sentences should be set off as paragraphs, there being a blank line between paragraphs.
Major points that are supported by several paragraphs, if the post is long, should have their own title lines. That is, a group of paragraphs for a major point should begin with a title line which is separated by a blank line.
Never let a block get too long. Identify separate, minor points within it and break that material into paragraphs.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Gabriel's post (with Greensnake's questions/comments):
Gentlemen,
I've answered your questions, but they are unsatisfactory to you. [#1 Have you? It seems that a lot of my material remains untouched.] It is you all who keep skirting the issues and arguments posed by me. [#2 Really? Can we have 3 good examples from my material?] This is the reason you haven't answered any of my questions. [#3 Might there be other reasons that you have overlooked?] For the millionth time, my conclusion of an eternal, immaterial and invisible Creator was first thought upon by me from the natural world, called "general revelation". Its properties I've shown and listed [#4 Can you briefly list those properties again for us?] haven't been disproven. [#5 Are they testable? #6 Is it our job to disprove them? #7 If not disproved, is that significant? In what way? #8 What do you mean by "proof"?]
Now, since the natural world doesn't speak and cannot reveal its Maker [#9 Is there a maker?]; therefore, we must seek this Being by looking at, what is termed "special revelation," meaning something in addition to the general revelation of nature. [#10 Did you, as this sentence suggests, begin by assuming a maker must exist? #11 Is special revelation supported by evidence? If so, where can that evidence come from if not the physical world?] And the reason why special revelation was needed is because we get no where, like in these discussions, when everyone and anyone can postulate anything they like and think about Who or What created us. [#12 Are you saying these discussions have achieved nothing? I thought I made some good points! #13 How does special revelation eliminate alternatives based on natural processes if special revelation doesn't address the revelations of nature?] Then yes, we are simply left with the conclusion: "I don't know!", to which I would logically reply, if you don't know, then why do you take measures in disproving my conclusion [#14 Why can't we point out the flaws in your conclusion? Aren't you making an important claim here that should be evaluated?] but don't with the same fervor debate against those who say that we may have come from aliens, eternal matter, and/or several brains [#15 Shouldn't we be addressing your claim here?]. Seems very hypocritical! [#16 Why?] [#17 Is it your intention to prove or at least argue for your conclusion? #18 Doesn't that require a rebuttal on our part? #19 If you are not arguing for your conclusion, why are you posting on this thread?] For this reason, there has to be an interest in books that speak of what created us, because it is very possible that our Creator wanted to reveal Himself in a more personal way. [#20 Is a book, seemingly full of contradictions and errors typical of Iron Age thinking, a good way for God to reveal himself? Couldn't God find a much better way? I can think of all kinds of ways that would do the job quickly and thoroughly!] This takes us to a look at "holy books". From these books it is up to us to read, investigate, and come to a logical conclusion,
comparing it with the what we experience in life - general revelation. [#21 Have you studied these various holy books and are you familiar with the arguments the faithful give for their defense?] Through the process of logic and deduction, we then submit to the book that fits with the properties of this world. For example, life comes from life, intelligence suggests intelligence, order suggests a Creator [#22 Might not life and intelligence have evolved as higher order properties? That strikes me as a serious alternative.]; in short, the world boasts cosmic synergy, which from logic and experience only comes from a Someone or Something capable of ordering it in that fashion. [#23 Really? Aren't you just assuming that? #24 Can you work through a couple of examples to support your claim?] After considering all of these "holy books" only one naturally rises to the top and explains things that are consistent with what a Creator should be - mind, thought, invisible, immaterial, eternal, and incorporeal - The Holy Bible. [#25 Who gave you the necessary specifications for a creator? Might not a creator be visible and corporeal? #26 Doesn't the Bible give several, different views of God?]
If a holy book suggested that this Creator was a person I would quickly reject it because people decay and are capricious. If a holy book said that this Creator was an animal, I would quickly reject it because animals don't fit the criteria for intellect. [#27 Why can't a creator assume the form of an animal for some inscrutable reason?] If a holy book said that this Creator was nature, I would quickly reject it because the natural world doesn't think, but simply does what it has been programmed to do. If someone or a book claims something that is inconsistent with logic, reason, and common sense, then I would reject it. [#28 Shouldn't you be rejecting the Bible then? It seems to have plenty of verses that have no respect for reason or common sense! A talking donkey and Noah's ark, for example, and lots of contradictions.] What else do you want from me Mr. Pragmatic? I've been crystal clear. [#29 Really? A lot of us don't think so.]
As anyone played the game Clue? [Loved it when I was a kid!] If you have, this is what I am doing. Like a detective, studying and looking at the clues and evidence, I then deduce from the known to the unknown. [#30 Doesn't that mean starting with the laws of nature? Is anything better tested that that?] Question: How is my conclusion without any merit? [#31 Have you studied my posts and those of others on this thread? It seems that you have missed something. Not starting with the best knowns--laws of nature--would be one example.] And if you have a better conclusion, then let me consider it. [#32 Have you carefully read all my posts? Can you recite the alternatives I listed and why I support them?] What is tiresome are your statements of "It's not me to prove or give a conclusion!", then why are you arguing then? [#33 Didn't this thread ask for proof concerning a god-human relationship? Perhaps we are just saying that we haven't received that proof.] You want to viciously [#34 You meant "vigorously" didn't you? How a rational argument can be "vicious" is not clear to me.] attack my conclusion, but you don't offer anything in return. What can you offer other than "I don't know" that will continue a strong dialogue. [#35 Might not "I don't know" be the only honest answer? #36 If you say you have the answer, and it seems defective, should we criticize it? Why must we prove alternatives?]
And Mr. Pragmatic, I'm not saying I am true because I say it is, I've said that my speculation/conclusion seems to be accurate based on the logic and reasoning following it. [#37 Is that really a good conclusion? We certainly disagree!] If not, disprove it. [#38 Isn't it your job on this thread to give us a proof? Perhaps you should re-read the opening statement.] And I've mentioned the Muslim belief already, but you don't take time to read long posts. [#39 Aren't your long posts a scattered, conglomerate of text whose thoughts are largely incomplete--tiresome to read in short? Pragmatic is, by all reckoning, an exceedingly patient fellow, and he has tried to get you to post your material in reasonably-sized pieces which is entirely possible if you limit the scope of each reply (of several) and give them some thought.] What I said then was, the Muslim religion came from the Jewish religion, from which the Holy Bible came from; therefore, they serve the same God, but they call Him by a different name (Alah), which incidentally you can't find in the Old Testament Scriptures, and they serve under a different prophet (Muhammad), not Jesus Christ, who God says was the final prophet of His.
If one carefully compares the Koran and Bible, there are tons of differences, and the reason why the Koran and the Muslim faith is rejected is because it is inconsistent with common sense moral and ethical principles, which the Bible, namely the New Testament teaches. [#40 Have you surveyed the moral teachings of Islam and the Koran, allowing for lots of cherry-picking as is practiced by Bible believers? #41 Have you talked this over with a knowledgeable Muslim, person to person or on an Islamic forum, to see what the defenses are? It seems to me that if unlimited cherry-picking is not allowed, then both books contain a massive amount of immoral thinking.] The Bible teaches that there is only ONE religion acceptable to God; all others are feign. [#42 Doesn't almost every religion teach that?] And yes I am aware that anyone can make this claim, but a claim is baseless if he or she can't back up with evidence of general and special revelation. [#43 Can you carefully define "special revelation" for us? #44 What makes you think that Christianity has passed this text? Isn't that just an opinion held by those with a deep, Christian prejudice?]
[Feel free to break up your reply so that each part is of reasonable length.]
@mykcob4
You're a real classy guy. And your ability to not control yourself is in full view. Hate to be married to you. And I haven't violated any of the rules. If you don't like this discussion then you can move on to a different forum. You don't have to be on this one.
@Pragmatic
Let's simplify this. Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world? If so, then what from reality and experience gives us these properties? If not, then explain what these properties are and how they came about? I've offered a suggestion, yet you haven't. Why and how do cells behave the way they do? Why and how does organic matter function the way it does? Why and how does organic matter work synergistically throughout the universe? If you deny the existence of an eternal Mind, you have to be able to prove that matter (on its own) contains the wherewithal to function orderly and intelligently. Let's hear it.
And, once again, while I am making a claim, I've also said that the claim is a suggestion, postulation, and inference based on deductive reasoning - from the known to the unknown. The only thing I have asked of you is, give me another possible and believable conclusion. I have no where advocated for the existence of God with anecdotal information, yet advocated for the existence of God through logical necessity based on what the processes of nature reveal. ****And I am not forcing my conclusion on you, rather I am suggesting the conclusion I came up with because of the workings of nature. Now, if you are countering my conclusion, what is the alternative suggestion, which you have yet to give. Atheists are so concerned with evidence and logic, where is your proof to disprove my rational? I've always said that this discussion is a logical inference one, not a provide you physical evidence of a Creator, because as I noted, you can't give physical evidence to an entity (from my perspective) that is invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal. No matter what you say, I am the one that has answered your questions, you haven't.
Perhaps instead of asking us, you should reaserch other possibilities on your own.........
@Gabriel
1) I didn't say that YOU violated the forum rules. I was pre-empting you from accusing me of doing so.
2) I started this thread. I own it. You tried to hijack it to proselytize, and I won't let that happen.
3) You have not been honest or truthful, thus my ire.
4) Accusing me of not controlling myself is just insane like all of your long tedious inane posts. You deserve the retribution that I exacted on you.
The fact that you keep posting that isn't at all true and refusing to 1) not back up any of your claims, and 2) refusing to answer the simplest questions put forth by we members, is a testament that you are a troll and not a worthy person of this forum.
"Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world?"
Prove that that is true, don't just state that it is.
"If not, then explain what these properties are and how they came about?"
We don't have to prove anything. We aren't making an assertion or claim. YOU ARE!!!! And besides, If there isn't an answer to that question, you can't just assume a god. You have to prove a god first and make a direct connection.
"And, once again, while I am making a claim, I've also said that the claim is a suggestion, postulation, and inference based on deductive reasoning - from the known to the unknown. "
No, you haven't postulated from the known to the unknown. You have claimed a known that isn't known and from there jumped to a conclusion and assumed something that you have yet to prove. Thus the reason for members to ask for clarification and facts that you refuse to produce.
We don't have to disprove an "eternal MIND". that is something YOU made up. So you prove this eternal mind.
Fuck you are stupid. Just plain dumb!
mykcob4: 10
Gabriel: -666
@ Gabriel
Before I forget:
May I ask why the property "immutable" is included in the list of properties for a creator deity?
"Let's simplify this."
On this, we are in full agreement. The simpler the better.
"Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world"
(Why do I get a mental picture in my head of Admiral Ackbar yelling "It's a trap"?)
Is there order? Sure, there are various forms of order, depending on your definition of the word.
Is there intelligence? Sure, there is human intelligence and several animals have shown intelligence, depending on your definition of the word.
Is there fine-tuning? Eh? There are basic laws and constants of physics.
"what from reality and experience gives us these properties?"
I'm not sure what kind answer you expect. (I'm not educated in quantum physics and I was lousy at chemistry.)
For starters I would say gravity and the forces between elementary particles in combination with their masses.
"I've offered a suggestion, yet you haven't."
You're tight, I haven't.
Because I don't agree with your conclusions, I simply asked questions about *how* you came to your conclusions. To clarify: I asked you to elaborate on *how*, not just reiterate the asserted premises.
"Why and how do cells behave the way they do? Why and how does organic matter function the way it does? Why and how does organic matter work synergistically throughout the universe?"
I'm sure I don't have the education to answer this in a satisfying or even correct way. I'd say that it's because of the forces between elementary particles in combination with their masses: chemical bonds, electromagnetism and the likes.
"If you deny the existence of an eternal Mind..."
Deny?
You keep using loaded words. To "deny" implies refusal. I simply don't hold a belief in something that there is no supporting evidence for. If there where actual supporting evidence I would start believing, in proportion to that evidence.
"...you have to be able to prove..."
I most certainly do not "have to"! I find that a bit offensive. Why would anyone have to?
It's very easy, if I don't know how something works, that does not mean that an anthropomorphic deity is behind it. Just as it doesn't mean that there is magic involved or as some prefer, aliens.
"...that matter (on its own) contains the wherewithal to function orderly and intelligently. Let's hear it."
Again with comments like "Let's hear it", provocatively demanding proof.
I don't have any proof, I don't feel any need for such proof and I certainly don't think anyone has the right to demand such proof.
That "matter" is behaving "intelligently" is an odd statement to say the least. What ever do yo mean by that?
As far as we know, the possibility for intelligence to arise is depending on complex dynamic structures like neural networks to arise.
You have said "I don't want speculations, I want evidence that I can see and test", yet reject the evidence that actually exist.
"I've also said that the claim is a suggestion, postulation, and inference based on deductive reasoning - from the known to the unknown."
You keep mentioning how you go "from the known to the unknown", yet you're talking about things that at least according to how I interpret it, seems completely incorrect and completely unknown.
For example, suggesting that matter is acting intelligently or claiming that intelligence and communication could not evolve and instead had to "emanate from someone". Emanate?
These claims are by no means known, instead you are starting with speculation: someone "fine-tuned" the fundamental physical constants, intelligence can't evolve, etc.
"I have no where advocated for the existence of God with anecdotal information, yet advocated for the existence of God through logical necessity based on what the processes of nature reveal."
I beg to differ, as shown above.
"Atheists are so concerned with evidence and logic, where is your proof to disprove my rational?"
In my view, you are grossly overestimating your "rational". You interpret conscious action into order and the fundamental physical constants, based only on your personal interpretation.
I have to say, some of your statements does not add up:
"Atheists are so concerned with evidence and logic"
vs
"I don't want speculations, I want evidence that I can see and test"
"if you want proof ... how do you prove Someone that is immaterial, incorporeal, and invisible?"
vs
"If you deny the existence of an eternal Mind, you have to be able to prove..."
In closing.
"No matter what you say, I am the one that has answered your questions, you haven't."
A phrase like this belongs in the children's sandbox, not in a debate forum.
I don't consider that you have answered my questions at all, you have only reiterated your assertions, not how you actually derive intelligence from order, or what steps are included in deriving an intelligent, eternal, invisible, immutable and incorporeal being from the evidence in nature.
CURRENT STATUS:
mykcob4: General Douglas MacArthur, after backing the Japanese into a corner.
The Pragmatic: Soviet forces on May 1st, 1945.
Gabriel: Hitler hiding in his bunker during the Battle of Berlin.
Pages