Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course we do. I have demonstrated this is the case several times now.
No, you have asserted it several times - there IS a difference.
Quote:
If only you had evidence for your opinion.
The TOS in this forum assures you never have to see it again so your assertion is safe from rebuttal. The last time I presented it was when this forum included philosophy.
Quote:
No, that is just a by product.
There is another word for it, but we are not allowed to use it in this forum!
The difference is that atheists have been until quite recently discriminated against.
It was only recently that the law regarded atheists as having equal rights with the religious. It wasn't religion that voted to do that - it done in spite of the interests of religion. Dennett's point is a valid one. Religion constantly plays the hurt feelings card to try to suppress dissent, question and investigation. Atheism doesn't. It thrives on dissent, question and investigation. Atheism of course has had the answer to this for a long time. The 'Respect' card will no longer wash. We know that it is is just the reverse side of the 'Blasphemy law' card.
An old fashion classic atheist would never play the victimhood card.
Partially correct. To the best of my knowledge, there are a number of different hypothesis, but no actual theories. You are correct in that we do not have an answer, and that includes god. That isn't really an answer, it is simply another way of pushing back the question.
The point I was making is simply that an atheist worldview has no answer for these questions. It seems we agree on that point.
You can turn the question back on me (about God's existence), but doing so does not provide you with any more of an answer. I view agnosticism (i.e. "We don't know" or "We are unable to know") as a reasonable position about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth.
Do you agree?
Quote:
As to understanding the process, that is a pretty big IF for a being for which we have no evidence of existence. You are claiming an ability of god, without evidence that there is a god, or that such a god, if it were to exist, would possess that ability. That is pretty tenuous.
Secondly, I disagree that man is the definer of god, at least in the sense I think you mean (from the atheist viewpoint, of course man is the definer of god. Without man to conceive of god, god would not exist. But I digress...). I am not trying to comprehend the ways of god. I am simply looking for a reason to think god may exist, and I see nothing. Given that I see nothing, and physical facts and processes seem capable of explaining the existing of the universe, even if we do not fully understand them, the rational conclusion is that he does not exist.
I was essentially saying that it's unreasonable for a human with a 3-pound brain to expect to be able to comprehend the ways, the mind or the capabilities of a deity. I disagree that the "rational conclusion" is that God does not exist. You can say you don't know, or you think it's unlikely, but what is your basis for saying you KNOW that God does not exist?
On a scale of 1 - 100, how confident are you in that conclusion?
Quote:
You seem to be quite confused here. Science isn't a thing to have faith in. Science is a process for discovering and describing knowledge of the physical world. In and of itself it is not a creative force. I do not have faith in science at all. Rather, I understand the scientific process, and understand that it can provide answers within a certain degree of certainty.
So the only way that science is involved in abiogenesis is in proposing methods by which it can occur, testing those methods, criticizing the explanation, attempting to find flaws in the explanation, predicting outcomes if the explanation holds, looking for those outcomes, revising the theory if flaws are found, and describing the entire thing. Science does not make it happen.
However, I will throw two facts at you. At one point life did not exist, but inorganic matter did. Today, life exists and its basic components are those same molecules. How did we get from point A to point B? I don't know, but we have some ideas. As for Christianity, all you can offer is "God did it, its inexplicable, lets stop looking into it"
I said science doesn't have those answers, not that science was the "force" behind the big bang.
You claim I'm just saying "God did it" but at the same time you're avoiding acknowledging my point that your worldview doesn't have an answer for the question. It feel like you're just trying to distract from the point I'm making and put me on the defensive.
I have an answer for how the universe came to be. You may not like my answer, but I have one.
"I don't know, but we have some ideas" is still not an answer. Just because God's existence is not something a person can easily prove to another person (especially a highly skeptical one) that doesn't provide logical justification to conclude that God does not exist.
Quote:
No, I am not really interested. Anybody can play games with numbers, and it ultimately means nothing. . Lets say the odds are very, very long. So what? We are here, which means that either your calculation is incorrect, or we beat the odds. I suppose it could mean there is a god, but that only means that the existence of god beat those very same odds.
You aren't interested to see the statistics, and you say "So what" to the impossible odds of us existing? It's not reasonable to quickly dismiss such extreme improbability. It warrants more consideration than you are currently willing to give it. You are quick to believe we "beat the odds" but you still don't have an answer for how that happened.
If you believe that life began by chance from inorganic material, that takes faith (in a hypothesis) due to the extreme improbability of it occurring (10 to the 164th power). And that's just one of several unfathomable "coincidences" that would have to occur for us to be here (origin of the universe/life/man, fine-tuning of the universe for life, etc).
If you can convince yourself that ALL those unfathomable coincidences just "happened", go ahead, that's your choice, but your belief is not a "rational conclusion."
The whole world is saturated with mathematics and predictability. If it's all just happenstance then why should it be predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT.
I look forward to further discussion.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 07-16-2019 at 06:02 PM..
Busy at work, but not bad overall. Thanks. Hope your day was fine as well.
Quote:
The point I was making is simply that an atheist worldview has no answer for these questions. It seems we agree on that point.
You can turn the question back on me (about God's existence), but doing so does not provide you with any more of an answer. I view agnosticism (i.e. "We don't know" or "We are unable to know") as a reasonable position about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth.
Do you agree?
Partially, yes. I acknowledge, and I believe my post was clear, that I do not have an answer to the origin of the universe. Absolutely. I don’t know. I never meant to hide that in any way.
However, I do think it a fair tactic to turn the question back in you in regards to god’s existence. I am honest and say that I don’t know, but you make a positive claim when you say you do know, and that answer is god.
That claim has all sorts of implications, which really go back to the fundamental questions I posed at the beginning of this thread. How do you know it was god? What evidence do you have that it was, or that god exists? How did god come to exist?
Quote:
I was essentially saying that it's unreasonable for a human with a 3-pound brain to expect to be able to comprehend the ways, the mind or the capabilities of a deity. I disagree that the "rational conclusion" is that God does not exist. You can say you don't know, or you think it's unlikely, but what is your basis for saying you KNOW that God does not exist?
I don’t believe that I said all of that. I simply asked how god could pop the universe into existence. I never said anything about the mind, ways, or capabilities. My question was very specific and limited.
I am not even asking for a completely comprehensive, super detailed, particle physics level explanation. Just something more detailed than “he just didâ€.
Finally, I never said that I KNOW god doesn’t exist. I started by stating that I am an agnostic atheist, and we even agreed on a couple of variations on the definition.
So, you seem to be trying to place words in my mouth and misrepresent my position entirely. Please, let us discuss each other’s positions, not try to create a straw man.
So, when a,l is said and done, do you have any evidence that god created the universe, or that god even exists?
Quote:
On a scale of 1 - 100, how confident are you in that conclusion?
Using whole numbers on the scale you provided, 99.
Quote:
I said science doesn't have those answers, not that science was the "force" behind the big bang.
Actually, you said this:
Quote:
Believing that conscious life will inevitably develop from inorganic material, given enough time, is also different type of faith (in science) that some might see as expecting more of science than science can provide.
This implies that science is a creative force, not an explanatory process. If you want to say that you misspoke and really meant that science doesn’t have those answers, I would agree, but add that science does not have those answers... yet.
Quote:
You claim I'm just saying "God did it" but at the same time you're avoiding acknowledging my point that your worldview doesn't have an answer for the question. It feel like you're just trying to distract from the point I'm making and put me on the defensive.
I have been clear that some things are unknown. I have never hidden this, despite your implication. Quoting myself and adding emphasis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishbrains
Partially correct. To the best of my knowledge, there are a number of different hypothesis, but no actual theories. You are correct in that we do not have an answer, and that includes god. That isn't really an answer, it is simply another way of pushing back the question.
Once again, please do not misrepresent me when my statements are readily available to you.
Quote:
I have an answer for how the universe came to be. You may not like my answer, but I have one.
It is a terrible answer. It has no evidence, and no explanatory power. It is so useless as to be a non-answer.
Quote:
"I don't know, but we have some ideas" is still not an answer. Just because God's existence is not something a person can easily prove to another person (especially a highly skeptical one) that doesn't provide logical justification to conclude that God does not exist.
Sigh. Agnostic atheist, remember? I have not concluded god does not exist. I am simply not convinced by your claim which lacks any supporting evidence.
Quote:
You aren't interested to see the statistics, and you say "So what" to the impossible odds of us existing? It's not reasonable to quickly dismiss such extreme improbability. It warrants more consideration than you are currently willing to give it. You are quick to believe we "beat the odds" but you still don't have an answer for how that happened.
If you believe that life began by chance from inorganic material, that takes faith (in a hypothesis) due to the extreme improbability of it occurring (10 to the 164th power). And that's just one of several unfathomable "coincidences" that would have to occur for us to be here (origin of the universe/life/man, fine-tuning of the universe for life, etc).
If you can convince yourself that ALL those unfathomable coincidences just "happened", go ahead, that's your choice, but your belief is not a "rational conclusion."
I am not a mathematician, and I think the old saw about “Lies, damn lies, and statistics†applies. I am not competent to evaluate a statistical claim. I am also not convinced that any theist has been completely honest in creating these numbers. They tend to play fast and loose with how they do their calculations, at least according to my entry level statistical understanding. Adding to this, even if you are right, and every number you cite is correct, so what? Maybe we bear the odds. Because whatever those odds are, they are even greater against a god, by any definition, spontaneously appearing in an act of self-creation.
Quote:
The whole world is saturated with mathematics and predictability. If it's all just happenstance then why should it be predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT.
Does not follow. Why wouldn’t it be predictable? In an unpredictable universe, we would not exist as we know it. We happen to live in a universe that we are beginning to understand because it is sensible.
Please support your contention that the universe should not be predictable....
Quote:
I look forward to further discussion.
And you have it. Please note that your entire argument can be summarized very succinctly. You claim that god did it, you have no supporting evidence, and you have thrown out a number if irrekevant topics and misrepresentations.
I have noted several times where you have ignored what I have said, claimed I have said things directly contrary to what I have written, and misrepresented my statements by attributing thoughts to me that are found nowhere in my writing. Let’s try to keep it respectful and address what we actually say please
The point I was making is simply that an atheist worldview has no answer for these questions. It seems we agree on that point.
You can turn the question back on me (about God's existence), but doing so does not provide you with any more of an answer. I view agnosticism (i.e. "We don't know" or "We are unable to know") as a reasonable position about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth.
Do you agree?
I was essentially saying that it's unreasonable for a human with a 3-pound brain to expect to be able to comprehend the ways, the mind or the capabilities of a deity. I disagree that the "rational conclusion" is that God does not exist. You can say you don't know, or you think it's unlikely, but what is your basis for saying you KNOW that God does not exist?
On a scale of 1 - 100, how confident are you in that conclusion?
I said science doesn't have those answers, not that science was the "force" behind the big bang.
You claim I'm just saying "God did it" but at the same time you're avoiding acknowledging my point that your worldview doesn't have an answer for the question. It feel like you're just trying to distract from the point I'm making and put me on the defensive.
I have an answer for how the universe came to be. You may not like my answer, but I have one.
"I don't know, but we have some ideas" is still not an answer. Just because God's existence is not something a person can easily prove to another person (especially a highly skeptical one) that doesn't provide logical justification to conclude that God does not exist.
You aren't interested to see the statistics, and you say "So what" to the impossible odds of us existing? It's not reasonable to quickly dismiss such extreme improbability. It warrants more consideration than you are currently willing to give it. You are quick to believe we "beat the odds" but you still don't have an answer for how that happened.
If you believe that life began by chance from inorganic material, that takes faith (in a hypothesis) due to the extreme improbability of it occurring (10 to the 164th power). And that's just one of several unfathomable "coincidences" that would have to occur for us to be here (origin of the universe/life/man, fine-tuning of the universe for life, etc).
If you can convince yourself that ALL those unfathomable coincidences just "happened", go ahead, that's your choice, but your belief is not a "rational conclusion."
The whole world is saturated with mathematics and predictability. If it's all just happenstance then why should it be predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT.
I look forward to further discussion.
Butting into your conversation
Most atheists are also agnostic we don't believe in a God but admit we do not and perhaps cannot know for sure one way or another.
I don't know are honest answers when one does not have a definitive knowledge or answer. It is much easier to accept new ideas or evidence if you haven't already claimed to know the answer than if you have.
It appears to me that a larger percentage of theists are uncomfortable with not knowing the answer to some of life's biggest questions than are atheists.
I don't know let's work towards finding out is a thought full of hope, meaning, and adventure.
An old fashion classic atheist would never play the victimhood card.
Thank you for our assertion. Now are you going to take your 'arguments' to a higher level, as promised, or are you going to remain with attacking atheism while pretending you have a high regard for 'real' atheists.
The point I was making is simply that an atheist worldview has no answer for these questions. It seems we agree on that point.
No, Fishbrains said they had no answer, not that atheism has no answers. I gave you several answers that make more sense than a god being responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I view agnosticism (i.e. "We don't know" or "We are unable to know") as a reasonable position about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth.
Do you agree?
Agnosticism is without knowledge. But we all have background knowledge, even atheists who do not consciously think why they are atheists. So you can be agnostic about the car I drive, but can you really be agnostic about extraordinary claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I disagree that the "rational conclusion" is that God does not exist. You can say you don't know, or you think it's unlikely, but what is your basis for saying you KNOW that God does not exist?
On a scale of 1 - 100, how confident are you in that conclusion?
An all knowing god must be the most complex, specified being possible, and therefore the most improbable. To belief it just existed knowing everything is therefore irrational.
So I am 99% confident a god does not exist, and 99.9999999999999999999999999999% confident God does not exist (for a given definition of God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
If you believe that life began by chance from inorganic material, that takes faith (in a hypothesis) due to the extreme improbability of it occurring (10 to the 164th power).
No, it does not take faith, as your number is for the probability of a protein in isolation forming by chance, and is based on the number of atoms in that protein. Either you are ignorant about your own argument or you are misrepresenting it. But here is an earlier answer to why your number fails miserably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
There are problems with the numbers.
First, we do not need to calculate the probability of a protein, as the fore-runner to life must have been smaller. If I remember correctly, the latest research limits this to 1 * 10 to the power of 47, a much reduced number.
Second, the video presumes the atoms would be in isolation. This is false, they would be swimming in a sea of atoms, which would improve the odds. If we took the same ration of atoms in an area of 1 square meter, that would reduce the odds. You need to look at the Avogadro number to work this out, but I think it has been calculated it would be reduced by the 19th power.
Third, compared to the size and age of the universe, 10 to the power 164 is not that improbable. The odds of you winning the Lotto is unlikely, but the chance someone will win it is much reduced when you look at the size of the US.
Fourth, even if life is so improbable, it still only needs to happen once.
Fifth, a god who knows how to create a universe, who somehow knows the 6 values needed to create a stable universe must be so complex (and specific) as to be even more improbable. Which is why creationists argue their god can not exist without realizing they are doing so.
If gods do exist, they need a simpler explanation than the usual assertion they simply existed with all their knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
And that's just one of several unfathomable "coincidences" that would have to occur for us to be here (origin of the universe/life/man, fine-tuning of the universe for life, etc).
Even here you make irrational mistakes. An all powerful god could allow us to exist in a universe NOT 'fine tuned' for life. So we need to look at other possibilities that allow fora fine tuned universe, and the multiverse theories allow for this by 'blind chance' alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
If you can convince yourself that ALL those unfathomable coincidences just "happened", go ahead, that's your choice, but your belief is not a "rational conclusion."
As I have demonstrated, they ARE rational, and also more probable than a complex god just existing with complete knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
The whole world is saturated with mathematics and predictability. If it's all just happenstance then why should it be predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT.
Why should it NOT be predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT (presuming it is predictable, reliable, universal and CONSTANT)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
