From PZ I found Proof That God Exists – a series of questions designed to force the conclusion that (you guessed it), god exists. The site presents a series of yes/no questions about whether laws of logic, science and absolute morals exist – questions to which I answered “yes”. Sure, I guess “absolute moral laws” might be debatable, but I thought, murder is always bad and so I answered yes.
When I answered the last question with “I do not believe that God exists”, I got the following “proof”. Well, not so much. I imagine the logical fallacies employed will be obvious:
Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know.
And neither can you. The difference is that you make up an answer - “God” – and put him in the place where you have no answer. But it’s just a made up explanation – you have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that you just like it. And it’s a useless explanation. Unless you know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along.
Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.
False analogy. If a living animal is deprived of air, it will die. This is a repeatable, reliable and undoubted observation. I wouldn’t have to put up some lame 20 questions website to prove it either.
You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.
Pure assertion, unsupported by arguments presented so far.
There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered on this website.
OK. My initial reaction was… “let’s list the logical fallacies you’re using and put up a blog post”. What’s your point?
Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own?
No – see above. I don’t need to come up with “an alternate explanation” – you’re the one making the claim so it is up to you to support that claim.
OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?
First – it wasn't proof. Proof only exists within math. This was an attempt to prove something using logic only. Even if the logic wasn’t flawed (which it was, but let’s say it wasn't), it would still not be “proof”, or even particularly good evidence. Logic is great, but at the end of the exercise when you have your logical conclusion, you still have to test your conclusion against reality to see if it is true. Science is full of experiments that seemed logically sound but failed the experiment and were discarded. When I agreed the laws of logic exist, I didn’t agree that logic is always correct and will always lead you to the correct solution. So for many reasons, your “proof” is quite obviously not valid.
Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?
Yeah, but that’s not what I did. I’m just saying that if you or I don’t have the answer, you don’t get to say “therefore God” by default.
Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding.
I’m not running from something that (probably) doesn’t exist. And we know that prayer is useless so go on, knock yourself out, pray for me. Pray for some better logic while you’re at it.
The whole website was an exercise in argument from ignorance – you can’t explain it, therefore God. Throw in an argument by bad analogy, some confident assertion that you have proved your point, and the customary attempt to assign motives to disbelief (“running from God”) and it’s the same standard vacuous religious drivel we’ve all heard before. Nothing to see here.
I also saw the whole thing as an exercise in equivocation, with more than one false dilemma offered up for dessert.
It's a continuation of a new trend I've noticed among apologists to claim that the "laws of logic" or "laws of mathematics" prove that God exists, but the entire thing is based on their equivocation of the conceptual laws that derive from the initial assumptions of any logical or mathematical systems, which exist as ideas, with absolute metaphysical capital-L laws, which we have no reason to believe exist at all.
These kinds of proofs exist, far as I can tell, because lots of people really don't know anything about math or logic, and think that there's some capital-M "Math" and capital-L "Logic" that is absolutely true independent of actual people.
I've tried explaining to them that any logical or mathematical system is only as good as its assumptions. I've tried pointing out to them that there are systems of logic that reject the Law of Non-contradiction, or outright embrace the idea of contradiction. It's entirely feasible to use as an axiom that p can equal ~p; the logical system is just derived from that and whatever other axioms are used as first principles.
I've tried pointing them towards Godel's incompleteness theorem, which demonstrates that no axiomatic system can ever be shown to be absolutely true because if you don't rely on assumed axioms, you must recourse to other axiomatic systems to prove the truth of the first.
I've tried explaining to them that formal logic in the philosophical sense is only one form of logic, and that we use it because it tends to correlate with reality fairly well, not because it's rooted in some sort of metaphysical Truth.
I've tried explaining that the reasons we use the systems of mathematics that we use are mainly pragmatic: the systems can allow us to interact usefully, in some way, with the real world.
I've tried explaining to them that the brute, physical fact that, say, a rock cannot not be what it is is not the same as the concept of the Law of Non-contradiction; one is a fact about reality, the other is an idea describing that fact.
I've tried explaining that neither math nor logic are prescriptive; you cannot cook up a proof in any system that causes something to exist. A mathematical proof of the properties of an n-dimensional y-sided polygon may be valid given the assumptions of the system, but it doesn't mean that the n-dimensional y-sided polygon actually exists in reality.
They either ignore me or hand-wave away what I'm saying so they can continue to assume that Math and Logic are perfect, metaphysical truths. This allows them to continue to push their lame equivocation which always ends, as you said, in a good old Appeal to Ignorance. It's just an Appeal to Ignorance preceded by a bunch of lame neo-Platonism.
Posted by: Akusai | June 17, 2009 at 11:57 PM
God reveals himself through the laws of logic and mathematics?
Does this mean that George Boole is God? Or just his prophet?
Kidding aside, the laws of logic and mathematics aren't universal--they're true and valid within a certain branch of math and/or logic, but we can easily invent other, perfectly valid forms of math & logic that don't conform to those laws. The laws of science aren't unchanging, we adapt them as new information comes to light (even though the phenomena these laws seek to describe may be unchanging). And absolute morality doesn't exist--morality is a product of societies, not some nebulous, unchanging feature of the universe. Really, if you say there's an "absolute morality", where is it? How do we know what it is? How do we know that's the absolute morality? How do we know that all other societies and people who disagree with that are wrong? These moral laws aren't written on a stone tablet anywhere.
Now I have to go make a sacrifice to Gödel.
Posted by: Skemono | June 18, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Maybe if I had tried the ritual sacrifice angle, they would have believed me. I doubt it, though.
Posted by: Akusai | June 18, 2009 at 01:35 AM
Leaving out the (really annoying) "I'm going to pray for you" thing, I'm really sick of the "God will open your eyes" comment. I hate the suggestion that it's me that's not allowing God to reveal himself. Utter rubbish. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he knows what it would take for me to believe in him.
Or are they saying that the signs are the same for everyone, regardless of your disposition to think about shit and, you know, question things?
I mean, how much proof is enough proof? Surely this varies from individual to individual, and if he doesn't acknowledge that I need a little bit more proof than maybe being the only survivor of a plane crash (pulled that one out of my behind, but that really annoys me, too - like everyone else deserved to die but God saved me? The arrogance!), then that's just total discrimination! Why should the critical thinkers, who are only using the brain he supposedly gave us, be subjected to eternal torture?
Thomas asked for proof and, guess what, he got it! Why are we any different?
Ahhhh... Feels good to get that off my chest ;o)
Posted by: Fleegman | June 18, 2009 at 02:06 AM
Please excuse the double post, but that reminds me. On Seconds From Disaster, recently, there was a woman who was talking about the recent crash in which loads of people died. She was talking about how God saved her etc etc. I felt it was such a slight on all the people who died in the crash. Like they weren't worthy.
As proof, she held up a Bible that she had with her on the plane. It was a bit burned and scorched, but still readable. She was all "it's a miracle this Bible survived." It was still a bit burned though. You know, not untouched by flame. I was wondering how burned up it would have to be for her not to think that. I think if they had just found the tiny remnants of the front cover and the only discernible letter was a "B" or something, she'd be using that as proof too. It just goes to show that if you're a believer, anything is enough proof.
Posted by: Fleegman | June 18, 2009 at 02:14 AM
Haha, what's the deal with the actual site having an ad for scientology?
I find the whole thing a bit....strange..
Posted by: Casper | June 18, 2009 at 03:16 AM
Did anyone else notice that the "Exit" buttons (at least, after the point where you say you don't believe in God) take you to the Disney website? What are they trying to say?
Posted by: thoughtcounts Z | June 18, 2009 at 06:27 AM
To me, the weakest part of this type of argument is that it exists in a logical vacuum. No part of it requires confirmation in reality, save perhaps the universality of scientific laws (which the cosmologist in me quibbles with, but that's another matter).
Here's how I like to defuse this type of argument: Ask the arguer if they can imagine a universe that shares all these properties, and yet wasn't created and maintained by their god. If they can, how do they know that that isn't our universe? If they say they can't imagine such a universe (a failure of imagination is quite common when it's convenient), then ask if they can imagine a universe in which the lawgiver isn't their god, but is Allah. Or maybe the Jewish god. Or how about Zeus, Thor, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? There argument does absolutely nothing to rule out another deity being substituted for their god, no matter how ridiculous said deity might be. Why not go right ahead and use their own argument to preach of the Holy Noodle? Let them find their own reason to discard it.
Of course, at this point most will go on to discussing the Bible specifically and the evidence for that, but at least they're in the realm of reality now, and you can work with empirical evidence for and against their claims. Chances are, debunking this argument won't do much to convince them of anything - using it in the first place is an attempt to speak our language and not have to appeal to the Bible (although this particular one fails even that at the end). This type of argument never convinces anyone, really. People start to believe for emotional reasons most of the time when they aren't just brought up in a religion - a gut feeling that there's something out there, and they like this particular community. Logical analysis is much more likely to pull them our way, so I'd try to tug on them as long as they're speaking our language.
Posted by: Infophile | June 18, 2009 at 06:39 AM
"There argument does absolutely nothing to rule out another deity being substituted for their god, no matter how ridiculous said deity might be. "
Most arguments for the existence of God seem to ignore this fact; even if their logic was valid, it basically argues for an agnostic view of a god, with no specific knowledge or revelation of that god other than what has been empirically derived by the observer. I suppose that's the point at which they would make the leap of logic towards the authority of the Bible
It would be very easy to create an atheist version of their quiz that leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is no logical or scientific support for the belief in a god.
Do you believe in a god? y/n
Why do you believe in a god? Holy Scripture/ Authoritative Figure told you so/ Wonder & complexity of the Universe
Which god do you believe in? The Christian God/ The Jewish God/ Allah/ Zeus/ other
etc, with each answer having its branches that debunk the reply. It really wouldn't take long to design...
Posted by: Karl Witahaky | June 18, 2009 at 07:38 AM
"It is my prayer that you come to understand how inconsistent and irrational this line of thinking is and return to seek the truth."
So let me get this straight. The guy wants to use magic to make thinking more consistent and rational. Right, makes sense.
Posted by: Joseph | June 18, 2009 at 08:56 AM
I hate the suggestion that it's me that's not allowing God to reveal himself.
Hey, Fleegman, you should revel in the feeling of power. You can thwart the desires of an omnipotent, omnipresent being. Chew on that one, Yahweh! Consider yourself well and truly pwned.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, he knows what it would take for me to believe in him.
Not only that, but even before He'd uttered a booming "Fiat Lux" to bring the universe into being, He had already integrated all the atheists into his almighty plan. He'd planned for people like you and me to arise, just so he could condemn us to eternal flames just for the awful sin of being mindless, unthinking, pre-ordained little cogs in some insignificant little subassembly in His majestic, overarching machine. Just like He created Adam and Eve, knowing they were going to snaffle the fruit, and then acted all surprised and had a hissy fit just because they did what He, the Almighty had designed them to do all along.
Whatever you do is in God's infinite, eternal plan. Murder, theft, whatever... it's not your fault, is it? The Big Man preordained it, and who are you to go against His ineffable master plan? You can't help it. You hear a lot of bleevers struggling to incorporate free will into their theistic worldview, but the fact is that a custom-built universe cunningly constructed by an all-powerful designer who knows absolutely everything from Day Alpha to agemO yaD, who cannot fail to see the least flaw or problem, utterly, UTTERLY destroys the concept of free will. I'm sorry, but I for one don't see how I'm supposed to find the least bit of solace or comfort in that.
I find it much more satisfying knowing that I obey the law and try to lead what I regard as a decent life because I personally choose to: not because I'm terrified of burning for eternity or because somehow I might otherwise upset a big guy with a beard who I'm not allowed to see, but who for some inexplicable (sorry, that's ineffable) reason takes an inordinate and generally nasty interest in creatures like me who are supposedly insignificant motes (sorta like a sadistic kid burning ants with a magnifying glass on a sunny day, only more so).
PS, what passes for "< blockquotes>" around here?
Posted by: Big Al | June 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Al:
Try < blockquote> (without the "s").
Posted by: Skeptico | June 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I pissed someone off the other day with the "substitute your deity for another one" and was met with "well, there has to be something".
So I pulled a Skeptico and said "What would it take to convince you there are no supernatural forces in the universe?"
"Nothing could convince me."
I informed them that they were foolish to make a claim not only with zero evidence, but were there evidence to the contrary, they would ignore it. This is the very definition of "close-minded" - that tag the religiosos luuuvv to put on me.
You claim there is a supernatural deity. Prove it, and I'll change my mind.
"But it's so complex we're not supposed to understand it!"
Uuugghhh. It always ends that way. It's so complex we can't understand it, but you know it exists?
"That's faith!"
"That's retarded."
P.S Skep - the sentence in your post Even it the logic wasn’t flawed (which it was, but let’s say it wasn't), was probably supposed to say "Even if...
Posted by: Ryan Michael Whitmore | June 18, 2009 at 02:09 PM
maybe, it's him who's having doubts about
his beliefs and was trying to convince
himself to believe in god because of social
pressures or whatever,
you know, "if you don't believe in god you are baaaad",
so the guy made up the site as some kind
of way of saying "see?,I believe".
but then again, maybe the whole thing was
intented as a parody...
it sounds so "shoehorned" and "faked"!
Posted by: Pelger | June 18, 2009 at 04:01 PM
This is the second time in two days that I've seen this weird idea. I'm not sure what it means. Am I supposed to feel guilty because I don't believe in God, or am I guilty in the sense of having committed some sort of crime? Either way it's nonsense, but it sure says a lot about the person making that argument.
Posted by: Chayanov | June 19, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Hey! It worked! Thanks, Skep.
Not really, Chayanov. You have a free choice. Either believe, and get to sit on a cloud playing a harp when you die, or the Almighty One will roast you in brimstone flames for ever and ever and ever in unending, unbearable agony without end. In His mercy.
No big whoop. No pressure here.
Posted by: Big Al | June 19, 2009 at 02:42 AM
Yup. No matter what you think of the morality of Calvin's predestinationism (and I think it's vile), you have to admit that he at least thought about it, and was willing to carry his basic theological premises through to their inevitable conclusions, no matter how objectionable. I can kinda respect that. At least, I can respect it more than the "fluffy-bunny" theology of an omnipotent, omniscient God with a Master Plan, who nevertheless still allows free will and answers prayers.
Which is not to say that I don't regard Calvinism as one of the more unpleasant forms of Christianity. But at least it's internally consistent...
Posted by: Dunc | June 19, 2009 at 04:09 AM
I've never understood how prayer is meant to work. "Oh Lord, please cure Jenny's colic... if it be Thy will."
It's the "If it be Thy will" bit that gets me. Is the supplicant saying that
a) the Almighty One can't do something He wants to until a mere mortal gives Him permission
b) was momentarily distracted until you reminded Him of an essential element of His eternal plan that he'd forgotten or
c) would really like to do what you ask, but is going to be cussed and not do it until you get down on your knees and beg Him to?
The only images I can muster on how this would be received by the Good Lord are:
"Thank you, Mrs Smith! Hoo-bloody-ray! The last horse finally crosses the finish line! Now I can finally do what I've always intended to do right from Genesis 1:1 but your lack of a specific prayer utterly prevented Me from doing."
"What? Little Jenny has colic? My Goodness, of course I'll cure the innocent little mite! Why didn't you tell me sooner?"
"Who's this Jenny? Oh, now I remember!"
"Colic? Cure...? Why... that's a brilliant idea! I never thought of that one!"
If it is His will, is the Almighty One not just gonna do it anyway, without all the "pretty please with sugar, whipped cream and a maraschino cherry on top" bit?
And of course, there's always the prayers that fizzle...
"Quack-quack-oops! I'm sorry, you didn't enter your prayer within the allotted time period.If you'd prayed a mere four hours later, I'd have cured the little darling straight away. However, it's too late now. Let the little brat suffer! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Sorry, but this isn't in the old master plan. Jenny getting colic and keeping it for at least three years is. So take your prayer and shove it where the monkey keeps his nuts. No, I don't reply to losers, so you can just go on fruitlessly hoping that poor little Jenny's tummy will sort itself out due to My magical intervention... even thought that's not going to happen."
And the idea of intercessory prayer, where the Big Guy is too busy to answer your call right now (busy giving little Jenny colic, I suppose), so you need to contact exactly the right former human to talk to the Almighty on your behalf. Of course, if you accidentally dial St. Agnes instead of St. Dominic, you are not going to get a "wrong number" message.
Posted by: Big Al | June 19, 2009 at 03:20 PM
I've got a request for "A friendly letter to skeptics and atheists : musings on why God is good and faith isn't evil" by David G. Myers among the things I'm waiting for from the library. Automatically, I see I will be at odds with Myers on account of him taking the existence of god as a given and I do not. Might wind up being a 300 page book like this website, though, so I don't know if I'll wind up reading it all or not.
Posted by: 1minion | June 20, 2009 at 01:40 PM
I found the "Proof That God Exists" website a while ago (and blogged about it). I heard recently an interesting take on the whole "logical arguments for God" thing: apparently many theists who use these arguments don't claim that these are the arguments that convince(d) them. They believe because of an inner conviction borne of "personal experience of God" - which of course is not convincing to anyone else. So if they themselves aren't convinced by the (so-called) logical arguments, they shouldn't be surprised that others aren't either.
The debate between Hitchens and Craig at Biola University illustrated this. Craig seemed oblivious to the fact that his arguments held no sway with Hitchens, and concluded by reiterating them as if they'd been proven (he's done this before - it seems to be his standard technique, along with redefining the debate's motion).
Most of the disagreements in these arguments and debates seem to stem from different interpretations of the terms used in the initial premises. On the website in question the problem is with the assumption that there must be an ultimate (or absolute) authority.
Posted by: PaulJ | June 21, 2009 at 04:02 AM
I might have to give that place some treatment of my own, to make up for my week of being offline.
This is one thing that gets me about absolute moral laws versus natural laws. If you're looking for, say, and Ideal Gas Law, you perform experiments where you put gases under various temperatures and pressures. How do you discover a moral law?
A stone idol isn't much of an answer because, well, how did it discover those laws?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Actually, you may have skipped a page.
The actual "proof" was: "The proof of God is that without him, you couldn't prove anything!"
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | June 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
There is. Unfortunately, it's either Simon Cowell or Ann Robinson.
"Ultimate" does not necessarily mean "infinite".
Posted by: Big Al | June 22, 2009 at 12:32 AM
One theologically-minded friend of mine likes to say that prayer is actually for the believer’s benefit, not for Gods – it’s really an exercise in attempting to better understand God’s plan. Which is fine, tho if that’s the case someone should really sue the Church for false advertising for all that “faith moves mountains” stuff.
Posted by: WScott | June 22, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Beyond me, I'm afraid, WScott. "Wait and see" would surely give exactly the same "benefit".
For my part, I'm just a tad ticked off that Yahweh chose to fulfil a tiny part of the Universe's eventual destiny by giving me chronic psoriasis, myopia and Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Doubtless, He'll remove them eventually... or not. If it be His will.
But only then if I get on my knees and blub about how worthless I am and how great He is.
I can see how this is enormous comfort.
Posted by: Big Al | June 23, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I'm a Theist and I do believe we have ample proofs of God's existence from varied arguments: Cosmological, Ontological, Anthropological, Teleological, Moral, Existential, and Cosmic Fine-Tuning. A healthy dose of skepticism is good (i think) even for a Theist like me...but too often skeptics, who claim to be open-minded find themselves unwilling to give God a fair shake and observe some of these arguments from serious scholars and theologians. Instead they they listen to people like Bill Maher or go to silly Christian websites like the one observed in this posting. I think ANYONE, christian or atheist, who say's I can prove/disprove the existence of God is flat out lying or doesn't know their information well enough to discern that such a statement requires absolute knowledge of all things (of which i doubt they have)...I think it's best to define ones postulation using the method of Stephen C. Meyer, which is, "God is the inference to the best explanation." No one can prove absolutely if there is or is not a God, but we have enough empirical proofs of God that one can be as confident as one can be (objectively)...subjectively, well that's where faith comes in.
I would recommend any good skeptic to read some verifiable authorities on the subject:
(my favorite) is Dr. William Lane Craig who has an exhaustive book covering these issues titled, "Reasonable Faith" and a website by the same title. Or Lee Strobles the Case for the Creator (he is a Yale trained journalist and former Atheist, who decides to put God or the notion of God to the test to see if he can find any real verifiable evidence for the existence of God) very insightful. Both men are fair, ask tough questions of themselves and their faith, and are unafraid of where their research takes them.
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 15, 2009 at 09:08 PM
Which are?
Posted by: Skemono | July 15, 2009 at 09:31 PM
None of are your arguments mean anything. Any "logical" argument for the existence of God is useless in the absence of actual empirical proof of God's existence. Logic does not create reality by fiat; it has no ontological power, despite what people may think coming out of a Phil 101 classroom. Logic is only as good as its assumptions; any system of logic is based around its unproven axioms, and can only ever be used to describe reality, not define it.
If "God" exists in the premises of your argument, then, unless you have already shown through general observation of the real world that "God" exists, your argument is useless.
Posted by: Akusai | July 15, 2009 at 09:36 PM
...aren't most of those arguments already refuted in various places?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 15, 2009 at 09:44 PM
The ontological argument is vacuous sophistry based on absolutely no evidence at all. Cosmic fine tuning is just an argument from ignorance. Not sure what the rest of your “proofs” are, but if they are as weak as those two I’m unimpressed. God is not “the inference to the best explanation," whatever that means. God is simply an unnecessary assumption.
Posted by: Skeptico | July 15, 2009 at 09:51 PM
Oh! Well, then surely you will give us the name of some excellent "serious scholars and theologians" who we cowardly atheists simply shun.
Uh... a journalist? That's what passes for theologian nowadays? And being a former atheist is a qualification now?
Why didn't you cite Jean Meslier? He was a Catholic priest, so surely he knew his theology. Oh, wait--he wrote a Testament lauding atheism. Shoot.
Actually, it looks more like Strobel ran around interviewing intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Stephen Meyer, all of whom are renown for butchering science, lying, and making complete fools of themselves in their hackneyed apologetics.
If that's what he's relying on to make his case for the existence of god, then we've heard it all before. It's junk.
Posted by: Skemono | July 15, 2009 at 09:58 PM
Teleological is the argument that things must have been designed, cosmological is first cause, existential seems to be the same thing as cosmological from a quick glance, moral is probably the whole "God is necessary for morality" thing, and anthropological argument returns nothing when searched on Wikipedia. However, Googling it gives me Theopedia, which says that because we have a yearning for God and have a conscience that makes us feel bad when we offend him, obviously it must be put there by God. Except, y'know, we don't have a yearning, and conscience doesn't work that way.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 15, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Incidentally, vjazz79, have you read this extensive critique of Strobel's Case for a Creator? Do you still think it's "very insightful"?
Posted by: Skemono | July 15, 2009 at 11:32 PM
vjazz,
Who are these atheists who claim they can disprove God? You won't find any of them here, or even approvingly refered to here.
Skemeno, intersting link. I'll have a closer look at it when I have a moment later.
Posted by: yakaru | July 16, 2009 at 01:27 AM
Dear oh dear vjazz79:
Then:
You fail.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | July 16, 2009 at 07:44 AM
Yakaru:
Well, I claim to be able to disprove certain conceptions of God, if not God in general. Does that count?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
King of Ferrets,
I guess it does count and I should've thought about it more carefully before commenting.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that atheism places the onus of proof on the believer, rather than making initial claims, and if the the believer spells out their conception of God, then it's reasonable to claim to have disproved it.
If anyone can claim to have proved it, then it must be in order to claim to have disproved it too.
Is that any better?
Posted by: yakaru | July 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Wow, such animosity in your postings??? How could you be so bothered by something that doesn't exist??? That's like saying Santa Clause really pisses me off! Many of you guys/gals are not true skeptics, but cynical scoffers. Even one of the greatest skeptics wasn't as brash and shallow as many of you, David Hume once said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."
One by one...
Skemono...read the rest of the posting.
Akusai...I don't think I even used the word "Logical" once in my posting. Don't infer what is not in the text (eisegesis).
"Logic is only as good as its assumptions; any system of logic is based around its unproven axioms..."
What a load of hot-garbage. Did u even proof read that before u hit the enter button? Deductive reasoning tells me that my assumption of the gravitational theory is pretty convincing and if I wanted to prove that "axiom" I could (although I prefer you) to go to the top of the empire state building and empirically prove this logical inference...OF COURSE YOU CAN PROVE IT, all you have to do is jump.
Skemono - "vacuous sophistry", oh please, how long did it take for you to look that up? You're trying too hard, it's almost embarrassing.
Ontological Argument - Which is greater? The artist "idea" of a painting or the painting itself as it really exists? Obviously the latter, hence God must exist not merely in mind but in reality as well.
"...Cosmic fine tuning is just an argument from ignorance..." Skemono this statement reflects just how ignorant you are.
The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression contain various constants (e.g. the gravitational constants) and any infinitesimal deviation(s) from the actual values of the constants would render the universe a life-prohibiting entity as opposed to a life-permitting planet (and this is ignorance?) try putting us closer or farther from the sun genius.
P.C.W Davies a renowned physicist states that changes in the gravitation of the weak force of only one part in 10 (to the 100th power) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
Stephen Hawkin estimates that if the expansion rate of the Big Bang would have decreased even one part in a HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION MILLION one second after the big bang, would have resulted in the universe recollapsing back into itself. Are you feeling sheepish yet Skemono?
"...God is simply an unnecessary assumption..."
You're not very good at math are you, or poker for that matter...
"...Oh! Well, then surely you will give us the name of some excellent "serious scholars and theologians" who we cowardly atheists simply shun..."
Yes I did...did you research them before making your littler person remark? I bet u didn't, because you're not a true skeptic searching for the truth, you're a small minded cynic, who probably waists his life away playing video games...why don't you go play on those other kids websites and leave the big questions of skepticism to the big boys?
"...Uh... a journalist? That's what passes for theologian nowadays?..."
–noun
a person versed in theology, esp. Christian theology.
Hummm...that's interesting...I don't see anywhere in the definition that a person need be of a certain background, school of thought, persuasion, ethnicity, race, creed, tribe, or nationality to be a person "versed in theology" which means the study of God, in case you had a misguided definition of that word too...?? (just trying to help you out man)
So what's next Skemono under your intolerant definition of who who is able to study theology? No women perhaps? No blacks? No pizza delivery guys? (your so small minded is absurd) go play Halo 3 on ur xbox and let your brain rest.
"...Actually, it looks more like Strobel ran around interviewing intelligent design proponents..."
Is this as far as your research goes? (pathetic)
Lee Strobel has gone up against some of the best your side has to offer, like Richard Dawkins (who's a loon) and Christopher Hitches (of whom no one can understand a word he say's, I think he's blitz for all his debates)...
Dawkin's is a joke...you can't take what this guys says seriously. This is a man who's best explanation for the existence of life is that aliens from another planet flew to earth in their spaceship and "seeded" life on the back of a crystal somewhere and that's how life originated...THIS IS THE BEST EXPLANATION your team offers? (look it up on you tube)
Michael Ruse (you have to see the entire movie to get the full emphasis)
(look it up on you tube)
And you say a theist's explanation is ignorant?!?! Why because our beliefs actually parallel science and rational thinking (every effect must have an initial first cause; out of nothing nothing comes; an observable and objective moral law; how finely tuned the comsos are; the expansion rate of the universe; irreducible complexity; the bacterial flagellum; the observation that every made thing has a Maker just as every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, and every design has a designer) you think those arguments are weak, when YOUR guy thinks aliens flew in from planet Yubba and just dropped life off?! How absurd a notion! Did the aliens have enough decency to wrap life in some nice wrapping paper? You have to be a complete moron to believe something like that...again these are the guys representing your team.
King of Ferrets - The ontological argument say's if God is conceivable, then he just actually exist. Anselm (1033-1109) say's God is the greatest conceivable being and if we can conceive something greater, then that would be God. So according to Anselm's argument nothing greater than God can be conceived, therefore God must exist.
Yakaru - Atheist's that claim they can disprove God.
1. Richard Dawkins (although he's flaky, at times he'll state he can disprove God's existence, then he'll say God is unlikely, and then he'll say no one can disprove anything absolutely)
2. Peter Atkins (oxford professor)
3. Michael Martin,(professor of philosophy at boston U)
4. Ricki Monnier, Phd. (degree in mathematical logic) and director of the Disproof Atheism Society
both men wrote a book called the Impossibility of God.
Jimmy Blue - Did you even say anything or did you simply love my argument so much you decided vain repetition was in order?
King of Ferrets - "...Well, I claim to be able to disprove certain conceptions of God, if not God in general. Does that count?..."
Let's hear your argument...???
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 02:29 PM
This should be good. Who wants popcorn?
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2009 at 02:46 PM
don't forget to drink the kool-aid
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 03:04 PM
vjazz,
You may well be right about the atheists you list as 2,3 and 4. But I've never read or heard anything like that from Dawkins.
See also my humble retraction after KoF's comment.
Posted by: yakaru | July 16, 2009 at 03:38 PM
Yes, I know what the ontological argument is. It's complete bullshit. The reason I didn't mention it was because I was explaining to Skeptico what the other arguments he didn't know of were.
Just so you know, the whole "Jimmy Blue repeated your argument" thing is to show that it's vacuous nonsense that's completely meaningless, since it makes just as much sense completely turned around.
As for proof: Would you say I can prove that God didn't make it impossible for humans to exist? I can disprove that conception of God.
On Richard Dawkins: If I remember this stupidity correctly, he said that if we WEREN'T evolved, as a hypothetical scenario, then the next most likely thing was probably seeding by evolved aliens. This is a HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO. HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS.
I'm too lazy to go through and refute more atm... maybe later.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 03:44 PM
King of Ferrets...The question to Richard Dawkins was, "How do YOU believe life originate on earth?"...Sound pretty much like they are asking what HE believes, unless you're so blind in your world-view that you can't comprehend basic grammar?
If someone ask's "What do YOU believe" why in the world would someone respond w/ a hypothetical scenario, one in which they do not believe in??? But then again we are talking about Richard Dawkins who doesn't make sense anyways...
Oh yeah, and as eloquent as your Ontological response was (very enlightening that you said absolutely nothing of value) if it's bullsh*t...why is it bullsh*t and I ask you this question...What good evidence do you have or can present to prove God does not exist?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 04:25 PM
yakaru - you should watch expelled...Dawkin's say's some pretty crazy stuff (even according to his peers)
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 04:27 PM
If you got that alien seeding idea of Dawkins from "Expelled," you should know they deliberately edited it in their desperate effort to make him look ridiculous. All they did was end up making fun of the most plausible ID scenario I've ever heard of.
You might want to look up "quote mining": It's a talent Creationists are very well known for. They've done it with Dawkins before to make it look like he was stumped by a old, old, old, long debunked canard any informed layman would laugh at.
Anyway, on proving god doesn't exist: Why bother with that step if you can't get anyone to make meaningful statements or definitions about the idea? That's like asking me to disprove Glarb.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 05:05 PM
vjazz79:
You are going to be fun to play with, although you've been entirely predictable so far.
I only have time for a quick response for now so I'll just address your one vain attempt at trying to justify ignoring me.
The two things I highlighted from your 'argument' contradict each other, unless you are admitting to being a liar or not understanding the information well enough. See if you can try to understand why before you reply, so you don't look any more foolish.
Apparently, I was being to subtle. I will endeavour to make sure I don't credit you with intelligence in future.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | July 16, 2009 at 06:08 PM
"...I only have time for a quick response for now..."
I'm sure she heard that before...
Unfortunately for you you're not "big" on words either (or their meaning) you're probably not even getting the laborious satire of this posting (i can draw you a stick figure for you if you'd like)???
Funny how you left me wanting more (another theme of your insufficiency)...you got me all worked up when you said my argument contradicted itself...and then the big let down...you're shootin' blanks...no reason, explanation, or justification as to why it contradicts itself??? You're all talk and no action...but there again; that's probably "beating" the same drum and being a broken record...
Let me know when you popped your stimulating pill and have something longer than 4 words to work with...
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 06:58 PM
i'm sorry bronze dog...it almost sounded like you said something...out of all the wonderful data displayed in my posting, the best you can do is debunk expelled and quote a quotes website...I find it very interesting that none of you professed skeptics have your data ready for debate...you are disappointing me, but ur smarter than most and for good reason, I'm sure you wouldn't dare make an assumption on Stephen Hawkins estimation or P.C.W. Davies postulation??? Any takers???
Right...I assume it's now time to play Halo 3?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 07:05 PM
Well, let's see. I'll give you an example of why it's bullshit.
Let's go with the same logic of God being the greatest possible thing. However, I can prove that the greatest is to NOT exist. If God is the greatest, he should be able to accomplish the greatest thing with the greatest handicap. The greatest thing is presumably creating the universe, and guess what the greatest handicap is? Nonexistence.
Of course, this response doesn't actually make much sense, which highlights another thing: Logic doesn't necessarily correspond to reality.
Mind providing a source for your P.C.W. Davies thing? It sounds like bullshit, but oh well. As for the Stephen Hawking thing, even if it IS true, which I doubt, it DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER. Because if the universe collapses again, there's no real reason for it not to have another Big Bang later, right?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Oh, also, the question to Richard Dawkins was quote mining. If you heard a scientist saying something stupid in Expelled, it's probably quote mining. Expelled was an amazingly dishonest piece of crap.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Bronze Dog wrote:
"...Anyway, on proving god doesn't exist: Why bother with that step if you can't get anyone to make meaningful statements or definitions about the idea?"
Since none of you are willing to respond to my questions or at the very least answer your own postulations...I'll take a stab at answering Bronze Dog's question...
Here is my definition of God that I think works:
"The God of the Bible is the postulation for the origin of the physical universe - the uncaused first cause - by empirical laws and proofs which support my conclusion: that God does indeed exist eternally, is infinite, immaterial, transcendent, changeless, timeless, personal, and of unfathomable and immeasurable power."
Now that you have a starting point and a coherent and distinct definition of God, you can now begin your argument as to why God does not exist...
Anyone...?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Uh, vjazz, you realize the point of the non-Dawkins part of my post was about the Creationist's data not being ready, right? Well, not exactly their data: How can we disprove something they've failed to even define? How can we prove or disprove something if they won't even let us in on any details of what they're talking about?
Can you disprove glarb if I don't define it? That's the problem with "God": The Creationists don't define it, so we can't even know what they're trying to provide evidence for, or what sort of evidence would support this nebulous entity.
All they're doing so far is saying "I don't know, therefore random magic!"
Oh, and to extend on the ontological argument: The coolest thing there could ever be is a ninja werewolf. Since it's cooler for ninja werewolves to exist than to not exist, ninja werewolves must exist. Since it'd be still cooler for me to be a ninja werewolf, I must be one... Nope, I don't see any kunai or shurikens manifesting in my pockets or an urge to howl at the moon.
That's the problem: You can't pop things into existence by defining "greater" or "perfect". Just in case you're wrong, I'll define the most perfect Dr. Pepper as being a Longview cane sugar can that pops into existence when I feel thirsty... Nope.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 07:54 PM
That doesn't really help. Is the God you refer to an interventionist God? Does he just sit back on the sidelines and let things happen? What? If he's a sitting back God, there's no real way to disprove him. Of course, that's because he would be entirely irrelevant.
Also, how are we not responding to your questions? I've responded to the question about conceptions of God I can disprove, I've responded to the ontological argument, I've responded to the whole Dawkins thing, I've asked for a source for your one of your claims about what physicists say about a life-supporting universe and noted that the other is irrelevant (by the way, why just physicists? It seems like there should be both physicists and biologists. A physicist can say what changes would happen if x thing was true, and a biologist would know better than the physicist if this actually left a possibility of life.).
Heck, that list is just MY responses. Other people have responded too. So, tell me. How have we not responded?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 07:54 PM
King of Ferrets...
P.C.W Davies on the gravitational weak force 1. Look up his book Accidental Universe chapter 9, The Forces of Nature
2. Look up Mulitverse Cosmological Models
3. Reasonable faith by Dr. William Lane Craig (crossway books) pg. 158 De Deo
"...As for the Stephen Hawking thing, even if it IS true, which I doubt, it DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER. Because if the universe collapses again, there's no real reason for it not to have another Big Bang later, right?"
Actually it does matter, it matters a great deal...the whole point of introducing the theory of probability is because the chances of producing any planet at all, let alone a life permitting plant are so infinitesimally small as to be incalculable and incomprehensible.
Brandon Carter has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation, without which planets could not exist, is one followed by a thousand billion billion zero's (at least).
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Apparently I wrote too much... trying to break this up into multiple comments.
Where? I see poking fun at stupid comments and a vast deficit of logic, but no animosity.
Uh, say what? We were responding to your comments. Unless you're saying that your comments don't exist, or you don't exist, then this is a complete non sequitur. The favorite statement of a creationist!
Which is why no-one here says it.
Except for God. Apparently he doesn't need a cause, because of special pleading.
I did. You threw out a bunch of names. None of those constitute "proofs".
It took me a few seconds to look that up. Of course, I only had to look it up on this page because I had no idea what the hell you were talking about, since I never used those words. Apparently the giant words saying "Skeptico replies" weren't enough of a clue for you as to the author of that comment. This seems about consistent with the rest of your reading comprehension.
That makes no sense whatsoever. I can think up a painting but that doesn't make it poof into existence. You can make up a god all you like, but that doesn't make it real, either.
A statement I never made reflects my ignorance? How's that?
Not really, considering I never said anything about those.
Actually, I majored in math. How about you? What math do you have that proves God exists? I'd like to take a look at it. Or, you could submit it to Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math. He loves ripping apart bad math.
I looked up Strobel, but not the other one. I was so completely unimpressed by your reference that I didn't see any point in looking up the other guy. Though you're acting as though you're presenting us with novel arguments that would stun us with their brilliance, you've offered nothing but more of the same stuff we routinely hear. It's just boring.
You're wrong.
Aww, childish name-calling. How convincing! This clearly proves there's a god!
You offered this up as the person's credentials as a serious theologian. Journalists are not generally trained in theology.
Posted by: Skemono | July 16, 2009 at 08:06 PM
Part the second:
Your attempts to paint me as a bigot because I recognize that studying journalism is not a great credential to boast about when talking about theology are pretty poor.
You have routinely insulted me, presented pathetic "proofs" of God that prove nothing but your desperation as your god of the gap constantly shrinks, and now insist on tarring all gamers (I don't play video games, incidentally, but I'm not about to let such bigotry slide) as shallow-minded imbeciles. But somehow, I'm the small-minded one?
Admittedly so. When I saw he was relying on a posse of known liars and ignorant buffoons, I didn't really have to look much harder.
Oh goodie, you're relying on Expelled, a creationist propaganda piece well known for how they lied to the people they were interviewing and distorted the footage to make them seem stupid! That certainly makes you more credible.
I'm aware of the clip you're talking about, and you're distorting it wildly, as is your wont. For one, it wasn't Dawkins, it was Michael Ruse--well, I think you admit that in your next paragraph, but with your writing it's impossible to tell. Yes, Ruse admitted that there is a possibility that life as we know it on Earth originated on crystals. What of it? There are numerous hypotheses about how life originated. That it might have grown on crystals is one of them. The panspermia hypothesis is a separate one that you have randomly decided to throw together with this. There are also many others. Neither Ruse nor Dawkins admits absolute certainty, and I don't believe either of them say that they are fans of the crystals or panspermia hypotheses. In fact, here's Dawkins' review of Expelled, including a discussion of that very bit:
What on earth is your point here, anyways? That because your inept conception of what these hypotheses entails is amusing, they are therefore wrong? That because you can laugh at a childish caricature of the science involved in abiogenesis, that the scientists themselves are laughable and cannot be trusted on anything? That aliens couldn't have created life on Earth, therefore the super-alien God must have? Please.
Pretty much.
"Every effect must have an initial first cause" -- Except for the God that you proclaim must exist. Your consistency is a marvel to behold.
"out of nothing nothing comes" -- So whence comes your god?
"an observable and objective moral law" -- As far as I know, no such thing exists. That was already discussed earlier in this thread, before you showed up.
"how finely tuned the comsos are; the expansion rate of the universe" -- Which indicate nothing.
"irreducible complexity; the bacterial flagellum" -- Well, the bacterial flagellum is brought up as an example of irreducible complexity (even though it's not; flagella can lose their parts and still function fine), so I don't know why you listed those separately. But they're nonsense. We are well aware of how supposedly irreducibly-complex systems can evolve. They present no obstacle to evolution, and absolutely no evidence for god. You can read more here, here and here. Although personally, my favorite article is here--it's an excerpt of the Dover trial wherein Michael Behe himself admits that his own rigged simulations show that irreducibly-complex systems can evolve.
"the observation that every made thing has a Maker just as every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, and every design has a designer" -- A shoddy analogy. We know of the existence of builders, painters, designers, and makers. We know that they create buildings and paintings. We can also surmise that buildings and paintings are artificial because they are so dissimilar to what we find naturally. However, simply labeling something a "creation" with the implication that it must have a creator does not make it so. You have simply tried defining it as such to make your argument true by definition. You still have no evidence that this maker actually exists, or that the universe and world as we know were indeed made by any intelligent force.
So, yeah. Your arguments are pretty weak.
Posted by: Skemono | July 16, 2009 at 08:06 PM
Part the third:
That is an absurd notion. It's in fact an absurd caricature of the actual prevailing thoughts concerning how life originated on this planet, conjured up specifically to be absurd. Your dedication to researching this topic just brings tears to my eyes.
Replace "aliens" with "God" in your above statement and you get creationism in a nutshell. And yet while you think an "aliens did it" idea is moronic, apparently you think that the "God did it" idea is not moronic at all. Strange.
That's about the most insipid thing I've ever heard. It's far, far more absurd than the idea that aliens in flying saucers came to Earth and planted the seeds of life, but somehow you think this is a compelling argument. I can conceive of a lot of things--and over the years, people have come up with a lot of imaginary things--but that doesn't make them real. You can sit around dreaming up an all-powerful being all you want, but that doesn't make it real. Say, how about I imagine a God that's more powerful than your God? Does that then mean that your god isn't real and mine is?
If they do indeed say such a thing, I would probably disagree with them. Can you actually provide a quote from any of the people you mention to that effect?
Posted by: Skemono | July 16, 2009 at 08:07 PM
Thanks for providing references to books I don't have! Oh, that's so useful! You're the best person ever!
The reason it doesn't matter is because, y'know, my point that there's INFINITE TRIES. If you have infinite tries, and you have a 1 in 5 billion chances, you're going to get it eventually.
How does this Brandon Carter guy know anything about the likelihood of different initial conditions? Does he have his calculations available? Do you have a reference for it? And am I right to say that "a thousand billion billion zeros" isn't actually a number?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 08:09 PM
Bronze dog...your point is well taken and I would agree with you...I don't presume to defend those that have placed themselves in the line of fire. I have no issue with calling out a guy on my team if he fails accurately lay the parameters by which we make our inferences...
About the Ontological argument, I would agree that a Theist have much better data and resources at their disposal than this argument. This form of reasoning was popular during the age of enlightenment when people were persuaded by logic, reason, and inferences (plato, aristotle, and thomas aquinas)...but with the advances in cosmology, astrophysics, molecular biology especially with molecular machines I would be moved to first present these latest arguments, than that of the 11th century.
But for some they are still a valid form of persuasion.
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Seems you posted while I was still typing:
"The God of the Bible is the postulation for the origin of the physical universe - the uncaused first cause - by empirical laws and proofs which support my conclusion: that God does indeed exist eternally, is infinite, immaterial, transcendent, changeless, timeless, personal, and of unfathomable and immeasurable power."
Define "infinite" in this context.
Define "immaterial."
Define "transcendent."
As for the probability argument, well, there's often no rationale given for certain numbers people belt out. Second, they never seem to account for the possibility that different laws of physics would produce entirely different kinds of lifeforms who might go on about how unlikely it is that the laws of physics were "just right" for them while never thinking about us. Kind of like the puddle being amazed that the pothole it's in so precisely matches its shape. Additionally, many others are fans of artificially constraining the possibilities to this particular rock around this particular star. The universe is a big place.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 08:14 PM
So you're saying "Hey, my argument is BS, but I'm perfectly fine with using arguments I know don't actually work if it will convince someone!"
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 08:16 PM
And yet, all I ever see is low-hanging fruit. I have yet to see anything remotely challenging from a Creationist.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 08:21 PM
"...That doesn't really help. Is the God you refer to an interventionist God? Does he just sit back on the sidelines and let things happen? What? If he's a sitting back God, there's no real way to disprove him. Of course, that's because he would be entirely irrelevant..."
I think asking questions like this is a cover up for circular reasoning. "Is my lolly-pop red, if it is red why is it red and not blue." You can go all day asking what if questions...
I don't believe in Deism, or the belief that God is indifferent or even unaware of humanity. I believe that God is the sustainer of all things (i.e. the universe and all that's in it) evident by proofs of God within the physical world, for example look at the expansion rate of the universe, it is finely tuned to one part in: 1. TRILLION, 2. TRILLION, 3. TRILLION, 4. TRILLION, 5. TRILLION (can that happen by random chance?) And if it were to change by one part in either direction (faster or slower) we COULD NOT have a life permitting universe. How do you explain this? How can you simply dismiss the origin of life and the origin of "information" necessary to bring life into existence? Life at its root requires information - which is stored in DNA and protein molecules. Did you know that there are estimated to be 3 billion DNA bases in our genome?! One entire DNA sequence would fill (200) 1,000 page phone directories! If you were to unwrap all the DNA you have in all your cells you could reach the moon 6,000 times (appx. 240,000 miles one way). DNA can self replicate using cellular machinery made of proteins (how did that evolve?) Take good notice of what Charles Darwin said in his book The Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, MY THEORY WOULD ABSOLUTELY BREAK DOWN." And we have this scientific evidence today but people are so committed to their belief system that they will even reject scientific empirical data to remain in the dark. Molecular machines defy explanation by Darwinian natural selection. The bacterial flagellum is made up of 240 distinct proteins or parts and these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function! The problem for evolutionist is that irreducibly complex molecular machines perform NO FUNCTION until ALL PARTS ARE PRESENT and working together in close coordination w/ one another.
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 08:42 PM
King of Ferrets:
"...Thanks for providing references to books I don't have! Oh, that's so useful! You're the best person ever!..."
Get off your lazy ass and go buy them, you asked for references and I gave them to you.
"...The reason it doesn't matter is because, y'know, my point that there's INFINITE TRIES. If you have infinite tries, and you have a 1 in 5 billion chances, you're going to get it eventually..."
Infinite tries? What the heck is this Wheel of Fortune? Where did you conjure that information from YOU give me your references?
"...How does this Brandon Carter guy know anything about the likelihood of different initial conditions? Does he have his calculations available? Do you have a reference for it?..."
What would posses you to think I would provide you w/ another reference that you're not going to take the time to look up?! Are u kidding me?!?! And for your lethargic information scientist state they can look as far back to the first 1/10 million trillion trillion trillionth of a second into the dawning of the universe...GO LOOK THAT UP...oh yeah you don't have the book huh?
"...And am I right to say that "a thousand billion billion zeros" isn't actually a number?..."
Ask Pascal that question, or Hawking or Davis, or Hoyle...you'd probably get smacked upside your head (and they'd probably hear an echo)
You aren't making any sense...why are u in this conversation again?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 08:57 PM
1. How many times did the dice roll? Just once?
2. You seem to assume that there are no other possibilities for other kinds of life. Essentially invoking the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
3. If it did come out to something unfavorable to life, we wouldn't be here pondering it.
1. Define "information" and how you measure it. Of course, Creationists like to ignore that in Shannon Information Theory, randomness does tend to increase information. Pretty much by definition.
2. More Texas sharpshooter. If the dinosaurs didn't die out, there'd probably be some 3-fingered scaly critters having this argument.
3. The earliest forms of life probably didn't require long DNA or RNA chains. Abiogenesis doesn't postulate whole cells or anything crazy like that coming from nowhere.
1. I smell quote mining.
2. What complex organ are you speaking of?
They're called Creationists.
Someone doesn't keep up. This has been explained quite well, and didn't Behe retract that opinion?
And you do realize that IC structures were a prediction of evolution before Behe coined the phrase, right?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 08:59 PM
Okay.
How the hell does that have anything to do with circular reasoning? Do you even know what circular reasoning is? And how does the lollypop thing have anything to do with it?
Anyway, you answered, and your answer means that he is, theoretically, disprovable. Now we have to go through and figure out exactly what your god's traits are, how that would affect the physical world, and see if it the physical world displays these effects. I'm pessimistic about actually getting there, since you have answered very few of our questions, but we can always hope.
I'm pretty sure you're pulling the whole "if it varied by a tiny amount we couldn't get life" thing. First, the whole infinite tries thing; even if it WAS true, eventually we'd get the right amount. Second, life is rather versatile. If there was a tiny difference, and said tiny difference actually did matter, it could be just a completely different form of life.
For the DNA: What, that much? God isn't a very efficient designer.
On irreducible complexity: And yet nobody's made a good case for it. Like the flagellum. Ever heard of the Dover trial? I believe a good defense of flagellum's evolution was presented there.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:12 PM
Why the hell should I go buy them just so you can make a point? If it's a valid point, you really should be able to find some evidence that doesn't require me to go buy something.
Infinite tries: I've told you! If there is the whole "universe collapses back in on itself and can't support life", then it's in a perfect position to just have another Big Bang.
You could, y'know, give me an INTERNET reference. I could look that up.
Seriously, it's not a number. I could probably convert it into a number, but I'm too lazy to do that when you could just, y'know, give me an actual number instead.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Bronze Dog:
"...Define "infinite" in this context..."
In order to comprehend an infinite God we use anthropomorphises (ascribing human attributes to an incomprehensible God), but God is immeasurable, boundless, limitless in nature, essence, and being...He cannot be reduced down to a one-to-one category or a subset of measurement...here's what I mean...all created things cannot be infinite (in their existence there cannot be an infinite regress of events in time)...if the universe had a beginning (which most scientists agree on) then it has to be even or odd (not infinite) something infinite can be neither even or odd because it is infinite. Suppose Jupiter completes an orbit once every 12 years and suppose Saturn every 30 years and the sphere of the stars every 36,000 years. If the universe is "infinite" and these planets have been orbiting from eternity, then each of these bodies has completed an infinite number of orbits and yet one will have completed twice as many or thousands of times as many orbits as the other. We may then ask...is the number of orbits completed even or odd? It would have to be one or the other and yet it's absurd to say the infinite is odd or even.
"...Define "immaterial..."
Transcending space, time, matter, and energy
"...Define "transcendent..."
The point beyond the material realm.
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:19 PM
"...You could, y'know, give me an INTERNET reference. I could look that up..."
If you look up google books you can get most of these books online and read the entire thing for free...
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:24 PM
...you're really stupid.
Apparently, you don't know the difference between "infinite" and "eternal". By the way, the universe could be "infinite", as you call it, without having an infinite number of Saturn orbits or whatever. Because, y'know, it could CHANGE OVER TIME.
So, God's time point is beyond the material realm? Yay for nonsensical crap!
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:28 PM
Okay, since some of you are getting tired of the probability argument, fine-tuning, and mathematical stuff...then I will ask this question (let me preface by saying that I'm not asking this question to argue, but out of genuine curiosity) and I'd like some answers from someone outside of my school of thought and someone other than Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins, and Richard Dawkins...
In your understanding...where did life, universe, all this originate??? How did we get all this? What was that initial first cause that brought about all of this?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Why not?
I don't think so. We can extrapolate what the universe was like up until a tiny fraction of a second after the point in time where we'd expect the singularity to be. There's still stuff to be settled. In fact, since space/time was one of the things to expand from the Big Bang, if there was a singularity, there's no "before" for a cause to come from, just like there's no Earth north of the North Pole.
That strikes me as a non-sequitur.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 09:33 PM
King of Ferrets why are you still here? Go play with you furry ferret or something...
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:34 PM
Huh. Didn't know Google Books existed.
Helpful, though. For example, it shows me you don't know the difference between a chapter and a page, and that you don't actually know what you're talking about, because he doesn't say that a tiny change would make the universe unable to support life anywhere in there (at least in the preview). I'll look up the other in a minute.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:36 PM
King of Ferrets
You are something else...you can't look up a google book and I'm the stupid one?!?!
Dood u need serious help. You're the type of guy who still needs his name, phone number and address written on a piece of paper and pinned to his backpack in case he gets lost crossing the street...go to sleep already
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:36 PM
By "he" I meant that P.C.W. guy, btw.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:36 PM
I just didn't know Google Books existed. So?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:37 PM
Best answer for life I know of here.
For the universe as a whole: We don't know yet. We're still looking.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 09:38 PM
Reasonable Faith, your other citation, was just a guy asserting that small variations would have resulted in a non-life-supporting universe. Without, y'know, actually citing something that shows this is true.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Ooops, sorry, missed the citation mark. I'm not sure citations over a decade old are necessarily GOOD citations, but he did have some.
Of course, you can't even cite your sources correctly (it was a "hundred thousand million million"), and it doesn't provide a source of any sort for the Stephen Hawking claim, but it does have citations. Just not for your claim.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 09:45 PM
Bronze Dog
"...If it's beyond the material, that means it's indistinguishable from nothing: Science operates under methodological materialism/naturalism, which means that anything with observable effects qualifies. If gods have effects, they are, by definition, material and natural..."
How is it indistinguishable from nothing? You're willing to accept aliens seeded life as a possibility but not that an all powerful God can be and operate multi-dimensionally?
Yes God has effects that are both material and natural, how does that disqualify him from being immaterial? He is beyond matter because he created matter...the cause has to be equal or greater than the effect...if the effect is matter, then the cause must transcend matter. It doesn't necessarily mean the cause has to be categorized as matter or doesn't have to be matter, I don't think that's the issue...the issue is the disposition in stature, nature, and ability more than it condition of state...if he is matter or not, does not remove that he transcends matter because he created matter...
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Seriously King of Ferrets, I can't be doing this all night with you...
You want to tell me that you didn't find the answer to the gravitational weak force in the PREVIEW of the book...that's surprising! You do realize the book is 175 pages long
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Being "material" is the state of "capable of having effects." Just like part of being a square means having four sides.
The alien seeding is merely very unlikely. If you want me to accept something that is not material but has effects, it is like asking me to believe in a square with five sides. It involves a contradiction, which is a statement that is inherently false.
Meaningless assertion to my ears. Define "greater" in this context.
But semantics aside, you have stated that God has effects. Describe these effects and form a testable prediction.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 10:03 PM
"...Of course, you can't even cite your sources correctly (it was a "hundred thousand million million"), and it doesn't provide a source of any sort for the Stephen Hawking claim..."
Of course you would say something like that bcuz you probably just read the preview...The hundred million million is part of the equation formula for the mathematical problem to be solved...the results of the mathematical equation is what I quoted...
I'm sorry I didn't do a better job explaining the anatomy of a math problem, I didn't know that's what the main purpose of the blog was...my bad...
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM
It was missing ONE PAGE of the chapter you wanted me to look at. It did explain what weak gravitational force is, it didn't say "oh, and a tiny change in it would make life impossible." I doubt that that is in the ONE MISSING PAGE.
Why did you direct me there if you didn't think it would answer the whole gravitational force thing, by the way? Or did you think it would, because you hadn't actually read the book and were just copying other people's arguments, and are now covering your tracks so that nobody notices?
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM
...no, you said that a change of one part in one thousand billion billion to one in the expansion rate of the big bang would result in an unlivable universe. The book said one hundred thousand million million parts to one for the expansion rate after the big bang. I don't see how there's a mathematical equation involved, except maybe one thousand billion billion =/= one hundred thousand million million.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Also: OF COURSE I JUST READ THE PREVIEW! Why are you criticizing the source you sent me to as being wrong? Why in the world would you direct me there if it's not accurate? Once again, I have a feeling you're just copying other people and not actually checking your sources, and get all annoyed when people call you out.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
There are two things that exist...(1) things which exist necessarily and (2) things that exist contingently.
Something which exists by the necessity of its own nature (like numbers). They are not caused to exist by something else they just exist by the necessity of their own nature.
By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else produced them (physical objects).
According to your interpretation of materialism/naturalism you would not be able to distinguish numbers because they are not material, but yet you and I know they exist. Can we place numbers under a microscope and test them? Can we distinguish their make-up? Do they have any observable physical effects? No to all. But we inexplicably know they exist.
Some atheists have tried to justify making an exception to this premise by saying that it's impossible for the universe/God, to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness cannot be the explanation for anything. So God and the universe must exist inexplicably.
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Oh, great, it's the stupid necessary vs contingent thing.
Numbers don't exist except as human constructs to understand the world. They aren't around because they're necessary for the existence of the universe.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM
King of Ferrets I have no idea what you are talking about?!!? It's like your having a conversation w/ yourself.
THE WHOLE THING IS A MATH EQUATION!!!!
The beginning part of the math equation is the mathematician's data by which he qualifies his result(s) (so he is saying that IF the expansion rate decreases by a qualifying amount (in this case 100,000 million million) so we are still in the question part of the math problem...are you tracking w/ me?
Then the mathematician gives his result of the math problem, also in the form of numbers...makes sense?
You are confusing the quote between Stephen Hawkins and Brandon Carter...
Hawkins is talking about the expansion rate
Carter is talking about the universes fine tuning
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Numbers are an abstraction, not reality.
Baseless assertion, unless you intend to demonstrate a free energy device. Though I suppose pair production in a vacuum could count, though the particles produced do add up to nothing, total.
Numbers themselves do not exist. Our ideas and thoughts about numbers do exist as chemicals and electrical signals bouncing around in our brains, though.
I don't believe in nothingness as a cause for the universe: If the Big Bang really was a singularity of space/time, there'd be no room for nothingness.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM
You never gave me a Carter citation! Anyway, the quote in the book is "Stephen Hawking (not hawkins, btw) estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in one hundred thousand million million in one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universe's recollapse long ago". You said, "Stephen Hawkin estimates that if the expansion rate of the Big Bang would have decreased even one part in a HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION MILLION one second after the big bang, would have resulted in the universe recollapsing back into itself."
I don't see how a math equation shows that you actually do know your sources rather than being full of shit.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Oh, wait, I did mess them up... dammit. =/
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 10:47 PM
"...Oh, great, it's the stupid necessary vs contingent thing.
Numbers don't exist except as human constructs to understand the world. They aren't around because they're necessary for the existence of the universe..."
Not according to Oxfords Peter Atkins (a leading atheist)...In his book The Creation he explains that sub-atomic particals where performing random and complex mathematical formulas thru eons of time and by random chance, one of the mathematical formulas hit the jack pot and the universe began.
But he never explains where the sub-atomic particals came from or complex mathematical formulas?
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Moron of Ferrets
I just copied and pasted this from my thread and it pretty much looks like i said one-hundred-thousand
"...(in this case 100,000 million million)..."
You're an idiot!
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Bronze dog, I appreciate your thoughts and have enjoyed our conversation (sorry i can't say that for mr. farret over there)
but i have to leave it at that for tonight
Posted by: vjazz79 | July 16, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Ummmm... Well, I've never heard of him. And that sounds like a not particularly accurate representation...
I just admitted that I mixed up the two numbers. That doesn't make me an idiot.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM
1. Please, don't bother with arguments from authority by drilling his atheism or location of his education into my head. His name rings no bells right now, and I suspect you're misunderstanding, given that you seem to be drifting towards Platonic idealism.
2. Mathematics is a description of a thing, not a thing itself.
3. Even if no one knows where those particles came from... what's your point?
Emphasis added for the question I most want answered.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 16, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Well, if the opponent is going to bed, I think I will too. Should satisfy my brain's pleadings to let it shut down.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | July 16, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Well, you've all been busy while I was away so this isn't going to cover everything just yet, but I'll start with vjazz79's response to myself first and go from there:
So you're what, 8 years old? You attempt to portray us as immature with repeated references to us going back to playing video games, but you have no answer other than trying to attack someone's sexual prowess? Typical theist hypocrisy - and still playing to the script. Thanks for being predictable.
Oh, you think you are being satirical now. The problem with satire though, is that the audience has to be able to recognise it as such. At the moment all you are doing is sounding like most other theists who think they are smart and can shut atheists up. Your posts are either real, or you are not a very good satirist. Now you are trying to set up a response of "Oh that bit that you think makes me look like a tool is satire." You failed.
Oh good one, you should really do this for a living.
I thought you might be able to figure it out yourself. I guess you're just playing at being clever. Another mistake I won't make again.
Oh you poor dear, you really couldn't figure it out, could you?
And you can't count either. Very sad. I blame the system.
Here, just for your benefit, is the explanation.
You said:
You believe (as a theist) that there are proofs for the existence of God.
Then you said:
So you think that anyone who claims they have proof of God's existence is a liar or doesn't know their information well enough. Of course, the ANYONE could have been intended to have us think that meant you as well and you've just been playing along the whole time. I don't think you're that smart though.
The contradiction is that you think there is proof for the existence of God, and then you say there isn't or can't be. That's not satire, it is outright stupidity. Nice try though.
Either you believe there is proof of the existence of God, or you don't. If you do, you just highlighted that you're a liar or you don't understand the information well enough, by your own admission.
Which is it?
Do you believe there is proof for the existence of God? If you do, why do you think you are exempt from your own assertion that anyone who claims they do have proof of the existence of God is either lying or does not understand the information well enough?
Where is the satire you claim? You were right about one thing though, your posts are certainly laborious. I'll give you that. Swift you are not.
Back to your first post, and we have your proofs for the existence of God:
Cosmological
Why does God not need a first cause?
If there can be one thing that does not need a first cause, why can't there be others?
How does a philosophical argument prove the existence or non-existence of something in reality?
If I define anything I can think of as not needing a first cause, could not the cosmological argument be used to prove that thing exists? How does defining a concept or idea amount to proving it exists in reality?
Or do you think the ability to define something and prove it logically makes it exist in reality?
Has your theology really not moved on since Plato and Aristotle?
Even the Kalam cosmological argument still makes the unwarranted assumption that there must be a first cause. Why must there be? Who says that first cause must be God? How do you prove that first cause must be God without first assuming there is a God?
Ontological
Do you understand the bare assertion fallacy?
What evidence is there for the assertion that it is greater to exist in reality than in understanding? Or is this an assumption?
Even if we accept the philosophical logic, why does this mean that something exists in actuality rather than philosophically? Are you arguing that simply being proven philosophically makes something reality?
How do you counter the argument (that King of Ferrets put forward) of necessary non-existence?
How do you answer Kant's criticism of the ontological argument? How do you prove that God exists outside of thought without already assuming that God exists?
Anthropological
This is, according to Theopedia, nothing more than the easily debunked Pascal's Wager.
Teleological
This is simply an example of begging the question and the argument from ignorance. More importantly, it does not prove the existence of God, but a designer.
In order for the appearance of design to be evidence of God, you have to assume that the designer can only be God.
Moral
Assumes that morality can only come from God, an unwarranted assumption for which there is no proof.
Existential
I can't even begin to figure out why you think this counts as a proof for the existence of God. Why don't you enlighten us?
Cosmic Fine-Tuning
About this you said:
How does this prove that God exists?
Let me be more explicit - you are begging the question here. We all know that if things were a little bit different in the universe we might not be here. However, you make the assumption that the universe is here for us. On what basis do you make this assumption? Why, on the basis that the Bible says so.
You assume the existence of God as part of this proof of the existence of God.
The fact that the universe could be very different than it is does not constitute proof of God unless you assume that the universe was put here for our benefit. And in order to assume that the universe was put here for our benefit, you have to assume that someone put it here for us. And you assume that was God.
The universe could quite happily exist without us, so our existence proves nothing other than that the universe has evolved in such a way that we can exist in it.
Why should he feel sheepish? All you did was show that the universe could have turned out differently, and without us. How do you turn this into proof that God exists without having first assumed that which you hope to prove?
Is this really the best you can come up with?
And what definition do you use for serious scholars and theologians? Those that agree with your preconcieved notion it seems.
Courtier's reply, anyone?
Philosophical and logical proof is not empirical proof. Talk about a basic error.
Playing it by the book. I re-read the posts between your first one and this post and could see no animosity. Unless of course you count questions and critiques as animosity. You on the other hand, didn't waste much time in pulling out insults. No doubt at some point in the near future you will start complaining about how we insulted you and this showed we had no argument. But we will all be able to see exactly who it was that started with the animosity, won't we?
We aren't bothered by God, we're bothered by his followers.
Really? People make laws based on the existence of Santa Clause? People fight wars over the existence of Santa Claus? People oppress their chosen victim over Santa Claus?
And you were trying so hard to sound intelligent.
Ah the old "You're not true skeptics gambit." You have been studying the script, haven't you?
So? Here you make the classic theist mistake. Skeptics and atheists don't have scripture or authorities to follow. So why should I care what a philosopher said?
What, precisely, do you think those philosophical arguments you listed use then, if not logic?
Idiot. Gravity is not a system of logic. Good grief. New to this are we?
That would depend on how good the artist is, wouldn't it? You really aren't very good at this.
No, not obviously unless you are a small minded wastrel with delusions of intellectual greatness. The artist might not be very good. He can imagine the concept of the greatest ever painting - but if he isn't very good, the reality does not match the concept. Fancy that.
How does the one follow the other?
Excellent. According to vjazz79 I'm a theologian. 14 years of Catholic school has a way of acquainting you with theology.
Someone who types in text speak, can't spell, can't use grammar, can't use punctuation and insists on making claims about a persons sexual prowess should probably not try to insult other people's maturity. They might end up looking like exactly the sort of person they are.
Which Dawkins books have you read? It's only fair, since you ask us to look at serious scholars and theologians, that you read the works of some prominent atheists. I have the Ancestor's Tale sitting on my book shelf. It's funny, I don't remember this being Dawkins argument in those parts where he talks about the possible origins of life. Could you please give a citation for where he says this is his best explanation for the origin of life so I can look it up?
You have read his books, right? You're not a massively hypocritical douchebag, are you?
Oh, I can't wait for this.
A philosophical assumption, not science or necessarily rational thought.
Another assumption.
Nothing to do with science or rational thought.
Plural? How many cosmos are there? Science tells us that the universe is just right for us - not that it was designed that way or must be that way. Assigning this to God is not scientific or rational.
What does this have to do with the existence of God? Where is this explained in theology?
Unscientific.
Explained by evolutionary theory.
Not scientific.
He doesn't.
Even if he did think that way, he does not represent me.
That's about enough of your brand of the ridiculous as I can take for one evening.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | July 16, 2009 at 11:44 PM