Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

Norsefire said:
But computers needed to be created, allowed, to exist and put into existence by intelligent beings (us).

The question can boil down, not to the development of life, but the creation of existence, of which ONLY the logic of a creator makes sense and even then it doesn't. It's an endless loop, which ultimately suggests that existence is infinite and THAT is just not plausible.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The simulation does not depend on the computer being complex, as the rules that operate are simple. It can be done on graph paper. Simple rules such as that which can occur in simple non-intelligent systems, can lead to complexity. You don't point to rocks and gasses and say those are proof of God. You used the example of life.
 
john said:
I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists.
Click to expand...
Do you then call yourself agnostic with regard to all the gods you don't believe in ?

Seems a petty and misleading distinction. You have no belief in Thor, say - your best judgment is that such a god does not exist. Why would you mislead people into thinking you were undecided in the matter ? Just because you could be wrong does not mean you have in fact significant doubt, true ?

john said:
For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion.
Click to expand...
A certain percentage of Catholic priests are atheist. Many Buddhists and other religion adherents are atheist.

norsefire said:
Yet by stating that the universe is fine-tuned for life, you can get enough "evidence" or reasoning to show a good probability of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
I've never seen that done. I have seen some fairly pathetic attempts.
 
spidergoat said:
That's not the point. The simulation does not depend on the computer being complex, as the rules that operate are simple. It can be done on graph paper. Simple rules such as that which can occur in simple non-intelligent systems, can lead to complexity. You don't point to rocks and gasses and say those are proof of God. You used the example of life.
Click to expand...

But ultimately how does existence come into existence? That in itself is a difficult question to answer without need to bring in some intelligent presence.
 
spidergoat said:
There is room to speculate, but there has yet been no credible fact that shows the universe could not have come about through a natural process. In other words, you are using the God of the gaps argument. You are saying since we don't know everything, that Gap is where God's role comes in.
Click to expand...

It isn't just about filling some gap of the unknown. It's about filling a gap that has no other possibilities or at least, no other likely possibilities.
 
How did intelligence come into existence? That would be much harder to explain than the spontaneous occurance of positive and negative energy. Subatomic particles seem to do this all the time. Are they doing this because they are smart?
 
Norsefire said:
It isn't just about filling some gap of the unknown. It's about filling a gap that has no other possibilities or at least, no other likely possibilities.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there are no shortage of plausable theories. One must logically first dismiss the naturalistic explanation before something much more unlikely could be considered. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist, otherwise your argument would be stronger.
 
spidergoat said:
How did intelligence come into existence? That would be much harder to explain than the spontaneous occurance of positive and negative energy. Subatomic particles seem to do this all the time. Are they doing this because they are smart?
Click to expand...

Conciousness. What is it? Our brains are made from carbon and water and all of that........nonliving. So how do nonliving substances create, not only life, but conciousness?



There's enough writing on the wall to suggest that an intelligent presence is at least plausible.
 
spidergoat said:
Ah, but there are no shortage of plausable theories. One must logically first dismiss the naturalistic explanation before something much more unlikely could be considered. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist, otherwise your argument would be stronger.
Click to expand...

The naturalistic explanation and intelligent design theory have equal weight. Both are as plausible, or implausible, as the other.
 
There is no essential difference between living and non-living. Non-living electronic circuits can store and manipulate information from outside sources, that's what we do only more complex. Consciousness is information.
 
Norsefire said:
The naturalistic explanation and intelligent design theory have equal weight. Both are as plausible, or implausible, as the other.
Click to expand...

Nope. Evolution is much more plausable than creationism. ID has made no predictions reflected in the fossil record.
 
iceaura said:
Do you then call yourself agnostic with regard to all the gods you don't believe in ?

Seems a petty and misleading distinction. You have no belief in Thor, say - your best judgment is that such a god does not exist. Why would you mislead people into thinking you were undecided in the matter ? Just because you could be wrong does not mean you have in fact significant doubt, true ?
Click to expand...

No, actually i believe in the possibility\probability of higher intelligence. Did this intelligence have any impact on this planet? From what i have seen and understand then the answer is more likely than not.

SG brought up a good analogy with computers, only it does not work in his favour. Without humans computers could not do anything, even if by some miracle they existed they would just take up space w\out human intervention (should say interaction). For all intents and purposes when it comes to computers humans are God.

Only difference is that comps. are not organic life forms, of course this is a huge distinction. Computers cannot think for themselves but then humans certainly have a degree of hard coding as do all living creatures.
 
Last edited:
In this way, we have learned that through computers humans are following in the path of a creator:scratchin: Fascinating. Is this our destiny?
 
spidergoat said:
Nope. Evolution is much more plausable than creationism. ID has made no predictions reflected in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Creationism in the Abrahamic sense, yes. But not in the sense that intelligent beings might have planted the seeds of life on Earth OR that our evolution was guided by another intelligence.
 
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
~ ~ ~ Douglas Adams



Bigotry murders religion to frighten fools with her ghost.
~ ~ ~ Charles Caleb Colton


The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
~ ~ ~ Josh Billings


If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
~ ~ ~ Anatole France



Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do.
~ ~ ~ Benjamin Franklin




We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
~ ~ ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.



Without fools the rest of us could not succeed.
~ ~ ~ Mark Twain



No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions.
~ ~ ~ Charles Steinmetz
 
John99 said:
No, actually i believe in the possibility\probability of higher intelligence. Did this intelligence have any impact on this planet? From what i have seen and understand then the answer is more likely than not.

SG brought up a good analogy with computers, only it does not work in his favour. Without humans computers could not do anything, even if by some miracle they existed they would just take up space w\out human intervention (should say interaction). For all intents and purposes when it comes to computers humans are God.

Only difference is that comps. are not organic life forms, of course this is a huge distinction. Computers cannot think for themselves but then humans certainly have a degree of hard coding as do all living creatures.
Click to expand...


The point is that a computer simulation uses simple rules, such as that reflected in non-intelligent chemical reactions. Computers are not irreducibly complex. The program consists of simple logic gates. The result can mimic the behavior of living systems. That proves that complexity need not arise from complexity. Complexity can arise from simple rules. Source:

http://www.wolframscience.com/
 
But ultimately someone has to set in motion the existence of anything itself. This is the difficult part that science cannot answer better than religion.
 
Someone? Something is simpler than someone, and thus more likely to precede it in time. Science has a much better track record of explaning things than religion. Science explains more and more, religion less and less. You can no longer claim that atheism isn't based on logic or reason.
 
spidergoat said:
Someone? Something is simpler than someone, and thus more likely to precede it in time. Science has a much better track record of explaning things than religion. Science explains more and more, religion less and less. You can no longer claim that atheism isn't based on logic or reason.
Click to expand...

Atheism might be based on logic, but it is illogical in itself in presuming that it is a known fact that there is no higher intelligence than Humanity. Therefore it is foolish.



Ok but regardless, there is still the question of "how did anything come to be"


If mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it come to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top