Atheists please answer this

[Joe K.]

So, I am all caught up to page 6.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So, I am all caught up to page 6.

So what?
Being "caught up" doesn't mean you've actually provided satisfactory (or even rational) answers.
Don't tell me that's what you're assuming.

Edit: or even answered all the points raised.
Presumably then, by "caught up" you simply mean you've managed to get the first post on page 7.
Wow! Kudos. I'm impressed.

 

[spidergoat]

The evidence is that you cannot provide any scientific law showing God could not have created things. My evidence is your lack of evidence.

I just did, the early universe was too small to contain any information about the subsequent complexity. God as a theory proposes to explain complexity by positing that it exists within the complex mind of God, and yet complex things could not have existed at T=0.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

You have yet to satisfactorily define "consciousness", given that your previous definition included artificial sensory machines, robots etc.

I have satisfactorily defined it, and it doesn't include robots and the like.
Artificial sensory machines are a product of consiousness, and any consciousness they appear to have is as you say "artificial".

I don't know it is correct - but it is rational given the available evidence.

So you think it is rational to accept that consciousness (as defined) originates in rocks?

No idea - I would suggest you look up "abiogenesis".

I have, and there is no mention of consciousness spontaneosly generating from anything, let alone rocks.
But i am interested as to why you see it as a rational explanation.

No difference to you.
But the analogy is limited in that it does not account for the potential for relevancy that inanimate matter has (rationally speaking).

Potential for what?

It is the rational conclusion.

What good is a rational conclusion if every unit of consciousness
is irradicated? :shrug:

Something of which there is "no knowledge" still has the potential to become "known".

Not if there is no consciousness.

And you still don't see how your usage of "existence" has an a priori requirement for consciousness? :shrug:

If there is completely no consciousness, then what IS existence?

I may not percieve something now, and deem it non-existent, but because
consciousnes is in the universe(s) it may be known to exist by others. So in that regard I agree with you regarding potential.

I am not concerned if the rock existed for the unfortunate crushed person - but whether it existed at all given that the person who it crushed was not aware of it... was "unaware of it"... "had no knowledge of it".

That person was neither aware, nor knowledgeble of future events, but was aware of the possibility of the potential of that happening. To be specific.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

oo..a list..can't resist..

Some evidence that the Christian God does not exist:

evidence? how is it evidence?

1. Prayer doesn't work in rigorously designed studies.

try a spiritually designed study..

2. Bad things happen to good people.

:bawl:

3. Creationism is false.

unproven..

4. Religious people aren't any more good than non-religious people.

ain't that what i have been saying?

6. Religious texts show evidence of being written and rewritten by many authors, in contrast to the myth of their origins.

maybe thats why..

5. Religious texts are self-contradictory.

7. No reliable evidence for miracles.

faith and trust have no place in science.

8. No evidence that religious texts contain knowledge that could not have been known at the time they were written.

this i know..why is that an issue?

9. Religious texts promote immoral behavior.

?

10.The universe is not fine-tuned for life.

just read the opening..

 

[NMSquirrel]

And there's no evidence to refute my claim that the elf living in my kitchen cupboard created your "god".
What's your point?

what is your elfs name? lucky?..
can i bring my cat over?..
and he got out of your pocket then,eh?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But no evidence there is not. My point stands.

Your point is standing on something very much not true then. The very fact that there is no evidence of evolution being guided by a sapient life form shows there is no evidence of evolution being guided at all. That means it is solely up to natural processes (which is what we observe).

If I said "God is real whether you believe it or not" I don't think you would find my argument compelling.

Your argument as compelling or non-compelling as it may be wouldn't matter. There is no evidence a God exists. On the other hand there is conclusive evidence that evolution exists. Whether or not you accept that is entirely up to you, but evolution will continue to exist regardless.

Science has shown nothing of the kind. Your statement is solidlygrounded on air. It is opinion or belief, not fact.

Unlike your claim above, I can provide evidence for mine. All you have to do is ask (provided you are asking with the intent of being influence by evidence and not just making me do work out of spite).

What scientific evidence do you have to show that Jesus did not rise from the dead? None.

We have the following knowns:

* Once all cells in your body are dead, that's it, you're dead for good.
* There is zodiac related religion that precedes Christianity where a Jesus-like figurehead has 12 disciples, performs miracles, resurrects from the dead, etc. That casts doubt on whether Jesus was even a real person or just a rip-off story.

We also have an interesting combination of knowns and scientific discovery.

* The Septuagint discussed the life of Jesus hundreds of years before he was born. That either means someone legitimately saw the future -OR- Jesus was just a story (as proto-religion suggests and the fact that humans cannot demonstrate any ability to see the future).
* The discovery of eigenstates in QM shows that everything exists as a superposition for a brief moment and then collapses into the most probable outcome. That would suggest that the future doesn't exist until the moment the most recent set of superpositions collapses into the most probable next moment. Of course not all superpositions collapse at the same time and each can affect the highest probable outcome of the rest... not to mention, there is only superposition of whatever a "next" moment may be... not anything beyond. With all these dynamics, it strongly suggests that if you could see into the future it would be a garble of superpositions for a "next" moment and nothing beyond... which would invalidate the Septuagint as anything more than a story and of course Jesus in turn.

 

[spidergoat]

oo..a list..can't resist..

evidence? how is it evidence?

They are attributes of God that can be tested.

try a spiritually designed study..

biased

:bawl:

So don't tell me God takes care of his creation.

unproven..

No evidence for it, plenty of pseudoscience used to attempt to support it, plenty of evidence that increasing complexity is a natural phenomenon.

ain't that what i have been saying?

Then what's the point?

maybe thats why..


faith and trust have no place in science.

You are confusing me. Are you endorsing a sort of non-denominational new agey God? Because that's not the one I'm presenting evidence against.

this i know..why is that an issue?

It's supporting evidence that religious text were not inspired or dictated by an all knowing agent, but were rather the works of men, and they are in fact the source of the concept of God.

?

Being opposed to religious freedom is immoral, and this is just what the Bible suggests.

just read the opening..

How is this evidence? It's a common argument for God. By showing the common arguments for God to be unsound, we disprove his existence. Ipso facto, carpe diem.

No, God isn't in a box, because that could be subject to logical analysis, and we don't want that.

 

[birch]

I cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove he does not. This is because of the limitations of the human mind and the limitations of proof.

fallacious logic. you are implying that god exists but is not provable at this time or can't be proven because we are unable. you would even have to first define 'god' in the first place.

you do not know that god exists in the first place. it's just a belief.

 

[NMSquirrel]

They are attributes of God that can be tested.

ahh..attributes..not evidence..

So don't tell me God takes care of his creation.

i didn't..i think the closest ive come to saying anything like that is God will take care of us if we listen to him.

You are confusing me. Are you endorsing a sort of non-denominational new agey God? Because that's not the one I'm presenting evidence against.

i am argueing, there is more to god than any person/text can communicate.man is the one who tries to pidgeonhole god into its own ideology

It's supporting evidence that religious text were not inspired or dictated by an all knowing agent, but were rather the works of men, and they are in fact the source of the concept of God.

i would only argue with the inspired part..

Being opposed to religious freedom is immoral, and this is just what the Bible suggests.

see written by man part of arguement.

How is this evidence? It's a common argument for God. By showing the common arguments for God to be unsound, we disprove his existence. Ipso facto, carpe diem.

oh..dunno if this matters to your point here..but i meant..
i just read (past tense)the opening..

 

[phlogistician]

I guess you can't fathom how a solider engaged in the service of their country on the war front and a solider involved in a homicide case involving their next door neighbor are engaged in the same act.

It's not about 'fathoming' it, they are different acts. If you can't see it, think really hard about it until you can.

Lets try again more slowly

Remove the criteria that distinguishes an act of murder from the job description of a solider and there is no reasonable explanation why a decorated solider should be charged with murder if he kills his next door neighbor.

Nope, missed by a mile. Your analogy fails.

Similarly, remove the criteria that distinguishes an act performed in the service of god and there is no reasonable explanation why the acts of Mr Sutcliffe are any different from what is presented in the bhagavad gita.

Again, you just don't seem to understand the context. Think really hard until you can.

In short, judging a genre by its worst example is sufficient to grant any world view a vantage point behind shit stained glasses.

Already dispensed with your assertion that Sutcliffe was the 'worst example', by providing a link that shows his was not an uncommon claim. Please try harder.

PS, is there a reason you can't spell the word 'soldier'?

 

[phlogistician]

My God was nailed to a cross, but he reose from the dead. Where is your God, outside of comic books?

Valhalla.

 

[phlogistician]

i like the way you are communicating joe,very informative..cudo's

I think you mean kudos.

I am unsurprised that you find the weak arguments of a theist compelling, when you aren't that literate yourself.

 

[spidergoat]

ahh..attributes..not evidence..

Things are known by their observable qualities. These are the ways God is said to manifest in the world.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not about 'fathoming' it, they are different acts. If you can't see it, think really hard about it until you can.

actually its about factoring in specific criteria that make them different. The absence of fathoming is your ability to apply the same general principle to theistic issues.

Nope, missed by a mile. Your analogy fails.

au contraire, your ability to factor it in on one scenario (that of a soldier) and not another (that of theism and the issue of killing) shows I'm spot on.

Again, you just don't seem to understand the context. Think really hard until you can.

If a person can get a medal for killing in one scenario, what on earth is the rational explanation for laying criminal charges on him in another, eh?

Already dispensed with your assertion that Sutcliffe was the 'worst example', by providing a link that shows his was not an uncommon claim. Please try harder.

If you had a rudimentary understanding of the gita you would know I'm not contesting it on the grounds of killing

PS, is there a reason you can't spell the word 'soldier'?

just a typo
is there a reason why you can't understand that a soldier who goes awol and kills his next door neighbor is a "worst example" of the duties of a capable military specialist?

 

[Sarkus]

I have satisfactorily defined it, and it doesn't include robots and the like.
Artificial sensory machines are a product of consiousness, and any consciousness they appear to have is as you say "artificial".

What difference is it if something is artificial or not if it fulfills the definition provided (by you)? Your definition included, whether a product of consciousness or not, artificial consciousness - but also simple machines that are aware of and respond to their surroundings.

What such "artificial" consciousness shows is that the "consciousness" (your definition of it) is entirely contained within the electronics/mechanics - nothing else.

If you wish to change your definition - feel free - I am merely using, and deconstructing, yours.

So you think it is rational to accept that consciousness (as defined) originates in rocks?

Where did I say it originated "in rocks"? The chemicals of the first life-form pre-existed the life-form - whether as part of a rock that was then, over time, broken down, or whether as part of a liquid, or as part of a gas.
This is indeed the rational position... there was initially just inanimate material... there is now life... rational conclusion: life came from the inanimate material. The trick now is to see how such might have happened.

I have, and there is no mention of consciousness spontaneosly generating from anything, let alone rocks.
But i am interested as to why you see it as a rational explanation.

Abiogenesis, as you will know having read some material on it, concerns itself with how life begins from inanimate matter, agreed?
Whether you consider ALL life to have consciousness, or just the "higher" life-forms to have consciousness, you can not have consciousness without there being life. If you think ALL life has consciousness then Abiogenesis is your answer... and if you think only the higher life-forms have consciousness then you also need to look at evolution... and establish where in the complexity of life consciousness exists / does not exist.

Needless to say - if we began with inanimate matter, and now there is conscious life... rational explanation is that one developed into the other.

Potential for what?

For relevancy.
It was clearly worded in the sentence you responded to.
Your argument is that "irrelevant existence = non-existence".
My counter is that irrelevant existence has the potential to become relevant existance, whereas non-existence does not.

What good is a rational conclusion if every unit of consciousness
is irradicated? :shrug:

Luckily for you and me that hasn't occurred - and so the rational conclusion remains. What "good" you make of it is up to you.

Not if there is no consciousness.
...
If there is completely no consciousness, then what IS existence?

Potential.
Since there was no consciousness but now there is... if you eradicate consciousness then what remains still has the potential to produce consciousness... as it did first time round.

I may not percieve something now, and deem it non-existent, but because consciousnes is in the universe(s) it may be known to exist by others. So in that regard I agree with you regarding potential.

But if that other person does not yet exist... but just as you were created and are rational, another person might - at a later date (after you have eradicated all existing consciousness) - become conscious. The potential exists whether there is any consciousness or not.

That person was neither aware, nor knowledgeble of future events, but was aware of the possibility of the potential of that happening. To be specific.

Why did they have to be aware of the possibility? I didn't say they did. Please don't assume things just to fit your answers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

What difference is it if something is artificial or not if it fulfills the definition provided (by you)? Your definition included, whether a product of consciousness or not, artificial consciousness - but also simple machines that are aware of and respond to their surroundings.

A machine programmed to be aware of their surrounding, is not the same as being awake and aware of what is going on around YOU.

What such "artificial" consciousness shows is that the "consciousness" (your definition of it) is entirely contained within the electronics/mechanics - nothing else.

So you regard a vacium cleaner as conscious?
Awake, and aware of what's going on around it?
Sarkus, is not losing a debate so important that you
will sink to such idiotic levels of logic?

If you wish to change your definition - feel free - I am merely using, and deconstructing, yours.

I don't think I need to Sarkus, as I am sure you understand
what I mean. And will seek to deconstruct any definition to keep
the discussion at this level.

This is indeed the rational position... there was initially just inanimate material... there is now life... rational conclusion: life came from the inanimate material. The trick now is to see how such might have happened.

It may be a "rational conclusion" if you believe consciousness, ie, a state of being awake, and awareness of one-self within one surrounding was born out
of rocks. IOW, it is a subjective belief and has nothing to do with current scientific evidence. And if I may add, a poor one at that, but understandably necessary to validate world views.

Whether you consider ALL life to have consciousness, or just the "higher" life-forms to have consciousness, you can not have consciousness without there being life.

So you believe the machines (bodies) developed first, then consciousnes evoled at a later time?

If you think ALL life has consciousness then Abiogenesis is your answer... and if you think only the higher life-forms have consciousness then you also need to look at evolution... and establish where in the complexity of life consciousness exists / does not exist.

I believe consciousness in symptomized by certain processes of life.
Firstly it comes into being, grows, produces by-products, gets old, then dies.

Needless to say - if we began with inanimate matter, and now there is conscious life... rational explanation is that one developed into the other.

"If" being the operative word.

For relevancy.
It was clearly worded in the sentence you responded to.
Your argument is that "irrelevant existence = non-existence".

I said existence is irrelevant if there is no consciousness to understanding.
Do we know whether the tree makes a sound?
Can we ever know?
Is it relevant?
No. No. No.

My counter is that irrelevant existence has the potential to become relevant existance, whereas non-existence does not.

Explain the difference in the face of no consciousness?
No bullishit please.

Potential.
Since there was no consciousness but now there is... if you eradicate consciousness then what remains still has the potential to produce consciousness... as it did first time round.

Who says there was no consciousness?
How do prove something like that?
Or is it one of your "rational conclusions"?

Why did they have to be aware of the possibility? I didn't say they did. Please don't assume things just to fit your answers.

The chances are an adult would be aware of the potential of dieing from
being crushed by a rock, so I would doubt your accusation of assumption on my part.

But my point still stands, what the person didn't have knowledge of was future events coming to fruition.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

A machine programmed to be aware of their surrounding, is not the same as being awake and aware of what is going on around YOU.
///
So you regard a vacium cleaner as conscious?
Awake, and aware of what's going on around it?
Sarkus, is not losing a debate so important that you
will sink to such idiotic levels of logic?

Woah! Wait a minute there!
All I'm doing here is taking YOUR definition - as previously given - and showing what it encapsulates.
Any issue you have with the examples is due to YOUR definition.

Your definition: "awareness of surroundings: the state of being awake and aware of what is going on around you"
Is a computer "awake"? If you don't think so... then define "awake" without using any circular reference to consciousness.
Is a computer "aware"? If you don't think so... then define "aware" without using any circular reference to consciousness.
If YOUR definition wasn't so woolly then perhaps such examples (that you clearly disagree with) might be excluded.

I don't think I need to Sarkus, as I am sure you understand
what I mean. And will seek to deconstruct any definition to keep
the discussion at this level.

Clearly you do need to as clearly I do not understand what you mean. If I did understand I would not provide examples of what I understand to be included in your example that you clearly do not want included.

It may be a "rational conclusion" if you believe consciousness, ie, a state of being awake, and awareness of one-self within one surrounding was born out of rocks. IOW, it is a subjective belief and has nothing to do with current scientific evidence. And if I may add, a poor one at that, but understandably necessary to validate world views.

Again - you will obviously need to clarify your definition - as per above.
As for being a subjective belief... the conclusion is based on the objective evidence. Should evidence to the contrary be provided, or a more rational conclusion be demonstrated then this would no longer be the rational conclusion.
If you think it has "nothing to do with current scientific evidence" then please do point out where I am being contrary to such evidence, and I will have to amend my position accordingly.

So you believe the machines (bodies) developed first, then consciousnes evoled at a later time?

I consider that to be the rational conclusion, given what I understand.

I believe consciousness in symptomized by certain processes of life.
Firstly it comes into being, grows, produces by-products, gets old, then dies.

So a pool of slightly-acidic water on a bed of limestone? A pool starts as a drop, grows, produces by-products due to the interaction of the water and limestone. As it evaporates (gets old) and it dies.

"If" being the operative word.

It is the rational assumption - unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Explain the difference in the face of no consciousness?
No bullishit please.

I have explained...
Non-existence does not contain potential - there is nothing... nada... zilch.
Irrelevant existence contains potential to give rise to consciousness... as it already has done.

Inanimate matter existed pre-consciousness... that is the rational assumption upon which this is based.
According to you, pre-consciousness inanimate matter is irrelevant and, according to you it did not exist.
If it truly did not exist then there could have been no possibility to develop into consciousness.
Yet we are here. Therefore it must have existed.
Q.E.D.

Who says there was no consciousness?
How do prove something like that?
Or is it one of your "rational conclusions"?

You have evidence that consciousness existed? :shrug:
Feel free to share.

But then you keep denying that your usage of the term does not include an a priori assumption of consciousness... and yet you continue down the line of arguing that the two are inexorably entwined? Hmmm.

The chances...to fruition.

:wallbang:

 

[phlogistician]

actually its about factoring in specific criteria that make them different.

And by making them different you break the analogy.

The absence of fathoming is your ability to apply the same general principle to theistic issues.

Nope, it's not about 'fathoming', it's just your warped view of the world.

au contraire, your ability to factor it in on one scenario (that of a soldier) and not another (that of theism and the issue of killing) shows I'm spot on.

No, your analogy is fatally flawed.

If a person can get a medal for killing in one scenario, what on earth is the rational explanation for laying criminal charges on him in another, eh?

That's a stupid question, and tangential to the points being made here. You are out of touch, really.

If you had a rudimentary understanding of the gita you would know I'm not contesting it on the grounds of killing

Like I care what your inspiration is. It's not the same.

is there a reason why you can't understand that a soldier who goes awol and kills his next door neighbor is a "worst example" of the duties of a capable military specialist?

Now you are convolving the 'worst example' line that I;ve already debunked into and already flawed analogy. Did you skip your meds today?

 

[lightgigantic]

And by making them different you break the analogy.

and what makes them different?
Specific criteria that distinguish the motives and contexts of the persons involved, yes?

as for the rest of your post, not much point since it also repeatedly falls short on the same grounds


(BTW, the gita was spoken on a battlefield ... just a bit of edifying info for you)