My letter to an Atheist

[krazedkat]

I have yet to receive answers.

I'll give you my answer to the last question, I know you don't need it though :shrug:.
I don't believe the entire Torah, or bible, or Qu'ran. They're man written and easily tampered with. The belief in the bible is a very selective belief.

 

[Dinosaur]

Check out the Thread in Science & Society titled: Are there any new creationists arguments.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Something has to exist before it can be described; however, your response does not address my rebuttal in the slighest.



I think you would have to show an intelligence exists first before delving into more specifics.



You did alot more than that. See my original rebuttal.



Well that's not correct either. 'God' is a psychological phenomena born of the human survival trait called anthropomorphism. It's not a real life form; however, it is part of effective strategy for fostering cooperative behavior and resource sharing.



As long as you can't see the underlying behavioral bias in your thought process, such contemplation is inevitably going to lead to incorrect understanding. Remember, you are an energy collection machine. Everything about you is geared towards collecting energy and persisting... not understanding truth. If you're interested in truth, you have to drastically reduce psychological/subjective influence to your thought process to examine things objectively.

In light of your infinite knowledge of God could you lay it out the, what, where, why how, when, that, then about this easly described entity

 

[OriginalBiggles]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena #3
His post is the best your going to get as far as a universal proof is concerned.
It is now up to you to give a better explanation of how this universe came into being, and how and why it so precisely maintained. And it the onus is on you to prove that your explanation is more valid than his.

Universal proof? This is something of an oxymoronic concept much more suited to the contextual froth of phraseology like "a sure and certain hope".
As much as one keeps trying to impress upon the concrete block of the theist mind the unequivocal fact of science not dealing in PROOF, no amount of persistant and simple explanation makes any impression whatsoever upon them.

A better explanation is simplicity itself. Though, as it requires no obsequious fawning, no grovelling punctuated by declarations of unworthiness, no craven cringing in guilt, this simple explanation will not appeal to the theist.

It is this; [a] Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed, merely transformed into different constructs of each other. This is as ineluctably true today as when Isaac Newton gave identity to his second law of thermodynamics. That the theist somehow can allow an eternity of existence for an imaginary god yet not be able to allow the same property for energy/matter is not a problem for the physical sciences to solve. Psychiatry may have application here.

It will become apparent as we impose ourselves wider upon the cosmos that the concept of a god follows with human exploration as it did on Earth. From this basis in logic it can be legitimately inferred that gods, ghosts, demons etc, the entire panoply of the supernatural, is a human construct manifested from a profound and abiding fear of being alone in an expanding environment perceived to be hostile on all sides and never less than indifferent to human fate. Prospective exploration of the cosmos is the newest and most daunting expression of that abiding fear...........of being ineffably alone and deeply vulnerable.

[c] It follows from this reasoning that our Universe, our Cosmos, is demeaned and sullied by the imposition of any supposedly supernatural concepts for these concepts are the contrivance of an immature intellect trying in child-like manner to make rational sense from deep and pervasive mysteries. As such, they have found expression in the irrational, the only alternative for a fearful mind seeking surcease from doubt and vulnerability.

[d] It further follows that all existence has no imaginary properties, only those we can identify with our intellect and our five senses extended in their effectiveness by technology. Our progress, both intellectual and physical, is based firmly and irrefutably in a material existence and a material environment. All that we know and can know and can have ultimate confidence in is measurable by parameters that are created and defined by us.

[e] To all who cleave to this view, who are convinced and convicted of its truth, I have given the name PRIME and the body of logic and reason that comprises it is PRIMISM.

It is clear that theists have imposed an inverse interpretation on the composition of the cosmos. They have reversed the direction of cause and effect, have implied that rivers flow uphill. Any number of variations in the constants that gave rise to life as we know it would most likely have produced different forms of sentience. Conditions that gave rise to us most likely pervade our cosmos. We are a condition of that cosmos. And just as it continues and prevails despite the local devastation of a supernovum, so too will it prevail when the life forms on planet Earth have ceased to exist. Our genetic diversity is not infinite and therefore we are not infinite.

Entropy is an ineluctable property of our cosmos. Our Universe will become dead, lifeless, stygian black where only the inevitable force of gravity operates. I direct the reader to Paul Davies' book GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS ch.15. The End of the Universe. Davies is a deist and winner of the Templeton Prize in 2005.

Invitations to falsify the propositions of PRIMISM have been met with a thunderous silence from the theistic fraternity. Judging by the meagre erudition of theists in this group, I have few fond hopes of a serious argument but harbour an expectation, if any response occurs, of a tirade of worthless theistic waffle.

Biggles, Prime

 

[wynn]

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

—Herbert Spencer

 

[iceaura]

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

—Herbert Spencer

Perfectly sound observation, but not applicable to anything in this thread.

Nothing here is new, uninvestigated, etc. None of the contempt here is prior to investigation, unless one regards the theists posting here as exhibiting contempt - which to the degree that is so, is not exactly "prior" to investigation, since their denial of the validity of investigation itself in these matters is fundamental to their arguments as seen here.

To provide some context for the contempt subsequent to investigation - mine, say - here is an example of what could have been posted that at least recognizes a state of discussion not mired in 18th century theology and pre-Renaissance science:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

 

[wynn]

Perfectly sound observation, but not applicable to anything in this thread.

Of course not!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

In light of your infinite knowledge of God could you lay it out the, what, where, why how, when, that, then about this easly described entity

Infinite knowledge is not real. Aside from that, here is the layout you requested; however, I strongly suspect that you have no real desire for it.

what: God is a psychological phenomena born of anthropmorphism and hierarchical disposition.

where: In the minds of humans.

why/how:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.shtml
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/god-experiments/?searchterm=religion
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP05383386.pdf

when: Since anthropmorphism arose in our species.

that/then: n/a in this context.

 

[James R]

Jan:

The correct argument is:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause".
2 the universe came into existence
3 therefore the universe needs a cause.

Following the same argument:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause
2 God didn't come into existence
3 therefore God doesn't need a cause.

So you'd agree that we can equally well solve the problem by positing that the universe didn't "come into existence" either, because there was a pre-existing multiverse or something similar? No need for God, then.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Jan:



So you'd agree that we can equally well solve the problem by positing that the universe didn't "come into existence" either, because there was a pre-existing multiverse or something similar? No need for God, then.

There is always the problem of infinite regression be it for some supreme being or the matter and energy that makes up our universe

Thus; Who or what made god, who and what made the god that made god
Adinfinitum

 

[James R]

So do you agree, Alan, that the argument that "the universe needs a cause therefore God exists" isn't a good argument?

 

[786]

So do you agree, Alan, that the argument that "the universe needs a cause therefore God exists" isn't a good argument?

Maybe there is a 'slight' chance. The universe is a system bound by physics, and thus it needs a cause in accordance with physical laws of cause and effect. God is not a physical object, or bound by physics and thus can be un-caused. In either case the uncaused is God (by definition).. that very well may be the universe (if one comes to the conclusion of uncaused universe)

Peace be unto you

 

[Alan McDougall]

So do you agree, Alan, that the argument that "the universe needs a cause therefore God exists" isn't a good argument?

My understanding is that universe is not infinite or eternal;

thus it must have had a cause and beginning or the arrow of time would be pushed back into infinity. It goes something like this as an analogy. There is a crowd of of spectators at an athlete arena waiting for the runners to pass in front of them, but in this race there is no start point. Giving an eternity the athletes with never ever pass in front of them

The arrow of time pushed back to an infinite eternity!

Spectators = us in the now

Athletes = Time!

In an infinite eternal universe, we would have now moment because every event is pushed back to eternity.

Using this logic, something must have caused our universe to come into being, maybe our universe is a white hole caused by a black hole larger mega universe.

Alan

 

[James R]

My understanding is that universe is not infinite or eternal;

All the indications are currently that our universe is infinite in size, but not infinite in age.

What happened at the start of the universe is problematic for physics, since our theories don't describe what happened in the very early universe. However, it is thought that time as we know it began at the big bang.

If there was no time before the big bang, then to talk of something causing the bang is problematic, since causation requires time. So, how did the big bang happen? Trust me: there are many theories around that do not involve God, as well as some (unscientific ones) that do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

If you guys can't be bothered to come up with something that wasn't blown apart decades ago,

I don't believe it has been blown apart years ago, and it certainly hasn't been
blown apart in this particular thread, or any thread which I have read since my time here.
I'm begining to realise that atheists cannot deal with this point
(which would be predicted if God did exist), and simply make up these phantom notions of the argument being dealt with.

...and insist on rehashing the same old childishly ignorant bs that was ridicule food decades before DNA was discovered, why should I do all that work every time one of you ignoramuses decides to cut and paste again?

If this argument was bs, and childishly ignorant as you say, i'm sure it would take considerably less energy to blast, than the seriously intense responses you have produced thus far.

It's not like you are going to learn anything, or quit posting this garbage - this has to be the fifth or sixth retread just on this forum within the past couple of years.

If you've got something to teach, go ahead.
But I'm not going to accept your current level of trickery.

Go pick up a high school level textbook on combinatorics and probability, learn the basics of at least a simplified version of evolutionary theory....

....With the monkeys and typewriters stuff you're just embarrassing yourselves.

What does the evolution theory have to do with this?
So, we'll leave out the monkey/typewriter stuff.

For example: Uh, dude, when your arguments are such flagrant and obvious bs, you don't have a "conclusion" - you have an empty assertion, at best.

Do you have a better argument?
What do you assert?

And if you guys just want to post statements of belief every couple of months, no problem. Much shorter posts, those would be.

Isn't everything on these forums statements of belief, in the end?
Do you have to take stuff so seriously?
If you're bored with these arguments, then go chat Darwins ideas with your evolution chums. See how far you can get your head up your ass without somersaulting.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan:



So you'd agree that we can equally well solve the problem by positing that the universe didn't "come into existence" either, because there was a pre-existing multiverse or something similar? No need for God, then.

Why stress "No need for God then"?
It is as if you aren't prepared to accept even the possibility of God.
This means you are being (dangerously) emotional, which is why folks of your
particular world view and mindset, aren't to be taken seriously, IMHO.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena #3
His post is the best your going to get as far as a universal proof is concerned.
It is now up to you to give a better explanation of how this universe came into being, and how and why it so precisely maintained. And it the onus is on you to prove that your explanation is more valid than his.

Universal proof? This is something of an oxymoronic concept much more suited to the contextual froth of phraseology like "a sure and certain hope".
As much as one keeps trying to impress upon the concrete block of the theist mind the unequivocal fact of science not dealing in PROOF, no amount of persistant and simple explanation makes any impression whatsoever upon them........

BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!....

You imply that everything is matter, and all notions of the supernatural are
invented by man. You imply (i think) that we are part and parcel of the universe, nothing more nothing less.

My questions are; what is imagination (in material terms)?
Where can it be found in matter?
How and why did we evolve into creatures that could invent supernatural notions?

Simple, to the point answers would be apreciated in a bid to keep the dialouge in flow.

jan.

 

[wynn]

All the indications are currently that our universe is infinite in size, but not infinite in age.

What happened at the start of the universe is problematic for physics, since our theories don't describe what happened in the very early universe. However, it is thought that time as we know it began at the big bang.

If there was no time before the big bang, then to talk of something causing the bang is problematic, since causation requires time. So, how did the big bang happen? Trust me: there are many theories around that do not involve God, as well as some (unscientific ones) that do.

And here we go again!

 

[Hipparchia]

Coming back to the DNA molecule it is true that Crick and Watson imagined it, but they did not imagine the awesome complexity of life that this one molecule was all about

Forgive me Alan, but your 'arguments' are becoming dangerously like waffle. Of course they didn't imagine this awesome complexity of life. They didn't have to. The awesome complexity was there for all to see and they saw it. They were seeking a simple explanation for that complexity, which they found in the coding system embedded in DNA.

Regretably I must push you on this point. Do you now recognise that your words concerning DNA were ill chosen, both in the last post and in your original post?

 

[Michael]

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause".
2 the universe came into existence
3 therefore the universe needs a cause.

#1 and #2 may not be correct. Things pop into and out of existence. The Universe may have always existed, in one form or another.

Following the same argument:

1 everything that comes into existence needs a cause
2 God didn't come into existence
3 therefore God doesn't need a cause.
4 because God doesn't exist.