Mr_Anony:

You should really read my argument in full.

The evidence provided for God is creation itself. I would like you to note that in matters of evidence, evidence is only as valuable as it's explanation. I.e. a fact is only evidence depending on how it is read.

I look at the intelligence in the universe and say that it is evidence of an intelligent being, you look at the same universe and say that it is not.
The question now arises: How else do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

I did read your write up in full and I decided to chip in on that flying man argument as it was the most silly looking if I'm honest.



Now you stick to confusing yourself even further;

You might have a small escape route here when you say evidence of intelligence is a factor of the observer. This is similar to the same pink unicorn argument (in reverse) that was presented to you. One person looks at it and says "yep, it is real" and the other says "nah, it isn't". But then again is that the point here? No!

Just like saying the earth is so beautiful and we can survive on it then it must be the creation of a god. Well, Saturn and Venus will blow your mind to smithereens and yet they are both very deadly places to be, so where is this strange order you guys happily talk about?
We live in a world plagued with earthquakes and natural disasters. A world where over 70% of its surface is inhabitable by us and about 21% of its gas is directly useful to us. A world that will eventually end in a violent solar explosion as our sun dies.

We can argue about the harmony in our universe all day while u stick to one set of arguments "evidence of design is evidence of a designer". I'm actually bored of hearing this.


Ok, I'll grant you that there was indeed some sort of divine intelligence that is responsible for our world and universe, Does that make it Abraham's god?

My biggest problem with religionists is their arrogance to claim their's is the correct faith and everyone else's is wrong. They all can't all be correct indeed. Either one is and all other will be wrong, or they are all wrong. [b][/b]

Mr_Anony:
Lol, of course you chant your mantra and proclaim victory, nothing new there.

The question posed by me was: How do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Please be so nice as to answer it.

Define intelligent?

The failed solar systems?

The dying stars?


The miscarriages caused by natural factors?


The uninhabitable 70% of the earth?

The uninhabitale 90% of our solar system



Please define intelligence because your intelligent designer sounds re.tarded

mazaje:

Evidence for what we see around is evidence for the environment. . .Its funny how when religious people talk to them selves they use things like miracles and answered prayers as evidence of god in their lives, when aruing with atheist they quickly abandon that cause and start with the god is the creator of all things. . .Mr anony assuming the universe has a creator pls what is your evidence to show that the entire universe was created by one entity alone, that speaks the human language and wants people to worship it? Go ahead and show it with credible evidence, if you point to the mythical writings of ancient men then be prepared to me ridiculed and mocked for not knowing what you are talking about. . .

As I said earlier, evidence depends on how it is read (that's the point you missed). If you don't believe in miracles, there is no need telling you about them. Ridiculing miracles simply because you don't believe in them only serves to paint you as silly.
If you agree that the universe is created and has an intelligence behind it, then it can only be one mind as multiple conflicting minds wouldn't result in order. Secondly, it wouldn't be contradictory to His person if the creator of the universe chose to communicate in human language. Also, He would deserve worship even if He didn't necessarily demand it.

MacDaddy01:


This is good, Anony is getting hammered left, right and center.


The beginning of the end. I always said it, your escape tactics will come to an end whenatheists stop playing nice. Even houdini could not escape from a buried coffin 6 foot deep.

The theistic especially the christian argument is that the bible is the word of the creator of the universe, in fact the bible has a detailed account of how the world was created in 7 days. . .How man was created from sand and how woman was created from the ribs of man, how different languages came about because their god was scared humans will see him hiding in the sky and confused their tongue when they decided to build a tower that will reach him up in heaven . . .If that is true then there must be evidence to show that the biblical claims are true. . .What does the evidence show?. . .Even the christians with the knowledge to all these events mentioned in the bible keep saying that they are allegories and are not supposed to be taken literally. On the other hand we have spohist like anony that will never use the bible and what it says about creation to support his points, instead he will prefer to be dancing all over the place with the statement that the universe was created by god and that is evidence for god. . .

mazaje:

The theistic especially the christian argument is that the bible is the word of the creator of the universe, in fact the bible has a detailed account of how the world was created in 7 days. . .How man was created from sand and how woman was created from the ribs of man, how different languages came about because their god was scared humans will see him hiding in the sky and confused their tongue when they decided to build a tower that will reach him up in heaven . . .If that is true then there must be evidence to show that the biblical claims are true. . .What does the evidence show?. . .Even the christians with the knowledge to all these events mentioned in the bible keep saying that they are allegories and are not supposed to be taken literally. On the other hand we have spohist like anony that will never use the bible and what it says about creation to support his points, instead he will prefer to be dancing all over the place with the statement that the universe was created by god and that is evidence for god. . .

lol...agreed 100%


Anony throws away the bible from debates when it will not help him. What a hypocrite. He is an intelligent escapist.


I realised this whne he tried to call the non-belief in miracles a "worldview" so that he can advance the argument that we all have worldviews, christian and atheistic. A very good truism that can sidefoot many people. However, a non-belief in miracles is factual and common sense and not a owrldview

You make a lot of assumption that are off.

Mr_Anony:
Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying, you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".



This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.
[size=14pt]
Part 2[/size]

My skepticism is based on the fact that people can't fly. Read your first sentence. Requires no belief for crying out loud, no subjectivity. The way you even use the word 'belief'.
Bring objective evidence that you can fly, then the fact now is Anony can fly, or a person can fly, etc.

Mr_Anony:
To look at something slightly different, let's now come to Russell's teapot:


Note: Russell's teapot illustrates something slightly different, but I want you to note something. If Russell hadn't said there was a teapot but a little rock, he would be more readily believed (because that is more plausible and compatible with our belief of what sort of things exist in space).
What if Russell had equally said that this little rock was necessary because it had some function in the solar system. It becomes even more believable. Notice that at this point, it becomes irrelevant whether information about this special rock was written in an ancient book or not.
Let's call this Russell's little rock.

The components that russell's teapot lacks are plausiblity and necessity. That's what makes a story believable.

Russell's little rock however has plausibility and necessity. It would have to be accepted as true until it has been sufficiently disproved i.e, we get better telescopes or we find something else that performs it's function. Do you agree?

No. I tend to subscribe to the scientific method.
As examples, see string theory for unconfirmed. See the 'god' particle for unconfirmed that is eventually confirmed. See the ether (and many others) for unconfirmed eventually proven false.

Mr_Anony:
[size=14pt]Part 3[/size]

Now about God. . . . .
Remember that Dudugirl's argument (and mine also) is that God is the ultimate creator of all things and the explanation for existence.

Now whenever we see order, we infer an intelligence and we immediately seek one who gives order. When we look at the universe and nature and ourselves, we see order and a very sophisticated intelligence because of this, we infer that there must be an intelligent designer that gives order. It is even more fascinating when we find out that the universe has not always existed but has a beginning. This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power.

Note that unlike russell's teapot, this entity is both plausible and necessary. To not believe that such an entity exists, one must believe something more sufficient that better explains what it is out to explain.

I don't see order and intelligence. For patterns in nature that dazzle you see fractals and chaos theory. I see aimless gene mutations. I see a lot of suffering to life, etc
As for 'This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power', we could make a blackhole. Doesn't mean we'll be able interact with anything that goes beyond its event horizon, in any way whatsoever. This statement is completely off.
The entity may be plausible (as plausible as an invisible pink unicorn, if it's the omnixxx you ascribe to, or even the one you describe here), but it most certainly isn't necessary. What created this complex entity? This in no way deals with infinite regress, first cause, etc. It complicates it.

Mr_Anony:
Now, when wiegraf was asked. "How do you explain your existence?" he replied "I don't".

This immediately tells me that he doesn't reject God based on reason, he only rejects God based personal bias (i.e. he finds the idea of God to be absurd). If he had a reason to reject God, he would have provided it.

As I have shown earlier, you cannot disbelieve in a vacuum. It is either you hold unto an incompatible belief which you ought to state and then we can weigh it's merits ........or you are just being irrational.

I don't means I simply don't know. You've created a lot of false reasons. You think your assumptions are rational? That complex materialized from nowhere before simple?

Your assumptions are off, all of them. I am being rational by keeping an open mind while being critical of the evidence, claims, conditions, assumptions made, arguments, etc. You've already made up your mind; there is a god. You are being irrational, you're making stuff up so it could fit your world view.

Mr_Anony:

As I said earlier, evidence depends on how it is read (that's the point you missed). If you don't believe in miracles, there is no need telling you about them. Ridiculing miracles simply because you don't believe in them only serves to paint you as silly.

I have no position on miracles, I CAN believe in miracles if they are shown or can be backed up with evidence. . .What I have come to understand is that miracles like the ones stated in the bible happen only in the pages of story books. . .The claims of miracles around I have come to discover are all bogus or misleading. . .Clear cut miracles do NOT happen. . .

If you agree that the universe is created and has an intelligence behind it, then it can only be one mind as multiple conflicting minds wouldn't result in order. Secondly, it wouldn't be contradictory to His person if the creator of the universe chose to communicate in human language. Also, He would deserve worship even if He didn't necessarily demand it.

Here we go again with the same lie. . .You keep using what we know as humans to infer that there must be a cause for the universe. . .What we know as humans is that multiple minds can come together to create a VERY orderly system. . .Take the Air Bus A380 jumbo jet, it was created by many minds and it is an example of a system that is in perfect order. . .Same goes for your computer and your mobile phone all are as a result of many different minds working together in harmony. . .I am asking you to provide evidence that the creator of the universe speaks the human language and you are coming up with this drivel?. . .

Area_boy:

I did read your write up in full and I decided to chip in on that flying man argument as it was the most silly looking if I'm honest.



Now you stick to confusing yourself even further;

You might have a small escape route here when you say evidence of intelligence is a factor of the observer. This is similar to the same pink unicorn argument (in reverse) that was presented to you. One person looks at it and says "yep, it is real" and the other says "nah, it isn't". But then again is that the point here? No!

Just like saying the earth is so beautiful and we can survive on it then it must be the creation of a god. Well, Saturn and Venus will blow your mind to smithereens and yet they are both very deadly places to be, so where is this strange order you guys happily talk about?
We live in a world plagued with earthquakes and natural disasters. A world where over 70% of its surface is inhabitable by us and about 21% of its gas is directly useful to us. A world that will eventually end in a violent solar explosion as our sun dies.

We can argue about the harmony in our universe all day while u stick to one set of arguments "evidence of design is evidence of a designer". I'm actually bored of hearing this.


Ok, I'll grant you that there was indeed some sort of divine intelligence that is responsible for our world and universe, Does that make it Abraham's god?

My biggest problem with religionists is their arrogance to claim their's is the correct faith and everyone else's is wrong. They all can't all be correct indeed. Either one is and all other will be wrong, or they are all wrong. [b][/b]

Well your argument comes in the form that you are judging the intelligence of the universe based on how well it is made for your existence. That is a wrong way to look at it.
Order is what implies an order-giver and not whether it is convenient for you or not. As I have said ever so often, God is not your genie.

If you would gracious enough, let us look at the God Abraham served. This is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient, all-loving etc.
But notice one thing about Him: at a time when other people were serving gods from their imagination, and making images according to the form they thought their gods to be, this God insisted that no images be made of Him. God is so all-encompassing that no image could possibly explain what He looks like.
We may describe God in anthropomorphic terms so as to aid us in understanding His person but that is not how God literally is.

Mr_Anony:
Well your argument comes in the form that you are judging the intelligence of the universe based on how well it is made for your existence. That is a wrong way to look at it.
Order is what implies an order-giver and not whether it is convenient for you or not. As I have said ever so often, God is not your genie.

If you would gracious enough, let us look at the God Abraham served. This is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient, all-loving etc.
But notice one thing about Him: at a time when other people were serving gods from their imagination, and making images according to the form they thought their gods to be, this God insisted that no images be made of Him. God is so all-encompassing that no image could possibly explain what He looks like.
We may describe God in anthropomorphic terms so as to aid us in understanding His person but that is not how God literally is.

God works in mysterious ways but Anony can describe how not anthropomorphic God is.



The solar system is "made" to destroy itself. It is "designed" in so many ways that could be improved.


God is the biggest terrorist and his bombs are stars.

Mr_Anony:
Well your argument comes in the form that you are judging the intelligence of the universe based on how well it is made for your existence. That is a wrong way to look at it.
Order is what implies an order-giver and not whether it is convenient for you or not. As I have said ever so often, God is not your genie.

If you would gracious enough, let us look at the God Abraham served. This is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient, all-loving etc.
But notice one thing about Him: at a time when other people were serving gods from their imagination, and making images according to the form they thought their gods to be, this God insisted that no images be made of Him. God is so all-encompassing that no image could possibly explain what He looks like.
We may describe God in anthropomorphic terms so as to aid us in understanding His person but that is not how God literally is.

Funny thing is, if you were born Indian you'll be saying the same thing about Krishna and the lot of them.

The sad part is you forget that we all here have also had the same indoctrination and brainwashing you have had. Telling us a bunch of middle eastern peasants got it right! not a chance hombre!

Again, all the qualities of your god you have listed out cannot be felt on earth! what did Epicurus say?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? "

wiegraf: You make a lot of assumption that are off.

My skepticism is based on the fact that people can't fly. Read your first sentence. Requires no belief for crying out loud, no subjectivity. The way you even use the word 'belief'.
Bring objective evidence that you can fly, then the fact now is Anony can fly, or a person can fly, etc.

My friend, what you call fact is simply what is believed for instance, you would say that it is a fact that the earth is round, there was a time it was equally a fact that the earth was flat. All we really have are perceptions that we accept and believe in.

No. I tend to subscribe to the scientific method.
As examples, see string theory for unconfirmed. See the 'god' particle for unconfirmed that is eventually confirmed. See the ether (and many others) for unconfirmed eventually proven false.

I don't quite get this reply. I'll assume that you are saying that you leave God in the realm of the "uncomfirmed"

I don't see order and intelligence. For patterns in nature that dazzle you see fractals and chaos theory. I see aimless gene mutations. I see a lot of suffering to life, etc
As for 'This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power', we could make a blackhole. Doesn't mean we'll be able interact with anything that goes beyond its event horizon, in any way whatsoever. This statement is completely off.
The entity may be plausible (as plausible as an invisible pink unicorn, if it's the omnixxx you ascribe to, or even the one you describe here), but it most certainly isn't necessary. What created this complex entity? This in no way deals with infinite regress, first cause, etc. It complicates it.

frankly, I am tired of repeating to you over and over again that part of this entity's definition as first cause would mean it would be uncreated. A first cause is both necessary and plausible.
If also, you do not see any intelligence, then we cannot possibly have a meaningful conversation, neither can we begin to describe the universe in any way that is coherent.

I don't means I simply don't know. You've created a lot of false reasons. You think your assumptions are rational? That complex materialized from nowhere before simple?

Your assumptions are off, all of them. I am being rational by keeping an open mind while being critical of the evidence, claims, conditions, assumptions made, arguments, etc. You've already made up your mind; there is a god. You are being irrational, you're making stuff up so it could fit your world view.

Lol, interesting how you say you don't know then say that my assumptions are false then also say that you are keeping an open mind. As I have said earlier, "false" cannot exist without "true". If you say you don't know, then you cannot rightfully declare something as false except you provide what it is you do know by which you are judging something else false.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, what you call fact is simply what is believed for instance, you would say that it is a fact that the earth is round, there was a time it was equally a fact that the earth was flat. All we really have are perceptions that we accept and believe in.


I don't quite get this reply. I'll assume that you are saying that you leave God in the realm of the "uncomfirmed"


frankly, I am tired of repeating to you over and over again that part of this entity's definition as first cause would mean it would be uncreated. A first cause is both necessary and plausible.
If also, you do not see any intelligence, then we cannot possibly have a meaningful conversation, neither can we begin to describe the universe in any way that is coherent.



Lol, interesting how you say you don't know then say that my assumptions are false then also say that you are keeping an open mind. As I have said earlier, "false" cannot exist without "true". If you say you don't know, then you cannot rightfully declare something as false except you provide what it is you do know by which you are judging something else false.

Yield
I admire your spirit, and stamina, but this is getting sad.
Yield

mazaje:

I have no position on miracles, I CAN believe in miracles if they are shown or can be backed up with evidence. . .What I have come to understand is that miracles like the ones stated in the bible happen only in the pages of story books. . .The claims of miracles around I have come to discover are all bogus or misleading[b]. . .Clear cut miracles do NOT happen. . .[/b]

And you know this how?

Here we go again with the same lie. . .You keep using what we know as humans to infer that there must be a cause for the universe. . .What we know as humans is that multiple minds can come together to create a VERY orderly system. . .Take the Air Bus A380 jumbo jet, it was created by many minds and it is an example of a system that is in perfect order. . .Same goes for your computer and your mobile phone all are as a result of many different minds working together in harmony. . .I am asking you to provide evidence that the creator of the universe speaks the human language and you are coming up with this drivel?. . .

lol, when you talk about a harmonized mind, you are really talking about one mind. A mind is not a measurable physical entity, therefore the only way we can infer multiple minds is if we observe conflict. In the absence of conflict, we have one mind.


......perhaps you want to tell me exactly what kind of evidence you require, that will satisfy you.

Now, the evidence I percieve you are asking for is similar to the kind asked by the pharisees when they said "show us a sign". If God can create the entire universe, then surely, He can speak. .....but I know you won't accept this, neither will you accept it if I told you that God speaks to me so I'll ask you an equally unreasonable question.

I hold that you are not capable of thought. Could you please provide scientific evidence that you can think about the color blue?

Let us play the reductionist game and see how far it gets us. I will only provide evidence for you that the God can speak in human language in the way you are asking if you can prove to me that you possess a mind. Show me measurable physical evidence of your mind.

wiegraf:
Yield
I admire your spirit, and stamina, but this is getting sad.
Yield

It is a poor way to debate when you assume that your position is right by default and so rather than provide a logical argument, you request that your opponent yield to you.
You have not yet given reasons why you hold your position (if you hold any position at all). All you have been doing is conferring the title of "common sense" on it.

MacDaddy01:
God works in mysterious ways but Anony can describe how not anthropomorphic God is.
The solar system is "made" to destroy itself. It is "designed" in so many ways that could be improved.
God is the biggest terrorist and his bombs are stars.

More nonsense, could you please describe for us exactly how the sun should be improved and why exactly it is an improvement. Please while you are at it, tell us how you came by the knowledge with which you are going to employ your design.

Mr_Anony:
And you know this how?


lol, when you talk about a harmonized mind, you are really talking about one mind. A mind is not a measurable physical entity, therefore the only way we can infer multiple minds is if we observe conflict. In the absence of conflict, we have one mind.


......perhaps you want to tell me exactly what kind of evidence you require, that will satisfy you.

Now, the evidence I percieve you are asking for is similar to the kind asked by the pharisees when they said "show us a sign". If God can create the entire universe, then surely, He can speak. .....but I know you won't accept this, neither will you accept it if I told you that God speaks to me so I'll ask you an equally unreasonable question.

I hold that you are not capable of thought. Could you please provide scientific evidence that you can think about the color blue?

Let us play the reductionist game and see how far it gets us. I will only provide evidence for you that the God can speak in human language in the way you are asking if you can prove to me that you possess a mind. Show me measurable physical evidence of your mind.

Stop with these games, Anony! Your number is up!


Your first case argument has failed long time ago. Whatever the first cause is, we must ask what caused the first cause. This leads to an infinite regress.

Your intelligent designer argument has failed long time ago. There can only be a re.tarded designer who designed our solar system to fail, our human bodies to be incompatible with most of our homeland, the earth. The re.tarded designer also chose to wait billions of years (about 14) to create the world we live in today instead of doing it in the blink of an eye since he can create something out of nothing. He had to create the big bang and wait for billions of years for the solar system to come up and then wait for millions of years for humans to appear. Finally, the re.tard then chose to hide this information from humans until about 4,000 BC when chose to reveal himself to the ancestors of middle eastern cavemen and desert dwellers. The re.tard di not even give the full information, he kept most of it to himself and let humans deceive themselves over a flat earth.

This is the equivalent of using a cup to fill a swimming pool with water that will take you about a week instead of using a hose that would take some few hours.


Yaweh, you are a serious dumbazz.

Mr_Anony:
More nonsense, could you please describe for us exactly how the sun should be improved and why exactly it is an improvement. Please while you are at it, tell us how you came by the knowledge with which you are going to employ your design.

First of all the sun should be designed not to be a [size=18pt]freaking time bomb[/size] and the ozone layer a bit more layered. The ozone layer is a bikini rather than a winter jacket.


Surely, this should not be too much for an omnipotent intelligent designer or is he a fraud? He is only good at impregnating virgins?

Area_boy:

Funny thing is, if you were born Indian you'll be saying the same thing about Krishna and the lot of them.

The sad part is you forget that we all here have also had the same indoctrination and brainwashing you have had. Telling us a bunch of middle eastern peasants got it right! not a chance hombre!

lol, nonsense. If you were born in 12BC, you would believe that the earth was flat. I wouldn't make it true. A statement is either true or it is not true regardless of who is making the statement or how he came to know it. (see genetic fallacy)

Again, all the qualities of your god you have listed out cannot be felt on earth! what did Epicurus say?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? "

Lol, if you say there is evil, then there must be a good from which it deviates. If there is good and evil, then there must be a moral law by which to classify them. If there exists a moral law, then there must also exist a moral law-giver (God).
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law-giver. If there is no moral law giver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is neither good nor evil.
So from whence cometh your question?

MacDaddy01:



Stop with these games, Anony! Your number is up!


Your first case argument has failed long time ago. Whatever the first cause is, we must ask what caused the first cause. This leads to an infinite regress.

Your intelligent designer argument has failed long time ago. There can only be a re.tarded designer who designed our solar system to fail, our human bodies to be incompatible with most of our homeland, the earth. The re.tarded designer also chose to wait billions of years (about 14) to create the world we live in today instead of doing it in the blink of an eye since he can create something out of nothing. He had to create the big bang and wait for billions of years for the solar system to come up and then wait for millions of years for humans to appear. Finally, the re.tard then chose to hide this information from humans until about 4,000 BC when chose to reveal himself to the ancestors of middle eastern cavemen and desert dwellers. The re.tard di not even give the full information, he kept most of it to himself and let humans deceive themselves over a flat earth.

This is the equivalent of using a cup to fill a swimming pool with water that will take you about a week instead of using a hose that would take some few hours.


Yaweh, you are a serious dumbazz.

blah blah blah.....as usual, you resort to mockery when logic fails you (quite frankly I can't remember a time when you ever used logic)

MacDaddy01:


First of all the sun should be designed not to be a [size=18pt]freaking time bomb[/size] and the ozone layer a bit more layered. The ozone layer is a bikini rather than a winter jacket.


Surely, this should not be too much for an omnipotent intelligent designer or is he a fraud? He is only good at impregnating virgins?

lol, more foolishness. This doesn't even deserve a reply
Come back when you grow up and learn some civility. Right now, you are talking like an ignorant kid

Procrastinate the day away, why don't I? Yield anony, I might let you go with some concessions

Mr_Anony:
My friend, what you call fact is simply what is believed for instance, you would say that it is a fact that the earth is round, there was a time it was equally a fact that the earth was flat. All we really have are perceptions that we accept and believe in.

The earth was never flat. It's a fact that at some point in time people considered the earth was flat as fact. It's a fact that the earth was always round (well, dunno about early stages, would need to ask science)

Mr_Anony:
I don't quite get this reply. I'll assume that you are saying that you leave God in the realm of the "uncomfirmed"

Abrahamic god is demonstrably false, it is not even science, does not deserve unconfirmed.

Mr_Anony:
frankly, I am tired of repeating to you over and over again that part of this entity's definition as first cause would mean it would be uncreated. A first cause is both necessary and plausible.
If also, you do not see any intelligence, then we cannot possibly have a meaningful conversation, neither can we begin to describe the universe in any way that is coherent.

Even if I accepted uncreated, why in the universe should I accept it having complex properties like intelligence, any omnixxx, or any of the other claims you make above? All of them are needless, you have no reason to add them. They even complicate the model you are pushing.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interesting how you say you don't know then say that my assumptions are false then also say that you are keeping an open mind. As I have said earlier, "false" cannot exist without "true". If you say you don't know, then you cannot rightfully declare something as false except you provide what it is you do know by which you are judging something else false.

This from the same person who says god is only true, and never false...

I don't know how this universe came about, but I know your claims (particularly the abrahamic ones) are false. Logic and science can show them to be objectively false.
Again, I am not making any claims, you are. I am simply showing you that your claims are false. How do I know they are wrong? Because we can test them. You can jump over the moon? Fine, prove it. You can't? Then your claim is false. The unfalsifyable ones we can dismiss, else anything goes. That, in no way, makes them true or facts. Zeus is more logical than abrahamic god for instance, why don't we accept it as true or fact? then?


I was joking about the concessions, yield..

Have been watching from the sidelines looking at the master apologetic making some rationalisations that the bible never make.

The funny thing is that the same rationalisations can be made for any god to prove its existence and it would appear valid. Just substitute allah or amadioha or obatala for the first cause argument and see what i'm talking about.

The apologetic will close his eyes and refuse to see sense in what you unbelievers has been showing him, cos he will rather believe his omniscient god's word than you mere mortals. The human mind is so creative and can rationalise any belief however false it has been proven to be.

Kudos to everyone on this thread, believers and unbelievers alike, i learnt a lot and you guys just make my day.


Cheers

wiegraf: Procrastinate the day away, why don't I? Yield anony, I might let you go with some concessions
The earth was never flat. It's a fact that at some point in time people considered the earth was flat as fact. It's a fact that the earth was always round (well, dunno about early stages, would need to ask science)

lol, if you say it that way, then it will also be fair to say it is a fact that people believe today that man cannot fly.

Abrahamic god is demonstrably false, it is not even science, does not deserve unconfirmed.

You have not yet demonstrated this.

Even if I accepted uncreated, why in the universe should I accept it having complex properties like intelligence, any omnixxx, or any of the other claims you make above? All of them are needless, you have no reason to add them. They even complicate the model you are pushing.

lol, you need to read what i have been saying again and properly

This from the same person who says god is only true, and never false...

I don't see how this relates to anything I am saying now.

I don't know how this universe came about, but I know your claims (particularly the abrahamic ones) are false. Logic and science can show them to be objectively false.

Good, could you please demonstrate with logic how God can be objectively false because you haven't

Again, I am not making any claims, you are. I am simply showing you that your claims are false. How do I know they are wrong? Because we can test them. You can jump over the moon? Fine, prove it. You can't? Then your claim is false. The unfalsifyable ones we can dismiss, else anything goes. That, in no way, makes them true or facts. Zeus is more logical than abrahamic god for instance, why don't we accept it as true or fact? then?

Hogwash, you are rejecting my claims yes but you are not giving any reasons why. That is what I want to see.

Mr Anony, thanks for the response. It puts things into greater perspective.

Mr_Anony: @Jayriginal, wiegraf and purist.

Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false,

This is correct.

However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying, you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Also correct. I could also keep an open mind about it, but I would certainly not accept it on face value alone.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".

This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.

I think this here illustrates your misconception. Indeed, in the instance of a man flying, since I have no experience of this event, I would be right to be skeptical about it. That is in this particular instance. I will address this further below.

[size=14pt]
Part 2[/size]

To look at something slightly different, let's now come to Russell's teapot:


Note: Russell's teapot illustrates something slightly different, but I want you to note something. If Russell hadn't said there was a teapot but a little rock, he would be more readily believed (because that is more plausible and compatible with our belief of what sort of things exist in space).
What if Russell had equally said that this little rock was necessary because it had some function in the solar system. It becomes even more believable. Notice that at this point, it becomes irrelevant whether information about this special rock was written in an ancient book or not.
Let's call this Russell's little rock.

The components that russell's teapot lacks are plausiblity and necessity. That's what makes a story believable.

Russell's little rock however has plausibility and necessity. It would have to be accepted as true until it has been sufficiently disproved i.e, we get better telescopes or we find something else that performs it's function. Do you agree?

You seem to hold that only implausible things should be doubted, and that whatever sounds plausible, if an attempt has been made to falsify it and that attempt fails, it should be accepted.

We know of rocks hurtling through space, so if Russel was to use a generic rock, we would have no reason to doubt it. If he however was referring to a specific rock, maybe one shaped by the elements into the head of a lion, such a rock may indeed be orbiting in space, but we would be wise to employ a suspension of belief.
I'll give you another example.
You have a mother and she must have a tribe. That is extremely plausible (and necessary). Suppose you tell me your mother is Ijaw. That also is plausible. Should I believe you ? I could certainly take these as facts and I am assuming you arent lying to me.
With every intention of honesty in you, you could still be wrong on this count. You could for instance be adopted (and not know it) and the woman you call your mother, isnt really your mother. On the other hand, your mother may have been adopted and erroneously believes she is Ijaw.

The alternate scenario then is that either you lied to me or your mother lied to you. In all these, a fact that is plausible has been shown to be wrong.
In everyday life, we must necessarily make assumptions as we go along. Accepting for convenience certain "truths". These are usually of minor import. When it comes to pivotal issues, healthy skepticism is an aid, not a hindrance.

When shopping in the market and you ask for the price of a commodity, you exercise this facility when you reject the first price offered to you, plausible or not. Everybody does it. I think the only things we ought to take on face value are things that if they turn out to be wrong, will not adversely affect us.

To extend the tribe analogy, suppose a baby is left at an orphanage in Lagos, the child grows up, learns Yoruba and believes he is from Lagos. That is what the child will tell everyone. However, the parents that abandoned him were Urhobo. It would be impossible to falsify the child's belief that he is Yoruba (since his parents can not be traced). His being yoruba is plausible, but untrue.

It is well known that it is easier to deceive when you garnish lies with truths. People are more willing to believe a plausible story than an outright whooper. Clever people, politicians, "prophets", cult leaders etc know this and implement it.

As Canibus said ". . . the best place to hide a lie is between two truths".

[size=14pt]Part 3[/size]

Now about God. . . . .
Remember that Dudugirl's argument (and mine also) is that God is the ultimate creator of all things and the explanation for existence.

Now whenever we see order, we infer an intelligence and we immediately seek one who gives order. When we look at the universe and nature and ourselves, we see order and a very sophisticated intelligence because of this, we infer that there must be an intelligent designer that gives order. It is even more fascinating when we find out that the universe has not always existed but has a beginning. This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power.

Note that unlike russell's teapot, this entity is both plausible and necessary. To not believe that such an entity exists, one must believe something more sufficient that better explains what it is out to explain.

Now, when wiegraf was asked. "How do you explain your existence?" he replied "I don't".

This immediately tells me that he doesn't reject God based on reason, he only rejects God based personal bias (i.e. he finds the idea of God to be absurd). If he had a reason to reject God, he would have provided it.

wiegraf's answer tells you no such thing. There is no dishonesty in not knowing. You only know when it has been shown and proven and all other possibilities have been excluded.

One can reject because one finds something absurd, one has what one feels to be a better answer, because the proposer has not put his proposal properly (which is not necessarily sufficient to negate the proposal) or for a variety of other reasons.

As I have shown earlier, you cannot disbelieve in a vacuum. It is either you hold unto an incompatible belief which you ought to state and then we can weigh it's merits ........or you are just being irrational.

This is the equivalent of the fingers in the ear.

No, one must not have an incompatible belief to disbelieve or be irrational, that is the average theists way to make sense of the fact that not everyone believes what they do.

Such reasoning makes it easier for the theist to say of the atheist "he has blind faith just like I do".

MacDaddy01:


If Russel had said a rock, then he would be saying something that was already known to exist. Rocks fell from space as meteors. Rocks were in space

If Russel went further to say that the rocks had a special function, he would have been debunked so quick because then, he is entering a proper scientific realm in Astronomy. A rock that has a special function can easily be provable or disprovable

I made a similar point. Generic rocks and specific rocks.

jayriginal:

I made a similar point. Generic rocks and specific rocks.

Anony bit more than he could chew this time

Mr_Anony:

lol, nonsense. If you were born in 12BC, you would believe that the earth was flat. I wouldn't make it true. A statement is either true or it is not true regardless of who is making the statement or how he came to know it. (see genetic fallacy)

Here, maybe I could use this to make you see something.

It is possible not to believe what the majority believes to be true. A person like me could have lived at that time and questioned the notion that the world was flat. Of course my learned brother Deep Sight would have led the mob to my house and kindled the fire that would roast me out of existence, but its really simple. How does one know ?

The likelihood that a statement is correct is no reason to assert that it is indeed correct . If you want to play the odds, then that is acceptable, but in playing the odds, you are basically saying you are going for what is likely to be correct, rather than what is actually correct.

Maybe a mistake you might be making is that disbelief in something is the belief in the opposite therefore for instance, I do not believe in god means I believe there is no god.
Nothing could be further from the truth. When you meet a person who believes or "knows" that there is no god, you may ask such a person why he holds those notions. Until then, you would do well to drop that assumption in arguments (if indeed you make that assumption as I suspect you do).

In the god question "god exists" is a statement. Its either true or false. The evidence for the statement is quite unsatisfactory yet it is difficult to falsify for the reason that believers shield their concept of god with subjective criteria.

Taking another issue suppose I dont believe David Hayes would defeat an aging Tyson, it doesnt mean that I believe Tyson would defeat Hayes, it simply means that I dont believe Hayes would win.
If I was then invited to place a huge bet on the fight, I would decline. If I was compelled however to place that bet, then I would consider the odds and put my money on the fighter most likely to win in my opinion.

So it is in this theological debate, some put their money on Yahweh, some on Allah and so on, while some prefer to keep their money to themselves seeing no good reason to put their money on the fight.

Not a very good analogy I fear, but I hope the point was conveyed.

Dudugirl01: Each time someone says there's no God, I wonder why someone would boldly claim there's no God! My question then is, how do you butress your point? I need answers,

i don't.
i choose not to engage in conversation pertaining to religion, s3xual orientation,
or politics offline.

if they are to obtain and seek salvation from the creator, it will happen based on their experience and the journey that they must follow in life. I won't pretend to be the "save your soul in the name of the lord" hero only to constantly have my God insulted before me.

I am too busy trying to build and maintain a relationship with God for myself (which is at times difficult), than to appease the need to vent by "rebels of the system".

Call me selfish and I will wear the "s" on my chest proudly lol.

jayriginal:
I think this here illustrates your misconception. Indeed, in the instance of a man flying, since I have no experience of this event, I would be right to be skeptical about it. That is in this particular instance. I will address this further below.

I don't think you followed that analogy to it's end. You are right to be skeptical about flying men because you have not experienced any. When you do experience one, and the man is subjected to you for testing and you find out from your tests that the man is not using any aids to fly, it would be right to accept that he can indeed fly. Healthy skepticism is doubting until you are satisfied and not doubting just for the sake of it.

You seem to hold that only implausible things should be doubted, and that whatever sounds plausible, if an attempt has been made to falsify it and that attempt fails, it should be accepted.

I do not hold this. I emphasized on plausibility together with necessity and not plausibility on it's own.

We know of rocks hurtling through space, so if Russel was to use a generic rock, we would have no reason to doubt it. If he however was referring to a specific rock, maybe one shaped by the elements into the head of a lion, such a rock may indeed be orbiting in space, but we would be wise to employ a suspension of belief.

You missed the point, it is irrelevant the shape of the rock. My point was that the attributes of Russell's rock must be such that they are necessary. Then he would be very believable until we can disprove him - either by providing something else that satisfies that necessity or by getting a telescope powerful enough to confirm that such a rock does not exist.

I'll give you another example.
You have a mother and she must have a tribe. That is extremely plausible (and necessary). Suppose you tell me your mother is Ijaw. That also is plausible. Should I believe you ? I could certainly take these as facts and I am assuming you arent lying to me.
With every intention of honesty in you, you could still be wrong on this count. You could for instance be adopted (and not know it) and the woman you call your mother, isnt really your mother. On the other hand, your mother may have been adopted and erroneously believes she is Ijaw.

The alternate scenario then is that either you lied to me or your mother lied to you. In all these, a fact that is plausible has been shown to be wrong.
In everyday life, we must necessarily make assumptions as we go along. Accepting for convenience certain "truths". These are usually of minor import. When it comes to pivotal issues, healthy skepticism is an aid, not a hindrance.

Good, your analogy is on point but then my point is that I would have no reason to doubt my mother's tribe without having knowledge revealed to me that she is indeed Ijaw. I must present this knowledge for scrutiny if I am ever going to accuse her of falsehood. Without this outside knowledge, Her claim may well be true from my point of veiw.

When shopping in the market and you ask for the price of a commodity, you exercise this facility when you reject the first price offered to you, plausible or not. Everybody does it. I think the only things we ought to take on face value are things that if they turn out to be wrong, will not adversely affect us.

To extend the tribe analogy, suppose a baby is left at an orphanage in Lagos, the child grows up, learns Yoruba and believes he is from Lagos. That is what the child will tell everyone. However, the parents that abandoned him were Urhobo. It would be impossible to falsify the child's belief that he is Yoruba (since his parents can not be traced). His being yoruba is plausible, but untrue.

It is well known that it is easier to deceive when you garnish lies with truths. People are more willing to believe a plausible story than an outright whooper. Clever people, politicians, "prophets", cult leaders etc know this and implement it.

As Canibus said ". . . the best place to hide a lie is between two truths".

Yes. Again your analogy is apt but my point remains that for the child to question his origins, he must have assessed new information. It is based on this information that he may now question his origins. He cannot just wake up one morning and start claiming out of the blue that he is not yoruba. That's an unreasonable way to go about it as there will be no difference between him and another child who is indeed yoruba but is claiming urhobo.

wiegraf's answer tells you no such thing. There is no dishonesty in not knowing. You only know when it has been shown and proven and all other possibilities have been excluded.

One can reject because one finds something absurd, one has what one feels to be a better answer, because the proposer has not put his proposal properly (which is not necessarily sufficient to negate the proposal) or for a variety of other reasons.

lol, If wiegraf says that he does not know, then he must remain so. The moment he begins to say that something is untrue, then he must tell us how he knows what he claimed not to know.

This is the equivalent of the fingers in the ear.

No, one must not have an incompatible belief to disbelieve or be irrational, that is the average theists way to make sense of the fact that not everyone believes what they do.

Such reasoning makes it easier for the theist to say of the atheist "he has blind faith just like I do".

lol, no it is not. You still have not show how a person can disbelieve something in a vacuum.

.....Anyway, thanks for being gracious and actually following my argument and responding to it's points appropriately without going on tangents or attacking strawmen.

*Kails*:


i don't.
i choose not to engage in conversation pertaining to religion, s3xual orientation,
or politics offline.

if they are to obtain and seek salvation from the creator, it will happen based on their experience and the journey that they must follow in life. I won't pretend to be the "save your soul in the name of the lord" hero only to constantly have my God insulted before me.

I am too busy trying to build and maintain a relationship with God for myself (which is at times difficult), than to appease the need to vent by "rebels of the system".

Call me selfish and I will wear the "s" on my chest proudly lol.

S for Slave. Jewish slave

tobechi74:

i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

atheists annd evolutionists aren't the same

jayriginal:

Here, maybe I could use this to make you see something.

It is possible not to believe what the majority believes to be true. A person like me could have lived at that time and questioned the notion that the world was flat. Of course my learned brother Deep Sight would have led the mob to my house and kindled the fire that would roast me out of existence, but its really simple. How does one know ?

Good, I read the whole of your post but I want to touch on something here which is: How does one know?
You said:

The likelihood that a statement is correct is no reason to assert that it is indeed correct

But then also, neither is it reason to assert that it is incorrect.

I do not hold that if a man rejects A then he must accept the opposite of A. What I say is that a man cannot just reject A on it's own. he must provide his reason for rejecting A whether it be B,C,J or H.

Now back to the question: how does one know?

Allow me to ask you the same question.

How do you know anything for sure? and How do you know that you know?

...I think we can come upon something interesting here.