I bought Richard Dawkins book (more than half way through) and I must say that I am absolutely disappointed at the quality of arguments in that book considering that he has sold over 2 million copies. and quite a number of people who have read the book actually said the same.

But since I dont have an audience with Richard to tell him how ridiculously lame his arguments are, I thought it might be nice to inform his compatriots on this forum, namely Mazaje and huxley. I would henceforth use this thread to expose the alarming ignorance of Richard Dawkins and the enormous loopholes in his arguments. I have no intention of disrespecting him, I just dont think that his arguments are sound to discredit the existence of God.

1. Richard starts by going on about the same old mantra of the proper identity of God. In the course of his arguments he talks about a spaghetti deity "manufactured" by atheist challenging theists to disprove his existence. I sincerely think that this is a slight insult on our (theist and non-theist) collective intelligence. The notion of God's existence lies primarily in the "disputed assumption" that a super-intelligence created the universe. The identity of this super intelligence is another topic on its own, but creating a new deity simply to disprove the origins of conceivable intelligence is in my opinion a no-brainier.

If for instance I take up the challenge of disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity, how exactly does this lay or deny credence to the notion that a superior intelligence created the material world we live in?

2. In stating his case, Richard talks about the prayer experiment. Where three groups of sick and hospitalised persons were prayed for. The first group was not being prayed for at all, the second was being prayed for but were made unaware, the third was being prayed for and were made aware of this fact. The whole idea was initiated by a pro-Christian mission in conjunction with atheist inclined scientists like Richard, with the sole aim of proving or disproving the effectiveness of prayers.
At the end of the experiment, the group who were informed that prayers was being made for them by a congregation received the least medical improvement. And as far as Richard and his cohorts are concerned, this is sufficient evidence that God does not answer prayers. .  .how dumb.

First, he needs to understand what prayer means, how prayer is said and the essential ingredients in prayer. In communing with God, Christ taught that we should not ask for certain things because the father knows and will meet these needs. But before He taught His disciples to pray, he first revealed the father to them through several teachings about the kingdom of God. This simply implies that prayer is only functional when there is a sufficient relationship between the one who is asking and the one who is to give. Christ also taught that requests made in His name according to the will of God will be answered.
So in the prayer experiment, what was the will of God? was it the will of God to be revealed through a disbelieving hypocritical fame-seeking experiment? was God in need of such glory and whats the benefit of such?
Thirdly we saw Christ pray in the garden that "this cup should pass over Him, but regardless the father's will be done". the cup did not pass over, for it was not the will of the father, instead Christ received the salvation of the world. . . , which was the original will of the Father.

We do not know for a fact if any of the said prayer was answered? and if it was answered, the type of answers received? But we do know that whatever prayer was said (by Richard and his mates) was definitely not in conformity with the will of God. This is because the scriptures clearly assert that "those who come to God must believe that He is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11:6 

3.  There is one important fact that Richard and several atheists are keen to ignore (which is very obvious, reading from his book and other atheist websites). This fact is what I will call the fundamental liberty of God (FLOG). You can read a full description of FLOG here http://paulobellaro..com/2011/10/fundamental-liberty-of-god-flog_03.html

By debating, we are asking pertinent questions about the existence of a deity capable of creating the "intelligent" material world we live in. If this deity exists, He would most definitely be more intelligent than man (I am sure most atheists would agree with this). It is as such plausible to expect that He would have the liberty to act as He wills, implying that He would have His own likes and dislikes, tastes and choices. 

This is a simple FACT that all atheist tends to miss. God has liberty to act as he pleases. The choices He makes do not in anyway dispute His existence.
Hence, why would Richard Dawkins make claims disputing the existence of God based on defined ontology of God. The known ontological assertions might be wrong for all we care and they also do not constitute a FACT if viewed from the perspective that God has choices of His own to make.
To butress this point . .  . . .take a look at LOVE.
Love is abstract, it neither has weight nor occupies space. It is intangible and cannot be seen by anyone ,  . .neither can anyone claim to have heard love speak.
But can u confidently state that love does not exist?


. . . . . . .  more to come

wow interesting. my previous thread afforded me the chance to read and learn more about the man and the evangelical atheist called Richard dawkins. The oxford prof, using many tactics to lure people into becoming atheists whilst denying the obvious. The summer camp he organised for kids aged 8 to 17 was an indirect avenue to teach atheism as reported in the dailies.

I took my time to read some of the reviews of his so called God delusion and i begin to wonder if dawkins himself isnt deluded. here are some of what had been observed in his book

Dawkins enlists the Weak Anthropic Principle ( WAP) to aid his claim that 'there is almost certainly no God'. He claims this is a scientific and natural explanation of life . But this is neutral ground and could equally be claimed by Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design. There is no absolute proof either way.

Dawkins uses a weak probabilistic argument to argue that life could possibly evolve given that there could be a billion billion planets in the universe. But serious estimates of this probability show that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve in our universe. Such calculations also invalidate the concept behind WAP since fine-tuning simply cannot occur. In order to give life a finite probability of arising it has been necessary to speculate on the multi-universe idea. This is more faith than science since there is currently no observable evidence for such a theoretical concept.

Hi the new noetic16, how you dey?

That book by Richard Dawkins is a practical manual if one wants to learn what is called the logical fallacies in atheist evolutionists' argument. What he does is to build up what he understand as 'God' and the Bible and proceeds to pull it down saying he has disprove or disputed all the arguments of Christians creationists. In the book you will see examples of the Strawman's fallacy, classic examples of ad hominem, equivocations, begging the question, complex questions and the likes. This is what his disciples here and unfortunately some theist evolutionists use in pressing their arguments when it comes to attacking or compromising the word of God.

the funny thing is that some atheists actually trust this man and his book to provide them answers and when they compare same with the christian bible, the bible is a myth or fable whilst the man behind the God delusion is infallible. smdh at this pathetic conclusion

That is where most atheists get their understanding of the Bible from but its a pity that most Christians don't know this neither do they study their Bibles.

its even more absurd for anyone to say he/she wants to put God under Scientific observation or test. The bible says God is an invisible being. for u to dispel Gods existence cos God is invisible is illogical. I simply don't know how God would be taken to the lab to perform experiment on him. Also, theres no one present to give us eye witness account of when the universe began. all na speculation. even the so called big B, a.nng. i don't think it happened in the presence of any scientist living or dead

toba:

wow interesting. my previous thread afforded me the chance to read and learn more about the man and the evangelical atheist called Richard dawkins. The oxford prof, using many tactics to lure people into becoming atheists whilst denying the obvious. The summer camp he organised for kids aged 8 to 17 was an indirect avenue to teach atheism as reported in the dailies.

I took my time to read some of the reviews of his so called God delusion and i begin to wonder if dawkins himself isnt deluded. here are some of what had been observed in his book

Dawkins enlists the Weak Anthropic Principle ( WAP) to aid his claim that 'there is almost certainly no God'. He claims this is a scientific and natural explanation of life . But this is neutral ground and could equally be claimed by Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design. There is no absolute proof either way.

Dawkins uses a weak probabilistic argument to argue that life could possibly evolve given that there could be a billion billion planets in the universe. But serious estimates of this probability show that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve in our universe. Such calculations also invalidate the concept behind WAP since fine-tuning simply cannot occur. In order to give life a finite probability of arising it has been necessary to speculate on the multi-universe idea. This is more faith than science since there is currently no observable evidence for such a theoretical concept.

^^^^

well said.

What amazes me even more is that Dawkins has a very limited understanding of certain concepts he is using. Take for instance the subject of LIFE.
He boldly (and I must say WRONGLY) asserts that there is no life form on any other planet or universe except the earth. This is in my opinion very WRONG.
The concept of life is subjective. even on this planet we have several ecosystems with divergent living organisms exhibiting different life forms. So what if the definition of life in other planets does not conform to the definition of life on earth?

That the other planets are inhabitable for man in his present form does not make it permanently inhabitable. This is based on the fact that the bible asserts that the spirit/soul form of man transcends to the heavens to lay at rest with Christ. Perhaps, there is a life form beyond the scope of our present definition outside of this planet.

hmmm when Christians begin to apply reason over faith, then change has come. Keep it up, you guys are quietly getting there. God is invisble, yet you can tell me he has emotions ah ah funny

OLAADEGBU:

Hi the new noetic16, how you dey?

That book by Richard Dawkins is a practical manual if one wants to learn what is called the logical fallacies in atheist evolutionists' argument.  What he does is to build up what he understand as 'God' and the Bible and proceeds to pull it down saying he has disprove or disputed all the arguments of Christians creationists.  In the book you will see examples of the Strawman's fallacy, classic examples of ad hominem, equivocations, begging the question, complex questions and the likes.  This is what his disciples here and unfortunately some theist evolutionists use in pressing their arguments when it comes to attacking or compromising the word of God.

lol . . . .perhaps an improved noetic . .   how af u been?

That was initially one of the turn-offs I first noticed. He builds up the bible and God into a box of his imagination and subsequently begins to raise random innuendos. In the process he displays a personal and deep rooted ignorance for the God subject.
Take for instance he talks about the scientific nature of personal experiences. His comments are generic and while there might be some element of scientific fact in them, it does not present the facts accurately.
Christianity by nature is esoteric. .  . .so the case of personal experiences with God  varies from person to person. take the instance of dreams, it is scientifically impossible for the brain to decode a future event and transmit it as a dream in such a way that the dream comes to pass in the physical world.
Yet we have seen cases of people who slept at night, had dreams and woke up to see the fulfilment of this dreams without any course of action from them. This IMO establishes the case of a supernatural realm.

where is mazaje, when I need him the most?

noetic16:

I bought Richard Dawkins book (more than half way through) and I must say that I am absolutely disappointed at the quality of arguments in that book considering that he has sold over 2 million copies. and quite a number of people who have read the book actually said the same.

Good for you. At least you bothered to read the book unlike some who simply rely on word of mouth as though the book was too difficult to read. I wonder what sort of arguments you were looking for because I found them quite devastating against the Christian God. Many people agreeing with you doesn't make you or them right. I simply hope you're able to clearly point out the problems you found with the arguments in the book.

noetic16:

But since I dont have an audience with Richard to tell him how ridiculously lame his arguments are, I thought it might be nice to inform his compatriots on this forum, namely Mazaje and huxley. I would henceforth use this thread to expose the alarming ignorance of Richard Dawkins and the enormous loopholes in his arguments. I have no intention of disrespecting him, I just dont think that his arguments are sound to discredit the existence of God.

1. Richard starts by going on about the same old mantra of the proper identity of God. In the course of his arguments he talks about a spaghetti deity "manufactured" by atheist challenging theists to disprove his existence. I sincerely think that this is a slight insult on our (theist and non-theist) collective intelligence. The notion of God's existence lies primarily in the "disputed assumption" that a super-intelligence created the universe. The identity of this super intelligence is another topic on its own, but creating a new deity simply to disprove the origins of conceivable intelligence is in my opinion a no-brainier.

If for instance I take up the challenge of disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity, how exactly does this lay or deny credence to the notion that a superior intelligence created the material world we live in?

The point is that like your God, this spaghetti deity can be designed in such a way as to not be disprovable. You make up a God and say he is super intelligent and created everything, well there are others who can be said to have done the same. How do we know yours is the right God?

noetic16:

2. In stating his case, Richard talks about the prayer experiment. Where three groups of sick and hospitalised persons were prayed for. The first group was not being prayed for at all, the second was being prayed for but were made unaware, the third was being prayed for and were made aware of this fact. The whole idea was initiated by a pro-Christian mission in conjunction with atheist inclined scientists like Richard, with the sole aim of proving or disproving the effectiveness of prayers.
At the end of the experiment, the group who were informed that prayers was being made for them by a congregation received the least medical improvement. And as far as Richard and his cohorts are concerned, this is sufficient evidence that God does not answer prayers. .  .how dumb.

First, he needs to understand what prayer means, how prayer is said and the essential ingredients in prayer. In communing with God, Christ taught that we should not ask for certain things because the father knows and will meet these needs. But before He taught His disciples to pray, he first revealed the father to them through several teachings about the kingdom of God. This simply implies that prayer is only functional when there is a sufficient relationship between the one who is asking and the one who is to give. Christ also taught that requests made in His name according to the will of God will be answered.
So in the prayer experiment, what was the will of God? was it the will of God to be revealed through a disbelieving hypocritical fame-seeking experiment? was God in need of such glory and whats the benefit of such?
Thirdly we saw Christ pray in the garden that "this cup should pass over Him, but regardless the father's will be done". the cup did not pass over, for it was not the will of the father, instead Christ received the salvation of the world. . . , which was the original will of the Father.

We do not know for a fact if any of the said prayer was answered? and if it was answered, the type of answers received? But we do know that whatever prayer was said (by Richard and his mates) was definitely not in conformity with the will of God. This is because the scriptures clearly assert that "those who come to God must believe that He is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11:6 

So, what is the purpose of prayer? You fail to consider the other prayers that have been claimed all over the place. The problem you find is that when prayer is tested, it seems to keep failing.
We do know that the prayers weren't answered. That was what the experiment demonstrated.
For some reason, you think it is now acceptable to sweep under the rug prayers such as those offered by people like Elijah and others.

noetic16:

3.  There is one important fact that Richard and several atheists are keen to ignore (which is very obvious, reading from his book and other atheist websites). This fact is what I will call the fundamental liberty of God (FLOG).

By debating, we are asking pertinent questions about the existence of a deity capable of creating the "intelligent" material world we live in. If this deity exists, He would most definitely be more intelligent than man (I am sure most atheists would agree with this). It is as such plausible to expect that He would have the liberty to act as He wills, implying that He would have His own likes and dislikes, tastes and choices. 

This is a simple FACT that all atheist tends to miss. God has liberty to act as he pleases. The choices He makes do not in anyway dispute His existence.
Hence, why would Richard Dawkins make claims disputing the existence of God based on defined ontology of God. The known ontological assertions might be wrong for all we care and they also do not constitute a FACT if viewed from the perspective that God has choices of His own to make.
To butress this point . .  . . .take a look at LOVE.
Love is abstract, it neither has weight nor occupies space. It is intangible and cannot be seen by anyone ,  . .neither can anyone claim to have heard love speak.
But can u confidently state that love does not exist?


. . . . . . .  more to come

Is love a being? Is God an emotion like love? Yet you pray to him?
Claiming that God has this liberty simply doesn't fit with the Christian God because a God that is supposed to be good, kind and loving to humans does have obligations towards humans. Saying he doesn't means you don't understand what it means to love someone. Think of it. When you love someone, can you also say that you have no obligations towards that person to e.g prevent them from being brutally murdered by some psychopath especially when you can prevent this with no risk to yourself?

Please keep 'em coming.

diluminati:

hmmm when Christians begin to apply reason over faith, then change has come.

what kind of faith are u talking about? does being a christian present u from reasoning logically? because im a xtian doesnt mean i should indulge stupidity. my car has no brake system function and i needed to go to church for instance, does that mean i should risk it all in the name of faith? abegi talk something else. the bible charges one to be wise as a serpent

Keep it up, you guys are quietly getting there. God is invisble, yet you can tell me he has emotions ah ah funny

do u have any evidence to the contrary? if yes then go ahead to present it.

thehomer:

Good for you. At least you bothered to read the book unlike some who simply rely on word of mouth as though the book was too difficult to read. I wonder what sort of arguments you were looking for because I found them quite devastating against the Christian God. Many people agreeing with you doesn't make you or them right. I simply hope you're able to clearly point out the problems you found with the arguments in the book.

perhaps this explains one of the false notions and banner atheists carry . .  . .intuitively emphasising that they are more intelligent species for not believing in a super-intelligent deity . . .has it ever occurred to you that the reverse might be the case? Since u claim to find them quite devastating against the bible God, perhaps you would do well to list them here. . . ,  I would gladly expose the ignorance in those arguments. Richard's arguments are nursery school points. They are lame and an awkward attempt at making no point.

The point is that like your God, this spaghetti deity can be designed in such a way as to not be disprovable. You make up a God and say he is super intelligent and created everything, well there are others who can be said to have done the same. How do we know yours is the right God?

This is quite LAME . . . .and i also laugh in japanese.

If u read very well, I did mention that disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity does not in any way lay or deny credence to the argument that the material world we see is a product of super-intelligence. Unless of course you are claiming that your spaghetti deity created the world, then I can instinctively ask for what plausible evidence supports your poser.

For the umpteenth time, the question is not which God is right or wrong, assuming there are several gods/God in contention for the creator title?
The question remains the plausibility of the material world being created by a super intelligence capable of creating the world. do u find this difficult to assimilate? is the spaghetti deity capable of creating the world? whats the ontology of this deity?

So, what is the purpose of prayer? You fail to consider the other prayers that have been claimed all over the place. The problem you find is that when prayer is tested, it seems to keep failing.
We do know that the prayers weren't answered. That was what the experiment demonstrated.
For some reason, you think it is now acceptable to sweep under the rug prayers such as those offered by people like Elijah and others.

You are clearly WRONG.

Do u have a child? has he/she ever asked u for something? did u give him or her? why?
why did ur child ask u for something? That must obviously be because you both have a relationship. Prayer aint rocket science.
whats wrong with Elijah's prayer?

.

Is love a being? Is God an emotion like love? Yet you pray to him?

why is love not a being? and why is God not an emotion?

Claiming that God has this liberty simply doesn't fit with the Christian God because a God that is supposed to be good, kind and loving to humans does have obligations towards humans. Saying he doesn't means you don't understand what it means to love someone. Think of it. When you love someone, can you also say that you have no obligations towards that person to e.g prevent them from being brutally murdered by some psychopath especially when you can prevent this with no risk to yourself?

The goodness of God is subjective. There is absolutely no where in the bible where God says He is good to all of mankind. These description of God is not generic. show me where your assertions are supported by the scriptures?

Please keep 'em coming.

lol. . . you dont have the intellectual ability to debate against theism.

noetic16:

perhaps this explains one of the false notions and banner atheists carry . .  . .intuitively emphasising that they are more intelligent species for not believing in a super-intelligent deity . . .has it ever occurred to you that the reverse might be the case?

What reverse might be the case? What do you mean by species here?

noetic16:

Since u claim to find them quite devastating against the bible God, perhaps you would do well to list them here. . . ,  I would gladly expose the ignorance in those arguments.

You're already reading a book that has several of them that you're unable to refute successfully. Don't feel bad, many have tried and failed woefully.

noetic16:

Richard's arguments are nursery school points. They are lame and an awkward attempt at making no point.

Sure sure. Yet for some reason, you and many others are unable to refute them and successfully and neither do you as your posts here show.

noetic16:

This is quite LAME . . . .and i also laugh in japanese.

If u read very well, I did mention that disproving the existence of the spaghetti deity does not in any way lay or deny credence to the argument that the material world we see is a product of super-intelligence. Unless of course you are claiming that your spaghetti deity created the world, then I can instinctively ask for what plausible evidence supports your poser.

I wonder why you still fail to see the strength of this argument. Consider it a thought experiment that the FSM is defined as the super-intelligent creator who created the world. The evidence you're asking for is the same sort of evidence that has been asked for your Christian God which is always lacking. So what evidence do you have that your God created the world?

noetic16:

For the umpteenth time, the question is not which God is right or wrong, assuming there are several gods/God in contention for the creator title?
The question remains the plausibility of the material world being created by a super intelligence capable of creating the world. do u find this difficult to assimilate? is the spaghetti deity capable of creating the world? whats the ontology of this deity?

Actually, identifying the right God is part of the question. If there are several Gods, then Christianity is wrong in claiming there is only one.
How are you able to estimate the plausibility? The ontology of the FSM is that it is the ultimate being itself.

noetic16:

You are clearly WRONG.

Do u have a child? has he/she ever asked u for something? did u give him or her? why?
why did your child ask u for something? That must obviously be because you both have a relationship.

You're still looking at this the wrong way. If your child asks you to save them from severe pains and suffering (which you can by in this case taking them to a hospital), what do you do? Do you stand around looking at them? What if they ask you for a toy car (which is cheap and you have the funds), do you provide it?
The point is that in a clear situation with serious consequences, and you're able to do something, what do you do? Your God is supposed to be omnipotent yet does nothing why?

noetic16:

Prayer aint rocket science.

Obviously. Which is why it fails so much. If rocket science failed that way, we wouldn't have the ISS, lunar missions, Mars missions, rocket technology, GPS etc.

noetic16:

whats wrong with Elijah's prayer?
.

For some reason, your God was answering prayers all over the place until humans were able to devise methods to test then he closes his eyes and folds his arms.

noetic16:

why is love not a being? and why is God not an emotion?

If you think love is a being then you would need to identify what being it is. If you think God is an emotion, then why do you worship it? Do you worship jealousy, anger, excitement or joy?

noetic16:

The goodness of God is subjective. There is absolutely no where in the bible where God says He is good to all of mankind. These description of God is not generic. show me where your assertions are supported by the scriptures?

Really? God isn't supposed to be good to all mankind? So he created Adam and Eve in order to torture them and their offspring? He sent Jesus so he could happily keep on torturing all people really? Have you considered the basic tenets of Christianity? Please tell me, who is he supposed to be good to let me show you how well that group suffers.

noetic16:

lol. . . you dont have the intellectual ability to debate against theism.

Nah it appears you don't have the intellectual ability to even comprehend the arguments in the book you're reading. And you're doing a very poor job of defending Christianity. My arguments aren't just against theism but against your particular strain which is Christianity.

@Toba:
You quote Jesus as having enjoined his disciples to be as wise as SERPENTS. Very interesting indeed.
Was it not the same serpent that supposedly gave Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge? The same serpent that was cursed by god? The same serpent that Moses asked the Isrealites to look up to for healing when they were cursed by god? And yet the same serpent that has been villified by the judeo-christian religions? hhhmmm. And here Jesus asked his disciples to be as WISE as the SERPENT?
Another one of the many contradictions of the Christian faith.

Same arguments all the time. Thiest make the following arguments very loudly.
a. That god exist
b. That he (why not she) is invisible,
c. His ways are a mystery to man
d. He does not have to be proven in any scientific or empirical way.

All thiest, except Neotic, believe that
e.God loves his all creation

f. God's love is manifest in the physical world or(depending on which sect) is personal and subjective.

A am correct? Pls exmine the above postulations one more time.If the above are correct, then WHY CANT THEISTS ACCEPT THE SIMPLE ADMISSION THAT GOD IS IN THEIR HEADS? Is it not so obvious? If god is subjective, does not not automatically mean that it is in the head of the believer?
That is all people like Dawkins is trying to SAY. How can you argue against him when all your beliefs about god seem to contradict themselves. I can confidently and boldly , as you do, make the same postulations about the Flying Spaghetti Monster(LOL). Can't I?

@Olaadegbu:
christianity is esoteric?. Since when? esoteric in what sense? hhhmmm.
What is esoteric abt a perfect diety who creates man, then finds fault in his creation, and then threatens to punish them forever for the very their inherent deficiencies he created,all just to show how much he loves them? What is esoteric about a custodial religion who's primary currencies are fear and blackmail? "The FEAR of god is the beggining of wisdom".
What is esoteric about fleecing vulnerable people of their resources in the name of god?.

Perhaps esoteric refers to the catholic priesthood, who despise female sexuallity, but have no problems defiling the bottoms of young boys.

^

1. What does the quality of consciouness, sentience, self-awareness, mean to you?

2. Could you conceptually divorce the notion of a universal mind as a causative precursor for all existence from religious notions of God?

3. If you could divorce such, would you be inclined to accepting the existence of that precursor of existence?

Deep Sight:

^

1. What does the quality of consciouness, sentience, self-awareness, mean to you?

2. Could you conceptually divorce the notion of a universal mind as a causative precursor for all existence from religious notions of God?

3. If you could divorce such, would you be inclined to accepting the existence of that precursor of existence?

What ever the quality of consciousness, self-awareness and sentience, it does not ,any way ,explain or prove the existence of god.
And yes , I can divorce the NOTION of a universal mind as a causative precursor of existence. Its a good and palatable notion , but the operative word her is NOTION. Its just a NOTION, Imagination or Fantasy.
To be honest, I ( without fear of contradiction), want to accept that notion. But my mind, as it is presently constituted, cannot stop there. To stop there requires an act of blind faith, which I find loathsome. Questions have to arise and investigated about such a universal mind. I cannot accept this uncaused cause anxiom.
So until we have some answers, the universal mind is just a good ,cozy NOTION.
Again, I don't believe that either religion , or philosophy can answer these questions. Only science can, in due time.

@Deepsight:
Correction. Yes I can divorce the notion of a universal mind as a precursor of existence from the religious notion of god.

N:B
Mind you also, the argument in this thread is not necessarity about an abstract universal mind but the notion of a religious god who has been given certain attributes. The many contradictory attributes of the religious god forms the basis of doubts and ultimately leads to an atheistic viewpoint.
An abstract universal mind would, logically, be impersonal. Religious theists make arguments for the existence a personal god that acts like a puppet master .

globexl:

Same arguments all the time. Thiest make the following arguments very loudly.
a. That god exist
b. That he (why not she) is invisible,
c. His ways are a mystery to man
d. He does not have to be proven in any scientific or empirical way.

Why not she indeed. Why not "it"?  They say the atheist is a fool but they are the ones who give their gods testable attributes and when relity doesn't match their beliefs , it's because the unbeliever is a fool, doesn't have faith, needs the holy spirit, and my all time favorite, "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SPIRITUAL THINGS".

When compared with the universe as a whole, the earth is nothing but an atom. Imagine the earth as the universe and a marble in the middle of the sahara desert floating around a bonfire as our earth. How arrogant would it be if some miniature talking apes on that tiny marble said the whole earth(i.e universe) was created by super ape man just for them? Also on this marble where these apes live, the natural conditions on the marble continually wreak havoc on their lives, yet they continue to think the marble was perfectly made, just for them.

@ Globexl -

Let's start with consciousness.

What is it? What does it connote? How does it fit into the evolutionary context? How and why does a unicellular organism become a self conscious being? Aware, intuitive and intelligent. Contemplative and complex.

What drives this. What is sentience. Why is sentience?

Let's talk. I'm online for a while.

Always a pleasure. but I'm stepping out for an hour or so. will be back soon.

All the above have what we have come to define as life.
So I can say that biological life evolves into awareness, and becomes intuitive and intelligent. Different animal species with different cranial sizes dispaly varying degrees of intelligence. Not so? Can one no tmake the case that intellegence, self-awareness and intuition evolved alongside with the size and complexity of brain?

Your argument is premised on the fact that self-awareness, intuition and intelligence is evidence and proof of intelligent design. I say ,no way.
If we can go back 4 billion yrs ago ,when there was no appearance of intelligence, self-awareness or intuition, when there were only single-celled micro-organisms, when the earth and perhaps our solar system were still chaotic and in a state of flux,could you make the same arguments then for intelligent design?

Later.

globexl:

@Toba:
You quote Jesus as having enjoined his disciples to be as wise as SERPENTS. Very interesting indeed.
Was it not the same serpent that supposedly gave Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge? The same serpent that was cursed by god? The same serpent that Moses asked the Isrealites to look up to for healing when they were cursed by god? And yet the same serpent that has been villified by the judeo-christian religions? hhhmmm. And here Jesus asked his disciples to be as WISE as the SERPENT?
Another one of the many contradictions of the Christian faith.   

sir u would understand the bible very well if u failed to read it with a pre conceived and biased mind. anything outside of this wouldnt enable u view things the way the thiets does. In my discussion with mazaje, i said something about serpent and wisdom. u need to apply the wisdom of God even as a christian before u act. let me make things clear a bit.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves” Matthew 10:16

@globelx, Their serpent-like wisdom would govern the words they spoke as well as the activities they carried out. Jesus wanted them to communicate His message wisely, but without hurting the people who heard it— as harmless as doves. In my activities outside nl, i do my best to keep to this.

further more We may think we have used good sense and sound judgment in what we have said, but if it has produced disorder, dissension and turmoil rather than healing, it has not been God’ s wisdom, but rather a counterfeit wisdom. This thread isnt meant for this but i just needed to clarify that aspect for u. U may wish to take me on in same regard, im fully prepared for it. i love arguments lol

thehomer:

What reverse might be the case? What do you mean by species here?

Implying that atheist are actually dumber than they pose to be.

You're already reading a book that has several of them that you're unable to refute successfully. Don't feel bad, many have tried and failed woefully.

Sure sure. Yet for some reason, you and many others are unable to refute them and successfully and neither do you as your posts here show.

I am not surprised at your comments. Are u scared of listing those devastating points?  

I wonder why you still fail to see the strength of this argument. Consider it a thought experiment that the FSM is defined as the super-intelligent creator who created the world. The evidence you're asking for is the same sort of evidence that has been asked for your Christian God which is always lacking. So what evidence do you have that your God created the world?

No they are NOT the same. There are two arguments here . . . , the first relates to the existence of a super-intelligence capable of creating the material world. The second argument relates to His identity. By promoting the FSM as deity, are u conceding that the universe and all other things are products of a super intelligence?

If you affirm yes to that . . . then we can move on to the identity of the super intelligence.

Actually, identifying the right God is part of the question. If there are several Gods, then Christianity is wrong in claiming there is only one.
How are you able to estimate the plausibility? The ontology of the FSM is that it is the ultimate being itself.

This is rather DUMB.

what do u mean by ultimate? ultimate in respect to what? . . . ,  how does the identity of the super-intelligence affect the logic behind the creation prowess?

You're still looking at this the wrong way. If your child asks you to save them from severe pains and suffering (which you can by in this case taking them to a hospital), what do you do? Do you stand around looking at them? What if they ask you for a toy car (which is cheap and you have the funds), do you provide it?
The point is that in a clear situation with serious consequences, and you're able to do something, what do you do? Your God is supposed to be omnipotent yet does nothing why?

Can u read at all?  

God is omnipotent . . .YES. But he also has the liberty to do he pleases. This is what I call FLOG.
You are able to walk, why have u chosen not to walk from lagos to kano?  You are able to eat, why have u not eaten a life lizard?

Obviously. Which is why it fails so much. If rocket science failed that way, we wouldn't have the ISS, lunar missions, Mars missions, rocket technology, GPS etc.

Quite silly I must say. How can you say communication fails? Prayer is communication from one end to the other. Both ends have the prerogative to ask and receive. however, it is not a simple procedure, implying that a relationship needs to exist and the request has to be in conformity with the plans of the sender.
If a request is made, it is at the prerogative of the sender to decide if to send and what to send.

Have u ever refused a request in your entire life? why?

Perhaps u should ask questions if you dont know. Your comments on prayer shows a deep rooted level of ignorance. God is omnipotent, but he aint a robot.

If you think love is a being then you would need to identify what being it is. If you think God is an emotion, then why do you worship it? Do you worship jealousy, anger, excitement or joy?

You are ignorant my friend. . . .a little education would be nice. . . .read the following carefully and try your best to assimilate.

1. Love as expressed by humans is an act of gesture from one to another, in a selfless manner devoid of ulterior motives. When we help those in need and cater for the less privileged without expressing anything in return . ,  then we exercise a gesture called LOVE.

2. Through biblical teachings. . . . .we understand that the primordial acts of God were gestures of Love. The creation of a help mate for Adam, the creation of the garden of eden, the sacrifice of Christ at the foundation of the world and the covenant of God with men. Through these acts we see God showing gestures that would be later inculcated into the acts of believers all over the world.

3. Christ gave a new commandment implying that LOVE your neighbour as yourself and LOVE the LORD your GOD. For there is Love, there He is.
Through these we know that God is LOVE.

4. Stating that LOVE is a being, is simply a den-notative illustration of the presence of God and stating that God is an emotion is a connotative illustration of the presence of LOVE. For where there is LOVE, there is GOD.

Really? God isn't supposed to be good to all mankind? So he created Adam and Eve in order to torture them and their offspring? He sent Jesus so he could happily keep on torturing all people really? Have you considered the basic tenets of Christianity? Please tell me, who is he supposed to be good to let me show you how well that group suffers.

just show me where EXACTLY in the bible is any of your rubbish assertions written?

Nah it appears you don't have the intellectual ability to even comprehend the arguments in the book you're reading. And you're doing a very poor job of defending Christianity. My arguments aren't just against theism but against your particular strain which is Christianity.

Your intellectual ability is judged (as far as this thread is concerned) by the quality of new and empowering knowledge you bring to this debate. So far, u have made no point, except for the usual sad atheist denials . . . . . pls invite mazaje to come bail you out.  

@Toba.
Discussions always evolve from their original intent.
I understood very well the message that jesus was trying pass along. But saying so, does Jesus not extoling the wisdom of the serpent given that the serpent is a prominent, albeit notorious, actor in the christian anthology(or mythology) ?
I just wanted to point out the contradiction in the religious superstitions sorounding the serpent.

^ Symbolism could be, and indeed is, diverse. One symbol could be a reference point for several ideas.

globexl:


All thiest, except Neotic, believe that
e.God loves his all creation

f. God's love is manifest in the physical world or(depending on which sect) is personal and subjective.

Where and how did I make these assertions?

@Olaadegbu:
christianity is esoteric?. Since when? esoteric in what sense? hhhmmm.
What is esoteric abt a perfect diety who creates  man, then finds fault in his creation, and then threatens to punish them forever for the very their inherent deficiencies he created,all just to show how much he loves them? What is esoteric about a custodial religion who's primary currencies are  fear and blackmail? "The FEAR of god is the beggining of wisdom".
What is esoteric about fleecing vulnerable people of their resources in the name of god?.

Perhaps esoteric refers to the catholic priesthood, who despise female sexuallity, but have no problems defiling the bottoms of young boys.

start by looking at the meaning of the word "esoteric" in a dictionary. The read the sentence it was used in . ,  , it states that Christianity is esoteric.
This is in consonance with the words of Jesus, that the way to eternal life is narrow. . . . .only a few will find it.

^ Long time Noetic. Missed ya. How bodi?

noetic16:

Where and how did I make these assertions?

start by looking at the meaning of the word "esoteric" in a dictionary. The read the sentence it was used in . ,  , it states that Christianity is esoteric.
This is in consonance with the words of Jesus, that the way to eternal life is narrow. . . . .only a few will find it.

So if the only path to god is esoteric, that means most people were destined to be tortured for eternity before they were even born because that is god's divine plan. If it's only meant for a select few, how is god omnibenevolent?

by saying it is esoteric you simply mean, that it is a secret!!! hahaahahah that is something that only revealed to you, right?
and you are absolutely right! people because god=noetic16=jesus=you ha ha ha
god understands you so much and he loves you so much and hates the people you hate, because god is you. hahaha
christian doctrine however is not esoteric, not in the least form. It is available to everyone, easily and readily and it takes you to have blind faith to believe it.

Deep Sight:

^ Symbolism could be, and indeed is, diverse. One symbol could be a reference point for several ideas.

Yes indeed.
But you cannot use the srepent as a symbol of evil and deciet in one instance and then as symbol of wisdom in yest another instance in the same religion.
Therefore it is more plausible that the serpent as portrayed in the Adam and Eve story was just a symbol of something much more absract than the talking snake. If so,it would also imlpy that the whole genesis story is nothing more than an allegory. But we both know that abt 98% of christians in Nigeria believe this be historical truths.

@Toba:
Serpent dieties are the most ubiquitous in all cultures around the globe. Obviously Jesus knew something that we did not know. hhhmmmm