For FS: Evidence of god's existence.

[FirstSunday33ad]

- You mean the argument from design? The one I already debunked?

No, I mean the probability of God existing as opposed to not existing. As usual you “debunked” a strawman you felt more comfortable dealing with.

- What god?

Dodge

I still don't assume #2; there is no reason to.

Dodge

- HRG's comments were pretty clear to me:

Well good for you, what did he mean then?

which was by Gilgaron:

restating it in a more organized fashion would be helpful to me;

I think you're changing the definition of God when you leap from creator/first cause to emotionally involved being though."

I’m sorry….but considering my question was “are my statements no longer being challenged” I don’t think saying “can you restate what you spent the last several days writing?” And “I think you change the definition of God” (which I wasn’t doing, since God can be both the first cause and involved [use of the adjective “emotionally” is a strawman]) – constitute “challenges”.

- I am paying attention, trust me, and so far, you haven't logically deduced that Christianity is anything more than a story passed down through the ages. The reason for that is because you're assumed from the outset that god exists, and you have not given a sufficient argument to show that this assumption is correct.

We haven’t even approached Christianity yet, so I do wish you would stop referring to it. And for someone who is “paying attention” you sure do seem to miss the point a great deal. I did not ASSUME God’s existence – I concluded that based on what we know, it was more probable that God existed than did not exist.

SHEEESH…….I’m getting tired of constantly having to repeat myself

- So you believe you are wasting your time in this thread?

Why do you think that?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:



-

- Is that a yes or a no? Who cares why he disagrees with them... he wants to see your premises. If they are valid, I suggest there's a good chance he'll then agree to your assertions. You obviously do believe they're valid... why not give them?

I care that's who.

what do you care if I do or don't?

[AtheistArchon]

No, I mean the probability of God existing as opposed to not existing. As usual you “debunked” a strawman you felt more comfortable dealing with.

- Okay, so remind me again what your argument was here. I may be wong, but I seem to remember it was the argument from design.

Dodge

- Not a dodge. I'm asking you what god? You have not shown me any gods.

Dodge

- Not a dodge. There is no reason whatsoever to assume #2, and you still have not given any.

Well good for you, what did he mean then?

- Well gosh, I repeated them for you. Let me do so again, and you tell me what part throws you:

"But your plausibility argument from Kalam only referred to a creator of the universe. Switching from this concept to a penultimate being which at the same time is the penultimate example of Good is called "bait-and-switch".

Why don't you include in your definition of God - since definitions are arbitrary - that he is involved in human affairs from the start ? You wouldn't have needed all this fancy footwork about "omnipresence" etc. Someone can be omnipresent without being omniinvolved, and your claim that then he wouldn't be God is without logical foundations.

I realize that for theists the three letters "God" refer to an actually existing entity, and that according to them we only need to discuss the properties etc. of this concrete entity. But for non-theists, "God" refers to concepts in the minds of theists - sometimes quite different ones."

- What part there is ambiguous or confusing to you?

I’m sorry….but considering my question was “are my statements no longer being challenged” I don’t think saying “can you restate what you spent the last several days writing?” And “I think you change the definition of God” (which I wasn’t doing, since God can be both the first cause and involved [use of the adjective “emotionally” is a strawman]) – constitute “challenges”.

- Simple: The former is a charge that you never DID explain your first postulate successfully (and I share that criticism of your argument). The second is a valid note that the first cause argument has nothing to do with a god being involved in any way with LOVE. Or do you not prescribe this emotional attribute to god?

We haven’t even approached Christianity yet, so I do wish you would stop referring to it.

- Umm, you brought it up. You said that you'd proven that you had arrived at Christianity via logic and reason, and I said that you hadn't, because you've presumed god to exist in the first place.

And for someone who is “paying attention” you sure do seem to miss the point a great deal. I did not ASSUME God’s existence – I concluded that based on what we know, it was more probable that God existed than did not exist.

- And I'm still waiting to HEAR that argument, since you now say it isn't the argument from design.

SHEEESH…….I’m getting tired of constantly having to repeat myself

- Then perhaps you should give up. I'm not kidding... there is really no escape from this trap. I think you will repeat yourself over and over, because we're travelling in circles instead of a straight line, and that's not good for your claims.

what do you care if I do or don't?

- I care because it's suspicious. Either you have valid premises or you do not; there is no good reason to hide them if they are valid. Yet you are hiding them. Hence, I am skeptical.

[Gilgaron]

If you can't disambiguate your arguments, we can't very well critique them, that's why I requested clarification.

[Roy]

09-23-2003 @ 05:18 PM post located here
FirstSunday33ad:




Okay then, Tuesday noon and no valid objections. We can move.
...
That being said, before moving on are there any objections to the beliefs included or is it felt that other beliefs should be included?

I've several objections, but I can see any point in enumerating them since you'd probably just ignore them like you have the last two sets of objections I've given.

Roy

[FirstSunday33ad]

Okay, apparently this is going to be a sore point with some people so to avoid the charge of “dodging”, I will retread ground that has already been walked and restate the points being made.

“God” is a term of convenience at this point. Perhaps a better term would be “Intelligent Designer” or ID, but this is really just a pedantic objection and besides is not entirely accurate as the ID could be an alien life form. The term “God” is used to indicate a distinct, intelligent being capable of acting through will over and above the physical universe. It is used to distinguish between naturally occurring forces – such as light or gravity – from a “supernatural” act of conscious will. “God” therefore is not subject to the physical laws of Space & Time; rather “God” would be the creator of the physical laws of Space & Time.

The definition of “God” therefore is :
a) The 3 O’s. Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent
b) Penultimate, (there is no being, force or “thing” greater than God)
c) Eternal, (God had no beginning and has no end)
d) Unchanging (God does not age. God does not rise or fall in authority. God is not capricious)
e) “GOOD”. (A subjective term meaning that morality comes from “God”)

I already hear the squeals of protest that I am “changing” my definition, so in response, know that I have merely reworded the definition because of the pedantic argument the previous definition created.

To answer another objection before it is made - ie, that YOU do not agree with this definition, that it is “arbitrary, etc. - your objection misses the point. Anything less than this definition is to say that “God” does not exist. Arguing that there may be “godlike” beings or forces is not answering the question being asked. Saying that humanity could have developed a morality (ie Good vs Evil) separate from “God” is to say “God” does not exist. In other words; this definition is deliberately stated as an absolute. Anything less than this is not “God” and does not answer the question of whether God exists or if any religion is closer to reality than illusion.

And that was the question I wanted to answer. If such a God did not exist, than I could ignore whatever else might actually exist as it would have no significance to my life.

THE FIRST QUESTION:

Is it PROBABLE that there is a “God”?

It is impossible to state with any certainty outside of faith that there is or is not a God. Therefore, the only statement that can be reasonably defended at this point is on the probability of there being a God.

The statement therefore is either: It is more probable that God exists than does not exist. OR It is more probable that God does not exist than does exist. That this probability could be as slight as 49.9999999% against and 50.0000001% in favour is irrelevant; it is the greater probability that is being accepted as the most likely.

The statement must be defended only with knowledge that we currently have, it cannot be defended with appeals to what might later be known as that is an appeal to faith.

Within that restriction therefore, based on what we know and given the requirements necessary to arrive at intelligent life in any one place, I concluded that it is more probable that “Life, the Universe and Everything” was the product of “GOD”.

Therefore the statement that we are able to make is: It is more probable that God exists than does not.

NOTE that at this point we are not saying “God exists” or even which God exists, only that we can NOT say “God probably doesn’t exist”. The only way we can make that statement is by invoking faith.

THE SECOND QUESTION:

Is it reasonable to say God is involved with humanity?

Having concluded that God probably exists, is it reasonable to say that God is “involved” with humanity at any level?

Under the definition of God above, that conclusion contradicts “God” since it makes God capricious, irrelevant and amoral. The statement therefore that “God” is not involved with humanity at any level is to reduce God to being merely a powerful force that “some how” was responsible for our presence much in the same way as water, light and soil are “responsible” for plant growth. “God” becomes merely a random force interacting with natural elements to create a result – us.

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that God must be involved with humanity to some degree.

THE THIRD QUESTION:

As it is probable that God exists, and reasonable that God is involved with humanity to some degree – is it possible that one or more “religion” is closer to describing reality than any others? If so, which one or ones?

And this is where we left off.

SO….any mention of Christianity as this point is premature, objecting that I presumed the existence of God is inaccurate and arguing that some “force” other than God could have been responsible for creation is missing the point of the whole exercise.

At this stage, I am not even saying God exists, I am saying IF God exists – and it is probable that God does – then it is reasonable to say that God is involved with humanity to some degree.

That’s it!! This is as far as I have gotten after five pages of argument. If you want to rehash these two points again, then please do so using new objections, don’t just keep repeating the same objections only phrased differently. And if you have objections, make them clear, relevent and to the point. Use of cryptic or vague language reads like a diversionary tactic and not a real objection.

Can we move on now?

[AtheistArchon]

- Here's my only complaint:

Within that restriction therefore, based on what we know and given the requirements necessary to arrive at intelligent life in any one place, I concluded that it is more probable that “Life, the Universe and Everything” was the product of “GOD”.

- We know this already. What we're interested in is how you came to this conclusion.

- I have to say again that you seem to be applying the argument from design.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 10:09 AM post located here
AtheistArchon:

- Here's my only complaint:



- We know this already. What we're interested in is how you came to this conclusion.

- I have to say again that you seem to be applying the argument from design.

This was the logical process I took in determining whether or not God existed.

When I examined the question – probably not exhaustively, the only person I needed to convince was myself – I simply asked what the probability for God’s existence was based on what we know of the Universe and our place within it.

Without a God, I realized that this would mean that everything that is or ever has been arrived by chance. There was no first cause for the Universe, it always “existed” in some form or other, the solar system just happened – by lucky chance – to set itself up in such a way as to be conducive to life and that life itself formed out of non-life by chance and happily survived all the dangers arrayed against it over several billions of years, reacting to each change in its environments with an advance, never a retreat; always becoming ever more sophisticated.

Then the history of the earth, from lucky acquisition of the moon to the timely extinctions that permitted the evolution of a higher stage of life was all the product of chance. As was the longevity of the dinosaurs – suddenly and catastrophically ended by a fortuitous comet – that left behind large quantities of fossil fuel to be readily available for technological advancement. The placement of the stars - the North Star in particular - which proved so invaluable for the intelligent species that made use of them, again happened by lucky chance.

As intelligent life clawed its way to the top of the heap, its laws, codes, morals and beliefs would also simply be the product of chance and environment. For whatever reason, this intelligence set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and set us on a separate path from our less evolved cousins. Our extremely early adoption of god beliefs was merely an outcropping of this natural intelligence. The persistence of this belief in the face of increased understanding of the natural world was also due to some aspect of our biology.

At this point I was already beginning to have doubts. Probability alone seemed to strongly argue against the conclusion of “No God”. The idea of an eternally existing Universe, even within the parameters of the ‘big bang/big crunch’, mulitverses, parallel universes, etc., was bizarre. It seemed we were simply replacing one “eternal” (God) for another (Material). The Muslim argument that if we lacked a point of beginning we could never arrive at the point we were at, made sense. Because the Universe exists within space/time, we could never move back far enough in time to begin moving forward again. The only way to explain the Universe therefore seemed to involve making special use of some metaphysical argument that removed it from the limitation of space/time – which was just another way of saying “the Universe is God”.

This struck me as a contradiction. If the Universe is a naturally occurring event, then it must be restricted to natural laws. Allowing the possibility of spontaneous generation – or something from nothing – therefore violated this natural order. Spontaneous generation would only be allowable if we gave to the Universe power normally attributed to God. I could not accept this as logical if we were simply doing it as a means of dismissing the possibility of God existing.

I went from beyond the actual start or existence of the Universe to our solar system. The combination of factors required to create an environment conducive to life forming on a planet are significant. From the right size of the sun, the presence of Jovian worlds situated in the correct orbit, the place of the system within the galaxy, etc, all are critical to a planet surviving long enough for life to form. Additionally, the presence of a large moon has been found necessary for the formation of land masses, with the theory being that the absence of such a satellite would result in a water world with little or no dry land mass.

The acquisition of the moon itself was another one of those improbabilities. The most recent theory I have read on its acquisition, was that a larger body collided with a much larger earth 4.25 billion years ago, reducing the size of both objects and capturing the smaller object in Earth’s gravity. This collision is theorized to have also thinned the Earth’s atmosphere, slowed its rotation and played an important part in the creation of the Van Allen belt. Had this collision not occurred in a very precise manner, the Earth today would be lifeless.

Most recently, I have read that the presence of a solar system within a galaxy must be restricted to its rim if there is to be any chance of life forming. Inside of this rim the environment becomes too hostile for life to survive very long. This has served to increase the probability against life forming by chance. Now I admit to being no scientist, so I don’t know how widely held these theories are within the scientific community, however, as far as I have seen, although they certainly have their opponents, they have not been treated as Velikovskian.

Now at this point I moved onto the emergence of life itself. I had accepted that organic from inorganic material was theoretically possible if we start at the sub-molecular level. But the leap from organic material to life seemed quite wide. The short window of opportunity in which abiogenesis could occur on Earth compounded the problem. We know the Earth is 4.55 billion years old and that life first appeared about 3.5 billion years ago. Remove from this period the time it would have taken for the Earth to go from being inhospitable to being able to support life and you have only about 600 million years. Within that time inorganic matter went to bacteria.

I didn’t conclude that this was impossible, but to me, it did suggest that life would have to be almost inevitable in almost any environment (provided you could produce the organic material), to be adequately explained on Earth. It seemed to me that if life was inevitable, then it should be easily repeatable, that is scientists should be able to “create” life within a laboratory setting replicating a “chance” environment and starting with organic material equally “created” by chance from inorganic material. However, the very best scientists have been able to come up with so far are a few protein strains. And abiogenesis is still being vigorously debated. Far from being inevitable, life is still seems more unlikely to form then inevitable.

These observations were bolstered when I read some probability studies on the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring by chance. I have since read the rebuttals to these studies (including the one found at “Talk Origins) but was not convinced by the arguments put forward, which seemed to run more along the lines of “a whole lot of simultaneous tries were taking place” and “one in a gadzillion is still ONE in a gadzillion”. The time window still appeared to create a problem for the “by chance” argument. Further, Michael Behe’s observations on the “irreducible complexity” of molecular life has since added weight to the “not by chance” probability.

The conclusion I drew was that life was not inevitable but rather highly unlikely, so unlikely in fact that its emergence would qualify as a miracle.

Once life did emerge however, the “by chance” argument seemed to get a firmer footing. We have the geologic column and a very convincing argument can be presented showing the gradual evolution of life from the simple to the complex. Although there are problems within this presentation, from the Cambrian explosion to the absence of transitional fossils, these are not damning objections to the theory. However, the fossil evidence used to support human evolution was to me (and still is) extremely suspect as it seemed to rely more on a “it happened there, so it must have happened here” type of reasoning. Having observed reproductions of the fossilized skulls of our supposed ancestors I remained sceptical of some of the reconstructions put forward and of the conclusions that they were hominids. Brain size as a determinate of a higher evolutionary stage or of intellectual capacity isn’t very convincing (Neandertal for example had a larger brain than homo sapiens). Better evidence of human evolution was found in the gradual shift in where the spine met the skull indicating a change from a “knuckle dragger” to an upright walker, but I still couldn’t find convincing evidence that dismissed the possibility that the skulls were in reality those of animals.

And in the end, in every study I have read on evolution, there was always an implied “intelligence” suggested. This may be a limitation humanity has in discussing anything without anthropomorphizing it, but it seemed strange that we find it almost impossible to discuss what occurred “by chance” without acknowledging to some degree, that it has always been very rational. We have yet to find any “hopeful monsters”. This seemed to me to be simply giving God a new name – “evolution”.

Finally, it seemed as if the natural history of the earth was almost “designed” to arrive at a point when humanity would emerge and dominate the planet. No other life form excelled or developed as much as we did in so short a period of time. Within a few million years, humanity supposedly went from being just another animal in the forest to being the conqueror of the planet. So intelligent did we become that nature could no longer contain us; we burst our bonds to the animal kingdom and brought nature itself to heel. Within this very same period absolutely no other animal developed as much as we did. In fact, most just got smaller and weaker; the “giants” perished. We however, got bigger and stronger.

Next, came human social development. As best as we can determine a “god” belief emerged almost as soon as we did. Burial practices of the Neandertal indicate even at this stage a belief in an afterlife existed. The earliest written records of the Sumerian and Egyptian cultures show a high degree of religious sophistication and firmly established beliefs. The epics of Homer, based on much earlier oral myths, discuss in detail such concepts as sin, hell, heaven and divine justice. The creation myths of the Babylonians, Jews and Hindus are dated to almost prehistoric periods. Why humanity felt the need to develop and maintain such religious beliefs has never been satisfactorily explained. Appeals to superstition and ignorance do not stand up to examination. Unthinking simpletons who trembled at things that went “bump in the night” did not wholly populate ancient cultures. Their level of science, art, architecture, philosophy and commerce, reveal a thinking people who questioned, observed and studied the world around them. The emergence of the “priest-kings” lasted only until about the 11th century BCE. After that period the priest lost political influence in society supplanted by the “warrior-kings”. So the explanation that priests maintained religious fiction as a means of controlling their respective societies ceases to explain religion beyond their rule.

Finally, there was the problem of evil. Now most arguments I have heard about this problem are used to counter a belief in God (how could a just God allow so much suffering?) but for me the problem pointed to an opposite conclusion. If there were no God, then why was humanity so senselessly cruel and how is it that we are even able to recognize this behaviour as being cruel? Evil lacked a convincing explanation if there were no God. For, if there were no God, then evil didn’t exist; there is simply “preferred” behaviour and “not preferred” behaviour. But clearly we do not think or act in this way. Certain behaviour is unbelievably cruel and is condemned as “wrong” for reasons that transcend utility. This behaviour and our condemnation of it remain inexplicable if we remove evil from the list of possible answers.

That none of this absolutely proves that God exists is acknowledged, but I was not seeking to absolutely prove God’s existence, I was only trying to determine the probability of God’s existence. Based on the above, therefore, I concluded that it was more probable that there is a God than that there isn’t.

For a short time after this I took the Deist position; that is that God created it all and then left it to run on its own, that He takes no personal interest in His creation. However, I soon abandoned this position as dishonest. Not only did we lack any evidence to support such an opinion, it seemed to me to be just another way of saying that there was no God, since an absent God was no different than a non-existent God. Being that God by simple definition would have to be superior to us in every way, and seeing as we condemn those who “create only to abandon” (deadbeat dads), how could it be conceivable that God would create and then abandon?

It was then that I asked the questions: If there is a God, then what is He like, has He communicated a message to His creation and if so, who has gotten it the best? In other words, “if there is a God, which God?”

[AtheistArchon]

- FS, that is a rehashed argument from design. You looked at your environment, called it "designed" instead of "via chance", and decided it must have been the work of a god.

- Your errors are commonplace:

1. First and foremost, you completely disregard evolution out of hand as being suspect in favor of divine magic.

2. The universe cannot be compared to any other universe. As such, we don't know how "well designed" it is at all.

3. The "lucky" scenario of the Earth, its atmosphere, moon, quantity of water and so on is a statistical certainty in a universe with billions of galaxies.

4. The placement of the stars? The stars are ever-moving against the tapestry of the sky; the position of Polaris was not always near-north as it is now.

5. "The universe is god" is a meaningless statement coming from a nonbeliever.

6. At the moment of the BB, there were no "natural laws".

7. Arguing from a position of ignorance (we don't know how XYZ happened, therefore it must have been god), or in other words, the god of the gaps argument, is a fallacy.

8. Intelligence, as far as we know, requires a mind, which requires a brain, which requires a body, which is mortal. Intelligence is not immaterial.

9. The hypothesis that neanderthals believed in gods or an afterlife is not evidence for any gods or an afterlife.

10. Your moral conception of humanity is twisted and perverse; you look at humanity and see only cruelty and horror (guilt, I suppose, imposed by your Christian worldview). This is demonstrably false (and it also is not evidence of any gods).

- I know, I know, "I am not using the argument from design, the anthropic fallacy, or the teleological argument!" That's what you said last time. But I'm sorry, it's exactly the argument you're using. "This can't be a coincidence!" is exactly the anthropic fallacy, FS.

- Here, read:

"The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism"

- (Sound familiar?)

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...anthropic.html

"1. It is extremely implausible that living things could have come to exist by mere chance.

2. Living things exist.

3. Therefore, probably, living things did not come to exist by mere chance.

4. If living things did not come to exist by mere chance, then living things were designed.

5. Therefore, living things were designed."

- (Sound familar?)

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...e/3_apndx.html

- Here, here is the whole big list of fine-tuning, anthropic fallacy, and argument from design variants that have been soundly debunked for a long time now... they are worth reading, FS:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sm/design.html

[FirstSunday33ad]

And your response says that is more probable God does not exist - within what we know - how?

[AtheistArchon]

And your response says that is more probable God does not exist - within what we know - how?

- My response is that there are some things we don't know about the universe. But this shouldn't be an indicator that there's a god... only that we don't know.

- In the long and sometimes difficult path I took in becoming an atheist, I did actually look at most, if not all, of these points you bring up. But most of them do have perfectly mundane answers. Either that, or we're presuming too much.

- IMO.

- Skepticism mandates that it is better to begin by disbelieving until we have sufficient evidence, rather than to begin believing until sufficient evidence proves us wrong.

[Passant]

Skepticism mandates that it is better to begin by disbelieving until we have sufficient evidence, rather than to begin believing until sufficient evidence proves us wrong.

I disagree A.A., a skeptic should suspend belief or disbelief until they have sufficient evidence. A skeptic must always be skeptical of his skepticism, I think Micheal Shermer said that.

[AtheistArchon]

I disagree A.A., a skeptic should suspend belief or disbelief until they have sufficient evidence. A skeptic must always be skeptical of his skepticism, I think Micheal Shermer said that.

- I don't believe in suspension of disbelief. (Okay, for a movie maybe, like The Matrix.)

- I'm really okay saying "I don't believe XYZ". And how exactly would someone be skeptical of their skepticism... suspend being skeptical for a day and see what happens? Nah.

[Passant]

I'm really okay saying "I don't believe XYZ". And how exactly would someone be skeptical of their skepticism... suspend being skeptical for a day and see what happens? Nah.

What he was saying, is that there's a difference between skepticism and cynicism, thats all.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 08:30 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:



- My response is that there are some things we don't know about the universe. But this shouldn't be an indicator that there's a god... only that we don't know.

- In the long and sometimes difficult path I took in becoming an atheist, I did actually look at most, if not all, of these points you bring up. But most of them do have perfectly mundane answers. Either that, or we're presuming too much.

- IMO.

- Skepticism mandates that it is better to begin by disbelieving until we have sufficient evidence, rather than to begin believing until sufficient evidence proves us wrong.

Whereas I, in the long and sometimes difficult path to Christianity did not find answers to these questions either mundane or believable - or I should more correctly say convincing enough to conclude it was more probable "God" didn't design creation.

I was too much of a sceptic to take it on faith that the answer would be found and that it would point to random chance.

You might call it "God of the Gaps" - I disagree that this is what I am describing - but it is still Gaps. Until you can say with certainty that God did NOT do this, you must allow the possiblity that He did.