Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 871 of 3207 (856304)
06-29-2019 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 868 by PaulK
06-29-2019 12:21 PM


Re: chances
PaulK writes:
I would think that an intelligent cause would be far less likely. And your own arguments would tend to suggest that you should have an even lower estimate. But of course this is all rationalisation intended to support a predetermined conclusion.
..you too have a predetermined position. Mine is that we are the result of intelligence and yours is that we aren't.
PaulK writes:
And of course, you can’t substantiate your claim of “incredibly high degree of improbability”
My view is subjective as is yours. Here is a secular site that outlines the high degree of improbability of life forming.
Odds of life emerging]

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 868 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 12:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 1:33 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 872 of 3207 (856306)
06-29-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 870 by GDR
06-29-2019 1:10 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
Call it whatever you like but that doesn't make any point beyond the use of words.
Well, it does. It throws the whole idea of intelligence out the window because intelligence is not what you're talking about. You're reducing the idea to something completely made up.
GDR writes:
I am not arguing for a canned answer but simply against Stile's claim of knowledge.
I'm saying that the people who ask "why the processes exist" tend to be people who (think they) already know the answer. The rest of us have enough to do trying to understand the processes.
GDR writes:
Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there.
Yes. Everything beyond there is subjective.
GDR writes:
..and just how did the laws of mathematics become part of our existence?
That's a meaningless question. The concept of "God" doesn't add anything to the answer.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 1:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 5:37 PM ringo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 873 of 3207 (856309)
06-29-2019 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by GDR
06-29-2019 1:20 PM


Re: chances
quote:
..you too have a predetermined position. Mine is that we are the result of intelligence and yours is that we aren't.
The difference is that I am not the one indulging in obvious rationalisation. You are assuming your idea as the default, immune to examination or criticism. I am not.
quote:
My view is subjective as is yours. Here is a secular site that outlines the high degree of improbability of life forming.
Odds of life emerging]

And yet more rationalisation. For a start you were talking about the probability of the processes that lead to life. If those processes have a poor chance of working - which is what your new claim amounts to - why assume they had an intelligent cause.
Moreover the page does not outline the probability at all.
"To really put numbers on those, to think very specifically about a lot of the factors in their equation, will require a lot more knowledge about exoplanets than we have now," Turner said. "We may be decades off from being able to talk about things like the total mass of building blocks on a planet's surface and things like that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 1:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 3:50 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 883 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 6:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 874 of 3207 (856320)
06-29-2019 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by jar
06-29-2019 12:53 PM


Above All Else
GDR writes:
I'm not saying that the processes can't have produced life. What I am claiming is the incredibly high degree of improbability that the processes themselves existed without an intelligent cause.
PaulK writes:
I would think that an intelligent cause would be far less likely. And your own arguments would tend to suggest that you should have an even lower estimate. But of course this is all rationalisation intended to support a predetermined conclusion.
The default position, in regards to "intelligence" is that humans are the most intelligent creatures, beings, or living cognizant beings thus far in the universe. Right or Wrong?
PaulK writes:
And of course, you can’t substantiate your claim of “incredibly high degree of improbability”
No, he can't. And yet the claim is out there. Does anyone have an argument that refutes it? After all...the concept of Intelligent Design makes more sense to me than random chance. The only valid criticism of Intelligent Design is that it fronts for Creationism...but again whats so silly about the idea of a Creator?
jar writes:
Remember Phat, the Bible itself describes man, plain old human type man, correcting God. We've been over this more then once IIRC.
The Bible itself describes God as unsure, insecure, frightened by the prospects of plain old humans, unable to defeat a plain old human even by using deceit and trickery...
Why do you insist on placing the God YOU create above the God other folk create?
Because that's where God belongs. Above human wisdom and intelligence. It wouldn't really make much sense to have a bumbling learning on the job Creator of all seen and unseen now would it?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by jar, posted 06-29-2019 12:53 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 4:09 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 875 of 3207 (856322)
06-29-2019 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Stile
10-11-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Irrational is not useless or even negative
jar writes:
I happen to believe otherwise but certainly realize that my beliefs are unreasonable, irrational and illogical.
That's the jar I know! Realizing that at best, understanding the Creator of all seen and unseen is a crapshoot at best. The apologists claim that we can know Him by His Word, however. And yet you found that bumbling unsure character when you looked. Why didn't the rest of them find that?
Stile writes:
I think that irrational ideas have a very important place in life. Even a small place in the expansion of knowledge (it has the possibility to lead curiosity into areas where rationality may not venture). I just don't think they have a place in saying whether or not we "know" things. I tend to assume that when someone brings up knowing something that they are talking as rationally as possible.
I suppose that to be fair, even a believer should be unafraid to approach some of these questions honestly and with a humble attitude that essentially says "No. No, I don't know for sure."

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 10-11-2012 1:55 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by Stile, posted 07-02-2019 9:59 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 876 of 3207 (856324)
06-29-2019 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by PaulK
06-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: chances
PaulK,responding to GDR writes:
The difference is that I am not the one indulging in obvious rationalisation. You are assuming your idea as the default, immune to examination or criticism. I am not.
It is interesting that some of my internet friends have accused me of the same thing that you point out that GDR does. I tentatively would conclude that it is more important for us as Christians to be right. To be absolutely certain that what we believe is valid. We are not mere scientists with critical thinking, throwing one God away and adopting another. I for one want my search for the Truth to be the Truth I believe in. It would be extremely cognitively dissonant to find another truth as the conclusion.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 4:11 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 877 of 3207 (856327)
06-29-2019 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 866 by ringo
06-29-2019 12:14 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
ringo writes:
Stop being such an asshole. You're turning into faith.
I'm pointing out what Jesus fucking told you to do! You're spitting in His face.
Not that I need to justify anything to anyone...but I give enough. Jesus did not command everyone to give all they have. Zaccheus got away with giving part away..and I feel I should also. I need to retire, after all. Do you have room on your couch for me? This essentially sums up Biblical admonitions concerning giving:
2 Cor 8:13-15 writes:
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack -- that there may be equality. 15 As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack." NKJV
My only nitpick is what is meant by "left over"? Can I not have a bank account so that when I stop working some day I can still pay the rent?
Faith and I are different yet similar. Both of us think we are smarter than the rest of you in regards to Theology. She thinks that God essentially did this to science:
1 Cor 1:18-22 writes:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
NKJV
She goes on to tear apart secular science---something I wouldn't do except in regards to the existence and reality of God and Jesus in particular---living eternally today.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 12:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 5:28 PM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 878 of 3207 (856328)
06-29-2019 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 874 by Phat
06-29-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Above All Else
quote:
The default position, in regards to "intelligence" is that humans are the most intelligent creatures, beings, or living cognizant beings thus far in the universe. Right or Wrong?
I don’t think that there is a default. Humans are the most intelligent that we know of. But we don’t know almost nothing about life elsewhere in the universe. Odds are that there’s someone smarter than us out there.
quote:
No, he can't. And yet the claim is out there. Does anyone have an argument that refutes it? After all...the concept of Intelligent Design makes more sense to me than random chance. The only valid criticism of Intelligent Design is that it fronts for Creationism...but again whats so silly about the idea of a Creator?
The silly thing is that there is no good argument that a Creator is necessary, nor any good independent evidence of any potential Creator. Accordingly the argument that a Creator better explains even the existence of life is clearly wrong.
Remember that I am refuting GDR’s argument that his position is the rational one. And he’s being very helpful there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 3:41 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 879 of 3207 (856329)
06-29-2019 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Phat
06-29-2019 3:50 PM


Re: chances
quote:
It is interesting that some of my internet friends have accused me of the same thing that you point out that GDR does. I tentatively would conclude that it is more important for us as Christians to be right. To be absolutely certain that what we believe is valid.
No, it is not important for you to be right. It is important for you to shore up your belief that you are right. And you are quite prepared to be wrong if that is what it takes. That’s what makes it rationalisation and not rationality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 3:50 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 880 of 3207 (856337)
06-29-2019 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by Phat
06-29-2019 4:03 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Phat writes:
Not that I need to justify anything to anyone...but I give enough.
I didn't say a word about you not giving enough. I asked you not to call call me an "extreme socialist". Learn what the word means.
Phat writes:
Jesus did not command everyone to give all they have.
We have only your self-serving word on that. The Church in Rome disagreed with you. (See Ananias and Sapphira.)
Phat writes:
Zaccheus got away with giving part away..
The gospel of Luke says that Zaccheus offered half. It doesn't say he got away with it.
Phat writes:
My only nitpick is what is meant by "left over"?
Well, you quoted it:
quote:
"He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack."
What part of "nothing left over" is confusing to you?
And:
quote:
"... now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack -- that there may be equality."
sounds a lot like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," doesn't it?
Phat writes:
Faith and I are different yet similar. Both of us think we are smarter than the rest of you in regards to Theology.
And both of you prove you're not. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Phat writes:
She goes on to tear apart secular science---something I wouldn't do except in regards to the existence and reality of God and Jesus in particular---living eternally today.
That's kinda like throwing away only one wheel on your car. It has the same effect as throwing all of them away.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 06-29-2019 4:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 881 of 3207 (856338)
06-29-2019 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by ringo
06-29-2019 1:23 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:
Well, it does. It throws the whole idea of intelligence out the window because intelligence is not what you're talking about. You're reducing the idea to something completely made up.
It's all made up. The view that we are all the result of a series of mindless processes is just as made up as is the idea that the processes had an intelligent root.
ringo writes:
'm saying that the people who ask "why the processes exist" tend to be people who (think they) already know the answer. The rest of us have enough to do trying to understand the processes.
Understanding "why" the processes exist is an entirely different question than actually understanding the processes. Yes, I have my beliefs about the fundamental nature of the intelligence but that has nothing to do with it. What we are talking about is an intelligent root to creation which includes everything from deism to any fundamentalist religious belief.
rGDR writes:
Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there.
ringo writes:
Yes. Everything beyond there is subjective.
It seems we have reached an agreement. Stile's views and my views are both subjective and neither one of us "know" that we are correct. That is been my point in this conversation.
GDR writes:
Yes. Everything beyond there is subjective.
ringo writes:
That's a meaningless question. The concept of "God" doesn't add anything to the answer.
It depends on the question you are asking. Adding God as a cause does not add, or subtract, from the discovering or learning the math involved in our existence.If you are asking why the symmetry and logic behind math principles, we can then subjectively conclude either an intelligent root or a mindless one.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 1:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 882 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 5:48 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 882 of 3207 (856339)
06-29-2019 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 881 by GDR
06-29-2019 5:37 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
The view that we are all the result of a series of mindless processes is just as made up as is the idea that the processes had an intelligent root.
Nonsense. It's as objective as anything we know.
GDR writes:
Understanding "why" the processes exist is an entirely different question than actually understanding the processes.
I agree - and it's an unimportant question.
GDR writes:
It seems we have reached an agreement. Stile's views and my views are both subjective and neither one of us "know" that we are correct.
No we have not. I'm saying that Stile's position is objective and yours is not. My only disagreement with Stile is over the use of the word "know". I make more of a distinction between not knowing it's true and knowing it's false.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 5:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 6:09 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 883 of 3207 (856340)
06-29-2019 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by PaulK
06-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: chances
PaulK writes:
The difference is that I am not the one indulging in obvious rationalisation. You are assuming your idea as the default, immune to examination or criticism. I am not.
No I am not. I agree that my view is subjective and is not absolute knowledge as Stile claims his views are. I am fairly sure that we don't disagree on the stuff that you know. Our differences are in the stuff that we don't know but have subjective views on.
PaulK writes:
And yet more rationalisation. For a start you were talking about the probability of the processes that lead to life. If those processes have a poor chance of working - which is what your new claim amounts to - why assume they had an intelligent cause.
I did kind a allow myself to get dragged off topic but, the fact remains that the improbability of life, IMHO, is more easily rationalized by assuming an external intelligence, (Which I agree does set up a new set of questions), than does natural processes driven by chance.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2019 4:37 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 884 of 3207 (856341)
06-29-2019 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 882 by ringo
06-29-2019 5:48 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:
No we have not. I'm saying that Stile's position is objective and yours is not. My only disagreement with Stile is over the use of the word "know". I make more of a distinction between not knowing it's true and knowing it's false.
Stile's claim is that he "knows" God does not exist. That claim means that he believes his views are objective, and he attempts to give an objective rationale for his statement. It seems to me that we agree that he has failed to do so.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 882 by ringo, posted 06-29-2019 5:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by ringo, posted 06-30-2019 2:24 PM GDR has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 885 of 3207 (856353)
06-30-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by Theodoric
06-23-2019 9:47 AM


Re: Topic Summary According to Thugzy
Theodoric writes:
There was no christian “peace effect”.
Denial won’t help you. Christianity brought peace and civility to a multitude of warring, barbaric tribes that were - for example: headhunter/cannibal tribes in the South Pacific, the Vikings in Scandinavia, the Vandals in Germany . and I haven’t even mentioned Africa, the Asian sub-continent, Australian and South America yet.
“Fifty years later, ”Peace Child’ tribe still following Christ” Fifty years later, 'Peace Child' tribe still following Christ - Mission Network News
”Historically, the Marind-anim in New Guinea were famed because of their headhunting.[7] The practice was rooted in their belief system and linked to the name-giving of the newborn.[8] The skull was believed to contain a mana-like force.[9] Headhunting was not motivated primarily by cannibalism, but the dead person's flesh was consumed in ceremonies following the capture and killing.
The Korowai, a Papuan tribe in the southeast of Irian Jaya, live in tree houses, some nearly 40 metres high. This is believed to be a defensive practice, presumably as protection against the Citak, a tribe of neighbouring headhunters.” Wikipedia, “Headhunting”.
Try reading “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Dr. Thomas Woods.
Examples please
Positives of British rule of India
What are the good things done by the British to India and Indians during the British Raj? Such as social reforms, science and technology, infrastructure, and human resources development? - Quora
Are you familiar with Monty Python’s famous “What have the Romans ever done for us?” scene from their film, The Life of Brian?
montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/10.htm
Explains the luck of Europe in that time period.
It had nothing to do with “luck”. God’s use of colonization to spread the gospel started thousands of years ago, beginning when Constantine became a Catholic, who then used the Roman Empire to spead the gospel and expand the Church.
The death of the colonial era was not brought about by communism.
Many (probably most) anti-colonial, anti-white struggles were strongly linked to or influenced by Communism/Marxism. Nelson Mandela, for example, was a card-carrying Communist who was involved in violence actions against the SA colonialist government. His political party, the ANC, is an amalgam of three parties, one of them being the South African Communist Party. One of your revered saints, Che Guevara, spent time in Angola (along with other Communist Cubans sent by Fidel Castro) helping black Communists there violently overthrown the colonial government. The war of independence fought in Zimbabwe was waged by Communist-backed rebels against the Colonial government (incidentally, when Zimbabwe was controlled by the Christian White Colonialists, it was a very stable and wealthy country known as the “bread basket of Africa”, as its very productive farms helped feed other African nations. Since the Whites were overthrown by the black Communists, Zimbabwe has descended into a third-world basket-case of corruption, violence, authoritarianism, poverty and even famine). African Communists were supported and funded by white Communists and Marxists from other parts of the world, who also initiated the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Theodoric, posted 06-23-2019 9:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024