I Know That God Does Not Exist

quote:

---

Good ideas do not equate with "knowing".

---

We are not talking about “knowing” - we are talking about which ideas are rationally preferable. Even if your ideas made equal sense and fit as well with the evidence - and they likely don’t - they are still far less parsimonious.

quote:

---

I'm not suggesting that it would help in understanding how consciousness evolved. It is about why consciousness evolved.

---

It’s pretty obvious that you started talking about the “how” questions, not the “why”. But the “why” questions are even less help to you.

quote:

---

Well firstly we cannot tell whether there was guidance or not, but I'm personally ok with no intervention. The question is why evolution at all. If it didn't have an intelligent root cause what is the process that allowed the evolutionary process to begin - and what was the process that kicked that process off and on and on and on.

---

Evolution is an inevitable (or close to inevitable) consequence of imperfect reproduction. There doesn’t need to be anything special to “kick it off”. And why exactly do we need an infinite regress ? It’s your ideas that call for it.

quote:

---

It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.

---

I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.

Hey I can fully agree! jar used to tell us that he was a believer yet there was no way he could justify his beliefs as rational, though he tried. He reiterated that his ideas about GOD (expressed through his belief in God) were most likely WRONG. I don't quite take that same stance. Look, I know that there is an argument against the "people of the kool aid". The Christian Charismatic "Flow" is easily recognizable. I can listen to a sermon for two minutes and discern whether the Pastor is "one of us" or not. I would claim that they are "in the Spirit" and that my discernment is in fact spiritual discernment. There are certain identifying factors. In fact, it would be a good topic spinoff.

It can't be "proven" in the same sense that I can't prove there are no unicorns on the Moon, because I haven't searched every crater. But the possibility is pretty small, no?

I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?

Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.Also you are obviously wrong if we make some judgements about the nature of unicorns. If they are at all horse like then we know the odds of unicorns on the moon are very, very, extremely, very close to zero.On the other hand the experiments we have done so far indicate that life arising through reasonable chemical processes is certainly non-zero.

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.

So can all of us. Bullshit is not hard to detect.

Intelligence can only work with existing processes.

How do you know its bullshit? Only because it doesnt line up with your standards? Your way of Biblical interpretation is the one that is way off. First of all, you assert that God is a made up concept within human minds. Then you go on to say that the stories do have value despite being mythos...and you trot out matthew 25 and proudly say that yes, yes we should give to the poor. Give till it hurts. You thus become the substitute for Gods parable in that you determine that according to humanist consensus, we should obey the character Jesus in the book. In essence what you have done is humanize the story of a Deity and substituted humans correcting humans. heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see you lobby for legislation for mandatory compulsive giving to help the poor. #Extreme Socialist My hope is that Jesus Himself will return and set you people straight along with the rest of us. Mandatory, indeed!!!!

Sure, with our human level of intelligence. The processes exist. The question is why. Are they the result of an intelligent agent or are they the result of a regression of other processes from fortuitous blind chance?Stile claims he knows that the first option is wrong therefore he is also claiming that the second option is correct. His view is every bit as subjective as mine and isn't absolute knowledge of the truth.I do claim though that my conclusion is more probable, but that again is subjective.

Because it doesn't line up with any standards of reality or logic. That's an empty claim. Back it up or withdraw it. And you know damn well it is. You yourself are the first to say that Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are made up. And why wouldn't they? We know that's true because we are social animals. Yes, the Jesus character understood that we are social animals. And? There's no need to "substitute" anything. We can understand what it means to be social animals without spackling on a "God" layer. We already have that. It's called taxation. They had it in the Old testament. It was called tithing. 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.

Exactly. The only level of intelligence there is. If you're claiming that some entity has something "beyond intelligence", don't call it intelligence. Why not just call it magic? That isn't really much of a question - unless you have a canned answer that you're trying to sell. Of course there is no such thing as "absolute knowledge" - but no, Stile's view is not as subjective as yours. His view is based on what we objectively know. No, probability is not subjective. It's mathematics.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.And of course, you can’t substantiate your claim of “incredibly high degree of improbability”

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?

Call it whatever you like but that doesn't make any point beyond the use of words. I am not arguing for a canned answer but simply against Stile's claim of knowledge. Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there. Essentially, I don't mean to put words in his keyboard, but we have learned a great deal about the evolutionary process, and then he claims that this proves that there is no intelligent agency without showing how evolution itself came into existence. ..and just how did the laws of mathematics become part of our existence?