|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Sarah Bellum writes:
That isn't my claim. I am only saying that it exists and that it either has an intelligent root cause or a completely non-intelligent root. Either view is subjective and can't be objectively proven. When you write "I believe that God works through the hearts of humans and I find that confirmed by the actions of people who live out lives of altruistic sacrificial love of others" you only demonstrate that you believe there are people who act in altruistic ways. That is not a demonstration of why one out to believe that there is another entity behind such people.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Good ideas do not equate with "knowing".
But I am not arguing from ignorance - I am arguing from what we do know. We do have good ideas on the origin of human morality which do not require an intelligent cause. PaulK writes: I'm not suggesting that it would help in understanding how consciousness evolved. It is about why consciousness evolved.
We don’t see any need for an intelligent cause for human intelligence or consciousness- or any way that assuming such a cause would help us understand either. PaulK writes: 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.
Who says anything about “a virtually infinite series of incredible processes” ? Evolution is well-evidenced. It shows no sign of needing intelligent guidance. Assuming intelligent involvement - based on an argument from personal incredulity - is clearly irrational. PaulK writes: 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. The question of intelligent involvement is about how it happened. The “why’ questions you now prefer seem to me to beg the question by assuming intelligent involvement somewhere along the line. They aren’t arguments for an intelligent cause at all.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Sarah Bellum writes: 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? 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?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Nosy Ned 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: 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? Intelligence can only work with existing processes. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
ringo writes: Call it whatever you like but that doesn't make any point beyond the use of words.
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?ringo writes: I am not arguing for a canned answer but simply against Stile's claim of knowledge.
That isn't really much of a question - unless you have a canned answer that you're trying to sell. ringo writes: 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.
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. ringo writes: ..and just how did the laws of mathematics become part of our existence? No, probability is not subjective. It's mathematics.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: ..you too have a predetermined position. Mine is that we are the result of intelligence and yours is that we aren't.
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. PaulK writes: My view is subjective as is yours. Here is a secular site that outlines the high degree of improbability of life forming.
And of course, you can’t substantiate your claim of “incredibly high degree of improbability”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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: 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.
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. ringo writes:
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.
'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. rGDR writes: Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there.ringo 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. That is been my point in this conversation.
Yes. Everything beyond there is subjective. GDR writes: Yes. Everything beyond there is subjective.ringo writes:
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. That's a meaningless question. The concept of "God" doesn't add anything to the answer.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: 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.
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.PaulK writes: 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Dredge writes: Excellent. Now explain how one can “walk humbly with thy God” if one doesn’t believe in God? Then explain what this means:”without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists” (Hebrews 11:6). Hers is a quote from a reading we had in church this morning from Galations 5. quote:There is nothing about having to give intellectual ascent to any specific doctrine or any doctrine at all for that matter. Let's look at this quote from the sheep and goats parable in Matthew 25. quote:Once again, nothing about believing in a specific deity. They performed these acts of loving others simply because they were responding to God's call on the hearts of all of us, and loving their neighbour as themselves. As a Christian it is my belief that the ability to give and receive love is a gift to all humanity. At the same time we all have the ability to make choices about how we use that gift. We can go from the extreme of living to a code of self love without concern for its impact on others. to living lives which are committed totally sacrificially loving others. When we perform acts of sacrificial love, we believe in, and follow God, whether we give intellectual ascent to His existence or not. IMHO, it appears to me that the atheist ringo provides a more accurate position of the Christian faith than does the Christian Dredge.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: Do you agree that if we claim to "know" something then we are making the claim that we have objective knowledge in order to make that claim. No. Read what you quoted. My only nitpick with Stile is over the use of the word "know". I'm not at all clear on what objective evidence that Stile has that you are referring to.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Sarah Bellum writes: You're putting the cart before the horse. If you think intelligence has to exist before life itself can exist (because you think life has to be "created" by an "intelligence") then you're postulating that an intelligent agency can develop out of some kind of natural origin without the need for life to exist first! Good point, but I can say the same thing for materialists who believe that we are simply the result of natural processes, driven presumably by mindless chance. We have considerable objective evidence for the evolutionary process. As a materialist I have to believe that the evolutionary process resulted from some other process. Of course that process would have required a third process and then............to the Big Bang which in itself required a process. My subjective explanation for a creative intelligence is that this creative intelligence is outside of time as we perceive it. I see it in a similar vein to the novel Flatland, where the book's characters experience existence in either 1, 2 or 3 dimensions spatially. We are like the residents of "Lineland". We only experience time on one line. I suggest that God is like a resident of "Spaceland" where there are 3 dimensions of time. In that case God could move around infinitely in time, just as we can move infinitely around in space, and therefore God exists timelessly and simply always was and always well be. That is simply my own philosophical view, with no evidence to support it, but it works for me. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: Do you agree that if we claim to "know" something then we are making the claim that we have objective knowledge in order to make that claim.ringo writes: We would agree that to for either of us to say we "know" that God doesn't exist would mean absolute knowledge. Using Stile's apparent definition I am pleased to announce that I "know" God does exist, but please, not in the way that Dredge defines Him. That would be how I would define knowledge but Stile's definition seems to be slightly broader.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: Good point, but I can say the same thing for materialists who believe that we are simply the result of natural processes, driven presumably by mindless chance. We have considerable objective evidence for the evolutionary process. As a materialist I have to believe that the evolutionary process resulted from some other process. Of course that process would have required a third process and then............to the Big Bang which in itself required a process.PaulK writes: So your response is simply to say I'm wrong but you aren't able to provide an explanation of what makes me wrong. And if you did you would be telling a falsehood. You really should stop repeating this misrepresentation.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024