Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Yep! That's it in a nutshell.
Tried to get in touch with you, but could not navigate user unfriendly software!
@Gabriel
"Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world? If so, then what from reality and experience gives us these properties?"
Let me paraphrase your question. Have you ever seen patterns, shapes, faces in clouds, on toast, or in oil stains on a garage floor?
People are always finding images of Jesus in cheeseburgers and Mother Teresa in mold patches. We humans are primed to see patterns and meaning everywhere. We need patterns and meaning. But that doesn't necessarily make them real. We ignore all the chaos in the world and just focus on the patterns. We are fascinated by the patterns left in sand by the outgoing tide, but the random placement of pebbles on the same beach doesn't interest us at all.
The so-called "fine-tuning" of the universe seems mysterious. We won't solve that mystery by layering another mystery, god, on top of it. And of course, if the forces of nature were different, we wouldn't be here talking about them or inventing deities to explain them. This is probably just one of infinite iterations of the universe. We evolved because conditions were just right in this iteration.
I think a roomful of monkeys would eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. They've already produced the Bible.
Gabriel,
I thought I'd continue pointing out places in your replies that are confusing, incomplete, or need better support.
Gabriel's reply with Greensnakes notes [ ].
@mykcob4
You're a real classy guy. And your ability to not control yourself is in full view. Hate to be married to you. And I haven't violated any of the rules. If you don't like this discussion then you can move on to a different forum. You don't have to be on this one. [I think Mykcob4 would wholeheartedly agree that being married to you would be a bad idea.]
@Pragmatic
Let's simplify this. Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world? If so, then what from reality and experience gives us these properties? [#1 If no answer is available, is that an argument for your conclusion? If you answer "yes," then aren't you guilty of the God-of-the-Gaps error? I see no argument that a true dichotomy exists here.] If not, then explain what these properties are and how they came about? [#2 If we disagree that there is fine-tuning in the natural world, why would we be explaining why it came about?] I've offered a suggestion, yet you haven't. [#3 If some of us have offered alternatives, then why is it necessary for Pragmatic to do so, assuming he hasn't? Perhaps he feels that he doesn't have the scientific qualifications for such speculation. #4 Isn't that the responsible position to take? Perhaps you should take that position as well before trying to refute much of science!] Why and how do cells behave the way they do? Why and how does organic matter function the way it does? [#5 If we don't have an answer, does that in any way advance your own answer? If you say "yes," aren't you guilty of the God-of-the-Gaps error? Perhaps you should look that error up.] Why and how does organic matter work synergistically throughout the universe? [#6 Does it? Can you give us 3 good examples to clarify your thinking here?] If you deny the existence of an eternal Mind [#7 On what grounds do you assume such a thing is possible? Is it even a meaningful concept? Can you define "eternal mind" for us? It seems that a whole discussion has been omitted here!], you have to be able to prove that matter (on its own) contains the wherewithal to function orderly and intelligently. Let's hear it. [#8 Isn't this the God-of-the-Gaps error once again? Aren't you assuming that there is no answer, not now, not in 1000 years, and that you can plug your answer in without supporting evidence because there is a true dichotomy? I see no true dichotomy here! Perhaps you should look that error up and memorize it!]
And, once again, while I am making a claim, I've also said that the claim is a suggestion, postulation, and inference based on deductive reasoning - from the known to the unknown. [#9 Doesn't the known begin with the laws of nature? #10 Aren't you really advancing on the basis of inductive reasoning? #11 Can you summarize the purpose of this forum topic for us? Doesn't that require a proof of some kind on your part? #12 Can mere suggestion or postulation fulfill your obligation here?] The only thing I have asked of you is, give me another possible and believable conclusion. [#13 Under this forum topic isn't it your job to prove your case? Why are we required to come up with alternatives?] I have no where advocated for the existence of God with anecdotal information, yet advocated for the existence of God through logical necessity based on what the processes of nature reveal. [#14 Do you have any expertise with respect to what "dead" matter is capable of? We don't find your conclusion to be sound.] ****And I am not forcing my conclusion on you [#15 Don't you mean not aggressively pursuing your argument? I don't see how one can force a conclusion on anyone.], rather I am suggesting the conclusion I came up with because of the workings of nature. [#16 Under this forum topic aren't we entitled to more than a mere suggestion? Aren't you supposed to prove your case? Isn't that what Mykcob4 asked for?] Now, if you are countering my conclusion, what is the alternative suggestion, which you have yet to give. [#17 Why are we required to give alternative solutions? Aren't you supposed to prove your case according to the topic of this forum? #18 Didn't I give you at least two alternative solutions?] Atheists are so concerned with evidence and logic [I wish you were more concerned as well.], where is your proof to disprove my rational? [#19 What do you mean by "proof?" #20 Once again, why are we required to disprove your conclusion? It's your job here to make your case. It's not our job to refute it.] I've always said that this discussion is a logical inference one, not a provide you physical evidence of a Creator, because as I noted, you can't give physical evidence to an entity (from my perspective) that is invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal. [#21 Is this an admission that you have no evidence for a creator? No evidence, no argument about the real world! It seems that your whole case rests on the God-of-the-Gaps error!] No matter what you say, I am the one that has answered your questions, you haven't. [#22 Haven't you ignored many of my points? I assume we have a multifaceted discussion here. It seems that only a fraction of my points has been addressed in any serious manner.]
Gabriel - "Is there order, intelligence, and fine-tuning in the natural world? If so, then what from reality and experience gives us these properties? If not, then explain what these properties are and how they came about?"
Notice that both branches of this conditions (your if question) lead to the truthfulness of the conditional. So it isn't a conditional at all. You are just begging the question.
More concretely: You ask if X is part of the natural world. If so; you ask where X came from. If not; you ask where X came from again! You aren't really considering that X is not part of the natural world, since both outcomes assert that it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Gentlemen,
I understand your points. I really do. But you have to divorce presuppositions of false religious talking points when discussing cosmology with me. I don't hold to (and for that matter, the Bible doesn't teach) that God reveals Himself in supernatural, mystical, or feelings based ways. I am only advocating that we follow the natural processes (i.e., nature) to its logical end. I agree that purely natural processes through randomness can give us order and shape, but that still doesn't negate cosomology talk. We have to be able to look at what we have (organic matter), study and investigate it, and then come to logical conclusion as to its origin. And the reason this discussion is paramount is because it has much to do with how we live our lives. In other words, if we are mere products of organic material, then the tough questions to answer are: How did mind/intellect evolve? How did language evolve? And, how do we establish a moral and ethical system? If we're merely random star dust, then these questions become extremely and even impossible to answer, because subjectivism becomes our god. But if we follow reality and experience, we learn from our world that we were created from the process of procreation and that we are born into a world that boasts tremendous intelligent design and order. Therefore, when we use these facts, when are left with the logical conclusion that Someone or Something was responsible for my existence, namely the process of mind/intellect. The very fact that we are thinking and rational individuals should show that we were given this attribute, it did not simply evolve randomly. And when we acknowledge this, then we come to the conclusion of a Creator and objectivity, meaning we live and move according to His fiats and dictates, not how we feel and think.
Gentlemen, if Mr. Pragmatic isn't going to give an alternative conclusion, then why is he arguing. If you cite that you don't know then what makes my conclusion untenable. That's hypocritical! If you don't know then what gives you the right to say that my conclusion is wrong. At least I am positing something for people to consider, and yet no one has offered why an Eternal Mind, invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal can't be responsible for our world. Once again, give something in contrast to negate my offered conclusion.
And finally, what's funny in all of this is, rational minds are trying to determine the inner workings of organic matter and giving it its sense and purpose. Don't you all see the irony in this? Mind and rationality govern all things!
@Gabreil
Again you fail to answer the basic question. "How did you arrive at this idea that everything in nature is ordered? AND..."How do you jump to a conclusion that that order is created by a god?"
Pragmatic can't and won't offer an alternate conclusion because he won't jump to a conclusion. He won't jump to a conclusion because there is nothing whatsoever in any of your post that lends itself to come to a conclusion.
You asked, "How did mind/intellect evolve?"
It evolved out of need over millenniums.
"How did language evolve?"
Again, for the same reason and the same process...evolution.
" how do we establish a moral and ethical system?"
We are a social creature and morals come from society, not any god.
You say, "if we follow reality and experience, we learn from our world that we were created from the process of procreation and that we are born into a world that boasts tremendous intelligent design and order"
That is a false statement. We don't come from intelligent design. At least there is no proof of that. There is where you make your big mistake. You have to prove that there is a god and that that god used intelligent design to create us. You haven't satisfied that important requirement. You just assumed intelligent design to be true, and furthermore jump to the conclusion that a god produced that design.
So hence the fallacy of your arguement is glaringly evident to the most casual observer.
Instead of backing your claims with proof, you just keep posting more unsubstantiated claims!
Gabriel,
I've tried to pinpoint places in your posts that make them confusing, incomplete, or in need of clarification. Rather than going back and addressing some of these problems, you just continue to make the same mistakes over and over! The following post is a good example.
Gabriel (with Greensnake's notes [ ])
Gentlemen,
I understand your points. I really do. [#C1 Really? Convince us by fully addressing our better points.] But you have to divorce presuppositions of false religious talking points when discussing cosmology with me. I don't hold to (and for that matter, the Bible doesn't teach) that God reveals Himself in supernatural, mystical, or feelings based ways. [#C2 Have you carefully read your Bible? I credit you with a degree of good sense for not finding Jesus on taco shells or in the obscure, little oddities of life. But, you are not quite right about the Bible. Remember those magic dice-sticks used by the ancient Hebrews? How about Joseph's dream about ears of grain in the Bible? Are not dreams one of the mystical ways that God used to communicate?] I am only advocating that we follow the natural processes (i.e., nature) to its logical end. I agree that purely natural processes through randomness can give us order and shape, but that still doesn't negate cosomology talk. We have to be able to look at what we have (organic matter), study and investigate it, and then come to logical conclusion as to its origin. [#C3 Don't we already know its origin? Organic matter today is produced by living forms and, in some cases, by inorganic chemistry. Given that vitalism has failed every test, and that a greatly increased knowledge of organic chemistry (especially from abiogenesis) is at hand, and that the fossil record suggests as much, a reasonable conclusion is that organic matter first arose from inorganic matter (even on Titan!) and eventually produced on earth molecules that could support life at the most rudimentary level.] And the reason this discussion is paramount is because it has much to do with how we live our lives. [#C4 Really? Why wouldn't rational, good people continue living as they do now?] In other words, if we are mere products of organic material, then the tough questions to answer are: How did mind/intellect evolve? [#C5 Are you saying that these questions will not be answered, not even in a 1000 years? Does a chimp possess a mind? If you knew more about them you would be amazed at how many "barriers" between chimps and humans have fallen. Did God give chimps minds and souls? Chimps even have some understanding of morality and fair play! We could work backwards by degrees, showing how the mind might have evolved over time.] How did language evolve? [#C6 You haven't heard? To a remarkable degree the evolution of language has actually been mapped out! Why language evolves may have its subtle side but it is reasonably transparent.] And, how do we establish a moral and ethical system? [#C7 How do the more intelligent animals establish their moral systems?] If we're merely random star dust, then these questions become extremely and even impossible to answer, because subjectivism becomes our god. [#C8 Are you saying that without God such questions are impossible to answer, even in the next 1000 years? If so, where do you get your crystal ball, given that you have no expertise here? I think we have made tremendous progress, and the rest seems to be just a matter of time. "God" was never a serious explanation for anything, including moral and ethical systems.] But if we follow reality and experience, we learn from our world that we were created from the process of procreation and that we are born into a world that boasts tremendous intelligent design and order. [#C9 Are you saying that this "design" could not be due to evolution and/or natural laws over time? Can you give us an iron-clad example?] Therefore, when we use these facts, when are left with the logical conclusion that Someone or Something was responsible for my existence, namely the process of mind/intellect. [#C10 What did you have in mind when you used "Something" which you capitalized? Is that another name for God? Does your conclusion really follow given that you haven't addressed the above holes?] The very fact that we are thinking and rational individuals should show that we were given this attribute, it did not simply evolve randomly. [#C11 Is this a rational argument? It certainly doesn't look like one to me! Aren't you creating a straw man when you suggest that the alternative is "random" evolution?] And when we acknowledge this [#C12 Given the above, are we forced to acknowledge this?], then we come to the conclusion of a Creator and objectivity, meaning we live and move according to His fiats and dictates, not how we feel and think. [#C13 Really? Based on the above notes, I think you have gone off the tracks!]
Gentlemen, if Mr. Pragmatic isn't going to give an alternative conclusion, then why is he arguing. [#C14 Haven't you YET reviewed the original topic post or my recent notes concerning your posts? You will find the answer to your question. It's not his job to present alternative models! Above and beyond that, The Pragmatic feels that it would be irresponsible to wade into an area where he has no expertise. Didn't he say as much? Where have you been all this time? You should emulate his good sense and avoid posting these far-reaching conclusions on matters you know nothing about! If you want alternative models, why do you ignore those suggested by myself?] If you cite that you don't know then what makes my conclusion untenable. [#C15 What makes your conclusion tenable in light of the above notes? That's the question.] That's hypocritical! If you don't know then what gives you the right to say that my conclusion is wrong. [#C16 Elementary reasoning my dear fellow! Discovering errors in your reasoning does not require a knowledge of alternate models!] At least I am positing something for people to consider [Are you? It looks to me more like a story line from mythology. Stories can be true or false, but they are not explanations.], and yet no one has offered why an Eternal Mind, invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal can't be responsible for our world. [#C17 Has anyone offered to prove that the Great Green Spider (now living in Jupiter's clouds) could not use its magical powers to create our world? Is such a proof necessary?] Once again, give something in contrast to negate my offered conclusion. [#C18 Is this another request for alternative models? Try mine!! Please!]
And finally, what's funny in all of this is, rational minds are trying to determine the inner workings of organic matter and giving it its sense and purpose. [#C19 Really? Can you tell us how they give organic matter its sense and purpose? I didn't know that matter had a purpose.] Don't you all see the irony in this? Mind and rationality govern all things!
@Gabriel
You keep telling us it's a fact that the world is ordered (and that this demands an explanations). Why don't you tell us more about why you think it is ordered? What exactly do you mean by ordered? Is being ordered a binary property? If not what units to do you measure it in?
@ Gabriel
"I understand your points. I really do."
Promising beginning, but unfortunately the rest of your post shows that you clearly haven't understood at all. Sadly, I can't help but suspect willful ignorance.
"If you cite that you don't know then what makes my conclusion untenable. That's hypocritical!"
It's very very simple: You don't know either.
Saying that I don't know, isn't hypocritical.
Saying that you can't know either, isn't hypocritical.
Recognizing that your assumptions are unknowable assumptions, isn't hypocritical.
Let's just look at your closing sentence:
- "Mind and rationality govern all things!"
You are making a knowledge claim here. And it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can not now, what you are claiming. And you don't explain what you actually mean by this phrase.
If you do maintain that you actually know this, please just explain how you have come to this knowledge? Did you use a specific method?
Gentlemen,
The word "ordered" is defined as having systematic arrangement especially having elements succeeding in order according to a rule. When you dissect the natural processes it evinces this definition. Everything works according to rules, thus the reason why things in nature function. List something in nature that doesn't function according to rule. Hence, we have the rules of physics, the rules of mathematics, the rules of ethics and morality, et. al. Are you all then saying there is no order within nature? Then if there is no order, what did you call it then? If you change its definition, how can we know anything then? Anyone can just make up there own definitions of what order and intelligence is. How can we know a circle is a circle, or for that matter, two plus two equals four?
And once again, listen carefully and thoughtfully, I am advocating for a position of logical necessity for Creator; I haven't proven a God in any other way. What do you have to offer as a contra position?
Well, I guess with your position, a homicide dective can never come to a logical conclusion of things because he can't engage in deductive reasoning, which I'm am trying to explain to you all.
@ Gabriel
1) Everything in nature does not act within rules. Subatomic particles for one defy laws of physics.
2)"Rules" are what we invented to describe things that we have discovered. Thus the rules came after the natural thing.
3) You are STILL jumping to a conclusion based on an assumption.
There is NO need for a creator proven by Stephen Hawking and confirmed by peer review and independent testing.
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/
Gabriel - "The word "o̲r̲d̲e̲r̲ed" is defined as having systematic arrangement especially having elements succeeding in o̲r̲d̲e̲r̲ according to a rule."
Notice you are using the word order in the definition of the word order(ed).
/e I will have to admit to your amazing consistency: that you manage to engage in begging the question on seemingly every post.
I didn't even catch that. That is a bit like saying that "faith is defined by having faith in something".
@ Gabriel
"I guess with your position, a homicide dective can never come to a logical conclusion of things because he can't engage in deductive reasoning"
Sure he can. But...
- a homicide detective isn't allowed to grab made up premises out of thin air.
- a homicide detective isn't allowed to just avoid showing how he came about his premises and conclusions.
EDITED TO ADD:
And even more importantly:
- if the homicide detective doesn't know, he would be extremely unethical and dishonest to just make something up.
I will echo myk: There is no need, logical or otherwise, for a creator to exist.
And, because there is no need, your "logic" (and your conclusions) fall apart like glass dashed against a rock face.
Wow!! Gentlemen, are you all really listening to yourselves comment. You all are arguing that we can't know anything, which makes you agnostic at best. And if we can't know anything, then WHY ON EARTH are you even commenting on this subject. Yet you want me to accept your "logical conclusion" that there is no definite definition or understanding of order, rules, intelligent design, and fine tuning of this universe, we are here simply because of eternal organic matter that moves in a random way. But just as you want me to prove an eternal God, I want proof of eternal matter, or for that matter anything else you all postulate. Don't be hypocrites, let's hear your evidence. Furthermore, it's funny that scientists and physicists study the properties of matter to find how it evolved, but here is the newsflash, how can they determine this when they were never there in the beginning to witness it? So just like they are attempting to deduce backwards and you all fawn over their theories and conclusions and you won't question how their conclusions, but once someone beings to also logically deduce that order, intelligence, design, and fine-tuning implies a MIND to have created it, you all throw a fit. Why don't you question Hawkings, Dawkins, and others to prove their conclusions, such as Lawrence Krauss who says that in the beginning was an unknown substance called Nothing which gave rise to Something. And you all accept that line of reasoning hook, line, and sinker. These men are not the end all be all to this discussion, because as I noted in another post a while ago, no one has ever been present in the beginning and we all are working back from the properties of nature. And the reason there is a big movement against the concept of an Eternal God/ Mind is because of the presupposition you have over FALSE IDEAS FROM FALSE RELIGIONS. These false religions have said inane things which are against logic and common sense, and have no validity in the Bible.
A homicide detective follows clues to its logical end. I'm doing the same. And I am not adding or forcing a conclusion that isn't warranted by the properties of nature. I'm not pulling out of the air some concept that is difficult to accept or that doesn't fit reality. You all are rewriting definitions and concepts to fit in with your god of matter. When I see a car, I deduce a carmaker. When I see a watch, I deduce a watchmaker. When a see a house, a deduce a house builder. And when I look at nature with all of its properties, I deduce a MIND, not matter, to have been responsible for it. Why MIND, and not matter? Because organic matter teaches us that it was crafted and made by its properties of decay. All things die and therefore, if that is the case, then I deduce logically that someone or something made matter. What is wrong in suggesting this?
I will try ONCE more.
"You all are arguing that we can't know anything, which makes you agnostic at best."
When have we said that?
"we are here simply because of eternal organic matter that moves in a random way."
"Eternal Organic Matter" is both erroneous and an oxymoron.
"but here is the newsflash, how can they determine this when they were never there in the beginning to witness it?"
So you mean to tell me that, if I look at a photo, I can't know what the photo is about, because I wasn't there to witness the taking firsthand? Ridiculous.
"beginning was an unknown substance called Nothing which gave rise to Something."
A: Nothing is just that: nothing. Therefore, it is not a substance.
B: That's a hell of a lot more plausible than your "mind".
"presupposition you have over FALSE IDEAS FROM FALSE RELIGIONS. These false religions have said inane things which are against logic and common sense, and have no validity in the Bible."
All religions are "false". Nothing is special about you that makes you right.
"A homicide detective follows clues to its logical end. I'm doing the same. "
Logic and religion never go hand in hand.
"I'm not pulling out of the air some concept that is difficult to accept or that doesn't fit reality"
There is no way to make a god fit in with reality.
"You all are rewriting definitions and concepts to fit in with your god of matter"
No, we are giving you the actual definitions as defined by a DICTIONARY.
"Because organic matter teaches us that it was crafted and made by its properties of decay. All things die and therefore, if that is the case, then I deduce logically that someone or something made matter. What is wrong in suggesting this?"
There is nothing that inherently connects death to a god. That is jumping to a conclusion, taken Up To Eleven.
Gabriel,
Still avoiding me? How can any of us have a useful dialogue with you when your material is a mixed conglomerate of poorly expressed thoughts that, at numerous places, are incomplete, confusing, or lacking in any kind of support? As this latest analysis shows, you are going around in a circle with no apparent concern for improving your posts.
Gabriel's response (with Greensnake's notes [ ])
Wow!! Gentlemen, are you all really listening to yourselves comment. You all are arguing that we can't know anything [#D1 Really? Is anyone saying we don't know ANYTHING? The statements I hear are much more limited. I think it's a sign of honesty to admit that we don't know what preceded the Big Bang.], which makes you agnostic at best. [#D2 How do you reach that conclusion?] And if we can't know anything [We do know something.], then WHY ON EARTH are you even commenting on this subject. [#D3 Hasn't the answer been given to you already? Check my last several posts! We're commenting on you inane conclusion.] Yet you want me to accept your "logical conclusion" that there is no definite definition or understanding of order, rules, intelligent design, and fine tuning of this universe, we are here simply because of eternal organic matter that moves in a random way. [#D4 Isn't this a total straw man argument?] But just as you want me to prove an eternal God, I want proof of eternal matter, or for that matter anything else you all postulate. Don't be hypocrites, let's hear your evidence. [#D5 How many times do we need to tell you that your job in this particular forum is to prove your case? We are under no obligation to produce alternatives. Clean the wax out of your ears!]
Furthermore, it's funny that scientists and physicists study the properties of matter to find how it evolved, but here is the newsflash, how can they determine this when they were never there in the beginning to witness it? [#D6 Did some idiot actually say that you have to personally witness an event to know something about it? Tell that to Sherlock Holmes!] So just like they are attempting to deduce backwards and you all fawn over their theories and conclusions [#D7 Do you have something against competent scientific work? Maybe you should learn something about science so that you can appreciate some of this work!] and you won't question how their conclusions, but once someone beings to also logically deduce that order, intelligence, design, and fine-tuning implies a MIND to have created it, you all throw a fit. [#D8 Because it's garbage for the many reasons we have given you!] Why don't you question Hawkings, Dawkins, and others to prove their conclusions [#D9 Do we have the expertise to analyze their work? Your recommendation seems unrealistic.], such as Lawrence Krauss who says that in the beginning was an unknown substance called Nothing which gave rise to Something. And you all accept that line of reasoning hook, line, and sinker. [#D10 Do we? Maybe you can summarize his views so that we can make up our minds?] These men are not the end all be all to this discussion, because as I noted in another post a while ago, no one has ever been present in the beginning and we all are working back from the properties of nature. [#D11 Which leads to the Big Bang. Aren't you supposed to be making your case? It seems that you have strayed.] And the reason there is a big movement against the concept of an Eternal God/ Mind is because of the presupposition you have over FALSE IDEAS FROM FALSE RELIGIONS. [#D12 A big movement on this forum topic? In the world at large? You are not very clear. How have you determined that these other religious ideas are false? What makes you think that they have a big influence on each of us? My own criticism of your conclusion has little to do with them!] These false religions have said inane things which are against logic and common sense, and have no validity in the Bible. [#D13 Hasn't the Bible said inane things which are against logic and common sense? Dennis McKinsey wrote a 500+ encyclopedia on Bible errors and absurdities.]
A homicide detective follows clues to its logical end. I'm doing the same. [#D14 Aren't you actually beginning with your conclusion? To truly begin with the known would mean starting with the laws of nature. They rule God out, don't they?] And I am not adding or forcing a conclusion that isn't warranted by the properties of nature. [#D15 Really? Your reasoning leaves much to be desired.] I'm not pulling out of the air some concept that is difficult to accept or that doesn't fit reality. [#D16 Isn't the god concept out of touch with reality? Reality is the laws of nature.] You all are rewriting definitions and concepts to fit in with your god of matter. [#D17 Really? Would you give us 3 examples of our re-written definitions?] When I see a car, I deduce a carmaker. When I see a watch, I deduce a watchmaker. When a see a house, a deduce a house builder. [#D18 Is a carmaker one being or a collective effort?] And when I look at nature with all of its properties, I deduce a MIND, not matter, to have been responsible for it. [#D19 Aren't you WRONGLY assuming that it is the complexity of an object that requires a maker?] Why MIND, and not matter? Because organic matter teaches us that it was crafted and made by its properties of decay [#D20 What are you talking about? What do you mean by "organic matter?" Is this your code word for life? Who said that living things are crafted? Haven't you heard of evolution?] All things die and therefore, if that is the case, then I deduce logically that someone or something made matter. What is wrong in suggesting this? [#D21 What is wrong with it? It's not even an argument, let along a logical argument! Maybe you should explain yourself in more detail.]
I'm done with you. You've created an infallible framework in which you, and only you, van be right. You call us hypocrites for giving you alternate answers, which is what you've been asking for. You refuse to see anything other than your god in the universe. You are blinded by religion. If your not willing to be open minded about the possibility that you could be wrong about a "mind" or god existing, there is no point in talking to you.
Gabriel - "Yet you want me to accept your "logical conclusion" that there is no definite definition or understanding of order"
That is a strawman; no one has claimed that. Order means different things in different contexts. I simply asked you to explain what you mean in the context you have been using it; something you have refused to do. And that is fine; you are under no obligation to do so. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you refuse.
For what it is worth, I'm still interested in what you have to say on this exact matter.
------------------------------------------
Gabriel - "I want proof of eternal matter"
Another strawman. And for what it is worth: matter is clearly not eternal, since it can be created and destroyed.
Hey Xavier, bye, bye! Maybe I can talk to someone who is rational, because your arguments have been less than rational. Also, I've mentioned that my view is a POSTULATION based on inference. What is imitated by this is, I can be wrong; hence, the reason I asked for another suggestion from you all, which I have never received. And "I don't know" is unacceptable, because if you don't know then you have no right to enter the fray of discussion.
@Nyarlathotep
Order as the definition says is a systematic arrangement, meaning things work together toward a purpose. When we look into properties of the natural world, we see a systematic arrangement. When you look at a cell there is systematic arrangement. When we look at the ecosystems, there is systematic arrangement. When we look a the human body, there is systematic arrangement. Now, you all claim that this isn't evidence of order, so what is it? If it isn't systematic arrangement, then what is it? This is what I am referring to. And I agree with your conclusion on matter. Matter isn't eternal and was created and can be destroyed. So the question is, what created it? But current popular atheists argue that matter has always been here, this is what Lawrenece Krauss believes. So why is my position not sound, based on its inference and not, because I haven't, based on giving proof of physical evidence of a God. Why? The God I have described is Mind, invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal, which incidentally the Bible describes as.
There was no need to be an arse. No need to insult people.
And your still using the bible. I thought you would have figured out that doesn't work here.
I never said I don't know. I don't think anyone did.
Edit:
I don't think matter has always been here. I believe that the universe comes and goes in an infinite cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. These did start out at a certain point. However, due to the fact that each successive universe occupies the same space as the last, it is impossible to look into past universes. Therefore, it is impossible to know what the "Kick Start" was. No point in speculating it from this view.
This can be simplified by use of a number line:
Each negative number represents an instance at which no universe existed.
0, a number not positive or negative, represents the "Start" of the universal cycle. Each positive number represents a universe.
Gabriel - "But current popular atheists argue that matter has always been here, this is what Lawrenece Krauss believes."
First off: I don't give a damn what "popular atheists argue".
Second: Krauss' argument (although it certainly didn't originate from him) does not involve matter being eternal.
-----------------------------------------
Gabriel - "So the question is, what created [matter]?"
The process is known by the horrible name "reheating":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Reheating (/e sorry you have to copy/paste that as this website mauled the hyperlink).
-----------------------------------------
Gabriel - "Order as the definition says is a systematic arrangement"
Is the attribute of "order" in this context binary? Or are some things more ordered than others?
Gabriel,
I would like to offer an alternative.
A Sequoia tree starts from a very small seed and grows into the largest living thing on the planet, far outweighing anything with a consciousness. It doesn't have a mind, it doesn't think, plan or in any way puzzle over the complexities of growing that huge, it is simply a result of complex chemical reactions.
Now you can argue that the universe was created in such a way to specifically allow the Sequoia tree to survive, and this creation requires intelligence. The problem is this doesn't comply with scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry brings us anti-venom and medicines that increase lifespan by studying the complex chemical reactions of life and experimenting with different chemicals. It doesn't start with a conclusion (god) and look for evidence to support it. This isn't an effective scientific method. If your god had informed us about bacteria or viruses or maybe just tectonic plates then perhaps there would be some information that science cannot bring us but there is no evidence of this, so scientifically there is little point in pursuing such an inquiry.
Now it is your turn to tear this apart in order to believe what you want to, which is another non-compliance with the scientific method.
Gabriel,
you insist your god created and ordered everything. If you hadn’t been indoctrinated as a child to believe that such an entity exists, what would be your alternative explanation?
Hey Xaiver! You're a duplicitist. You're the one whose been guilty of insulting me on this forum. Just look back at your comments. Furthermore, your speculation that the universe comes and goes in infinite cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches is supported by "what" logical deduction? If atheists and physicists are still speculating and theorizing, meaning there is no definite answer, on cosmology viewpoints, why is this model credible? Seems to me that your speculation still doesn't answer the who or what created the universe. Your arguments have been circuitous with no end in sight.
@Nyarlathotep
That's been my point. In the Atheist community no one agrees with each other and you all speculate differently, but no one attacks any of these views, although many are absurd through logical deduction.
So, reheating is what created matter, you and others say. I looked at this theory, but it's logically flawed, because it is still working from something already existing, which still doesn't address the who or what created the energy to begin with. It's funny that some of you say that matter was created, but then argue for matter always being here. And then there is the dilemma in logically proving, if matter has always been here, how does organic matter move itself in a ordered and intelligent way?
And I don't get your question with regard to ordered. Ordered means a systematic arrangement meaning the properties of natures move in a precise manner to accomplish an end. If you mean by binary that it is linked to program already existing, I would say yes, that being Mind/Intelligence. And all things are ordered the same by this definition, but in different processes.
@kataclismic
Your comments were inconsistent with logic. The seed of any tree or plant, while yes doesn't think and possess consciousness, the seed does move itself in an orderly fashion working synergistically with other properties of nature for growth (i.e., soil, water, and sun). What this shows logically is that Someone or Somthing ordered its process. If you say no, then give an alternative theory as to how matter was able to know and behave in a fashion consistent with something ordered. In other words, how does the seed know what to do and interact with other parts of nature? All of your comments on chemical reactions actually proves my logical conclusion, that Someone or Something ordered the chemical reactions in precise way to give us a tree. I have no problem with the scientific method, but the scientific method doesn't disprove my speculation that MIND created and governed the world before us.
@mislam
I am an independent thinker. We are all taught from our youth certain ideas, but once we reach the age where we're able to think for ourselves, then it is incumbent upon us to question these ideas. I have always done this in my life. Therefore, I've questioned the existence of God and have listened to other explanations, but none from the atheist community has been sufficient logically. The only logical speculation that makes sense to me is when something possess attributes of order, intelligence, and fine-tuning then this leads me back to a Superior Being who is responsible for this. Now, who or what is this? I am under the impression that whoever or whatever this is, he or it would reveal himself or itself other than natural processes. Why? Because, although nature can give us certain clues, it doesn't reveal its true identity and this we are left with speculations with no sight in end. Therefore, after studying holy books, the only Being that has made sense is the one mentioned In the Bible as being MIND. As I mentioned on this forum. I am not advocating for God through physical evidence, because God can't be proved this way. Nor have I ever argued for God through personal experience or testimony. I have argued for and eternal God through logical necessity based on the ordered and intelligent properties of nature. That's all! This is why I have been asking for you all to give an alternative to my conclusion, and reason with me logically to show how my conclusion is flawed and yours is stronger. But none have been able to. All that's given is more ideas that lead to more questions.
@Gabriel
You are not an independent thinker. You haven't demonstrated critical thought which is a requirement of independent thought.
I think you just want to hear yourself speak. You display the most hubris of anyone on the forum.
We can't take you serious because you lack the very basic concept of logic. You argue for the sake of arguing, and none, absolutely none of your arguements have the basis of support or evidence.
Gᴀʙʀɪᴇʟ, ᴡʜʏ ᴀʀᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ʜᴇʀᴇ?
It seems very clear that you're not interested in actual or even honest debate. You are avoiding all the hard questions (most questions) and keep accusing others of the very same shortcomings you display.
So the only question is:
Gᴀʙʀɪᴇʟ, ᴡʜʏ ᴀʀᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ʜᴇʀᴇ?
Yes. Why are you here Gabriel? I certainly hope you don't think you can convert us....
Pages