My life is in direct defiance of God.

249 posts / 0 new
Last post
ThePragmatic's picture
I gave you a simple example,

I gave you a simple example, then you accused me of "using logic not scientific proof" instead of answering me.

If the god you define, used his powers to create a miracle where he gave food to someone. That food is in our space-time continuum, or how else could a human perceive it or let alone read it?

ThePragmatic's picture
Correction:

Correction:
... or let alone eat it.

Valiya's picture
The very reason we call this

The very reason we call this a “miracle” is because we have no way to know how this external entity interferes in our dimension… does science have any idea about any reality outside of the universe…nothing at all.

What kind of an empirical proof do you think a food caused by an external agent should have? Does science have anything to say about it…does it propose any falsification test or something of that sort?

Moreover, what I am saying is that it’s not just miracles…every thing ever caused in this universe is through the agency of God. So, a miracle doesn’t particularly change the fundamental cause…only the means is different. But once again, the how of it is totally outside our understanding…just as the question what causes prior to the big bang set the stage for its occurrence is totally outside the scope of science.

ThePragmatic's picture
More tap dancing...

More tap dancing...

You are actively refusing to answer. It's like asking questions to a politician.

I't was just one example. Any interaction in our world is a possible source for collecting empirical evidence.
If we could find that most of the time when certain people (correct denomination, pious enough) prayed and some effect was found, like healing, rain, or anything really.
If every time someone depicted Muhammed something happens like a storm or locust or something.

If there was anything like this, it could be submitted by religious as evidence.

But you are saying the loaf of bread, or a swarm of locust or a healed wound, would still be outside our space-time continuum? If so we would not even be able to perceive it.

It will be interesting to see what kind of politician inspired dodging and evading of the question you will come up with next.

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

“Any interaction in our world is a possible source for collecting empirical evidence”

This is based on the understanding of physical laws in our universe…how can you superimpose it onto a dimension we have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge about? We don’t even know how the outside agent is interacting…therefore forget measuring that interaction.

It’s simply… who is tap dancing???

ThePragmatic's picture
You are. You did not answer

You are. You did not answer the question, again.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
And she won't, we had the

And she won't, we had the same stalemate.

She will never admit any flaw on what she said or reasoned out.

Mainly her reasoning is never wrong for her.

Valiya's picture
I have answered it.

I have answered it.

You are insisting that the external agency will not be able to interact with our universe without leaving a trace that can be emperically verifiable.

What is the basis for your assertion? When science gives us nothing about any reality outside of time-space?

ThePragmatic's picture
No, your still avoiding it.

No, your still avoiding it.

"What is the basis for your assertion?"
For the 4:th time (I think):
If your god can interact with our world, such as create some food, say a loaf of bread. And this loaf of bread can be seen, felt, tasted and eaten. The assertion is that the loaf of bread would be physically present in our world, in our time and not outside the space-time continuum.

Or are you saying, that your god could not do such a thing?

ThePragmatic's picture
* Just checking. No, still

* Just checking. No, still nothing... *

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

If god makes a loaf of bread, where God is external to our space-time, and the bread is internal of space-time...what emerpircally verifiable trace do you think that should leave??? ON what basis are you saying that an external cause should leave some kind of a trace, whatsoever, on an internal effect? Does science say something about it?

ThePragmatic's picture
I'm not saying that somebody

I'm not saying that somebody would see your god deliver the bread.
(He, like all gods, seems way to good at hiding for that).
I'm not claiming there would be a "trace" of god, like magical fairy dust or a mystical aura.

I'm saying that t̲h̲e̲ l̲o̲a̲f̲ o̲f̲ b̲r̲e̲a̲d̲ is the result of the action of your god.
A human can see it, touch it, weigh it, cut it in pieces, taste it, eat it.

Just like police can figure out information from, and collect evidence of the results of the action from a thief who has left fiber and a footprint, you can still collect evidence.
Even though no one saw the thief and knows who it is, there is indirect evidence of the thief's presence. This evidence can be analysed.

Is this really so hard to admit?

Valiya's picture
PrAGMATIC

PrAGMATIC

I understand your point. But what I am saying is that – to borrow your example – the thief’s actions leave evidence, because he is subject to the laws of our universe. How can you insist that an extra-universal entity should also be subject to it? To make such an assertion, we need to have some knowledge of laws outside of time-space, which we DON’T have.

Why are we not able to say anything about the realities prior to the big bang… because it has not left any evidence in our dimension…but just because there is no evidence, science does not rule out the possibility of any external cause… all that it says is it is irrational to ask about anything prior to this event because there is no way we can know about it.

ThePragmatic's picture
So what you are saying is

So what you are saying is that the bread cannot be touched, weighed, cut in peaces and eaten?

Then, (as you often say) by your logic your god is powerless.

Valiya's picture
What i am saying is that the

What i am saying is that the bread can be touched, weighed, cut in pieces and eaten. But it will not leave any evidence/trace of God (whatever you mean by that). If you insist that it should, then you have got to know something about the laws that govern the reality outside our timespace. Do you have any idea about it?

ThePragmatic's picture
It doesn't seem that you

It doesn't seem that you understand my point at all.

In the example, you are still referring to the thief, i.e. your god. But that is what I have been saying all along. How many times and how many different ways do I have to say it?
I am not talking about your god, I'm talking about the results of your gods actions.

What you are saying is that the loaf of bread would be magical, nonexistent, weightless, tasteless and exist outside the space-time continuum. What kind of miracle is that? Who could be fed by that?
That is what is normally referred to as fantasy...

Valiya's picture
Your insistent repetition of

Your insistent repetition of the same logic makes me wonder if i am missing some point. Let me explain.

When god decides to create a loaf of bread in our world.... He makes it happen. We have no clue how He does that. But we will be able to feel the bread, taste it, enjoy it and digest it. This will be a bread in the full meaning of that word....

If you are not talking about God, and you are talking about God's action ---- it still doesn't let you overcome the limitation of the extra-spacetime .... because God's action is also not subject to our laws. Are you saying no, then I would like to know on what grounds?

ThePragmatic's picture
I'm answering at the end of

I'm answering at the end of the thread...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well it would be a measurable

Well it would be a measurable violation of conservation of energy, lepton number, and baryon number; just off the top of my head.

Valiya's picture
Don't you have the answer for

Don't you have the answer for the question regarding cycle and airplane....is it so hard to tell which one is more complex in design???

Nyarlathotep's picture
A new term "complex in design

A new term "complex in design"!

When you get into trouble, just make up a new term! And I'm sure you will use these terms interchangeably, when one hits a dead end just switch them, just like Dembski does.

cmallen's picture
Are you being deliberately

Are you being deliberately misleading? First you said "more complex", now you say "more complex in design". It is dishonest to ask a question with one term and then substitute another for it when evaluating the answer.

Valiya's picture
If you understood the context

If you understood the context you would have known that by complexity i am talking about the complexity in design...what else???

Nyarlathotep's picture
C̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶,

C̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶, i̶n̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶, s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶, c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶d̶e̶s̶i̶g̶n̶, o̶r̶g̶a̶n̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶, s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶. What will you make mathematical claims about next, but refuse to define?

cmallen's picture
Complex in conversion and

Complex in conversion and distribution of energy, for one thing. Also, complex in origin, or rather as a departure or addendum to concepts already known. You could just as easily ask is a bicycle which was invented from the wheel up based upon little or no previous ideas more or less complex that an airplane based upon earlier designs which merely adds an air foil? Any of these is just as arbitrary an assumption as "more complex in design" when given the parameters "more complex".

What you were trying to do was use a presuppositional tactic of leading an argument in the direction you felt would support your stance. You assume that most people will say an airplane is arbitrarily more complex than a bicycle without specifying the nature of the complexity, and you then want to slip in "design" as if it were the only form of complexity available.

Naive at best, more likely dishonest.

cmallen's picture
Actually, I take back that

Actually, I take back that comment about dishonesty; I can't claim to know your motives. What I should say is that it seems like being dishonest with oneself.

Valiya's picture
But honestly guys... i have

But honestly guys... i have never heard anyone (evolutionist or otherwise) attack the idea that there is complexity in nature. Instead, i have found everyone accept that there is complexity and that it requires an explanation.

Check this debate out between evolution and intelligent design... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sakmq5L3IiE and not once did the debaters raise this question of defining complexity or design...they were in agreement about it.

The many primitive components that get arranged in specific way towards the achievement of a function is specified complexity... complex because it involves many parts...specified because only a particular arrangement will result in the function.

this I think is so commonsensical that nobody would ever question...and i haven't found any evolutionist question a creationist on these grounds... as the example above demonstrates.

cmallen's picture
"But honestly guys... i have

"But honestly guys... i have never heard anyone (evolutionist or otherwise) attack the idea that there is complexity in nature. Instead, i have found everyone accept that there is complexity and that it requires an explanation."

Nice try, you didn't say complexity in nature, nor did you even allude to it. You offered two examples which were arguably not created by nature and then later you even specified that you meant complexity in design. And for the record I don't require an explanation for complexity in nature.

"The many primitive components that get arranged in specific way towards the achievement of a function is specified complexity... complex because it involves many parts...specified because only a particular arrangement will result in the function."

I can get behind this as one definition of complexity. I don't recall arguing against this at all.

"this I think is so commonsensical that nobody would ever question...and i haven't found any evolutionist question a creationist on these grounds... as the example above demonstrates."

What are you referring to as common-sensual? If you are referring to your above definition of complexity; sure, I'll concede that's as good a definition as any for a broad, non-specific understanding of complexity. What does that have to do with the narrowed-down notion of "complex in design"?

What do you think is more likely, that I am just too stupid to get the ideas you are putting forth and that "every other atheist and creationist agrees upon," or that you may have made some errors in communication or perhaps even argument formulation?

Valiya's picture
First of all, I want to thank

First of all, I want to thank you for accepting my description of specified complexity.

If you can accept my description of complexity, then here is how I relate it to design.

What I am saying is that specified complexity is a strong indication of design, meaning it can arise only through an intelligent process.

Therefore, if my description of specified complexity fits a biological system, then it should mean that it has been caused by an intelligent agency.

cmallen's picture
"Therefore, if my description

"Therefore, if my description of specified complexity fits a biological system, then it should mean that it has been caused by an intelligent agency."

Non sequitur.

If you will recall, I stated in no uncertain terms that I do not require an explanation for complexity in nature.

Complexity may refer to something A) made up of more than one part, or B) having more parts than something else, which is a comparative definition. Under definition A, a plane and a bicycle are equally complex; under definition B, a plane is only complex in comparison to a bicycle, and even then only according to certain criteria.

Even leaving all that behind, the "complexity" of the natural world is proof to me that random mutation over millions of years combined with natural selection is far more efficient and survivable than anyone's deliberate, un-tested design.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.