News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Case for Theism

Started by DrewM, June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Icarus

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:47:45 PM
You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

You seem to have this backwards, we don't care about convincing you of anything. You've proven yourself to be a dishonest person so I'd rather you stay a theist instead of becoming a regular on this forum, Now, if you have any evidence on why you think a giant sky daddy popped us into existence with a snap of his fingers, please provide that. We will analyse and interrupt all the data you provide us and to make sure you've not made any errors in your calculations.

Hijiri Byakuren

How about addressing my post you never got to, bub? I'm very interested in hearing your response, because no theist has ever been brave enough to tackle this.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 28, 2014, 03:09:56 AM
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

stromboli

First Cause argument

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause#The_assumptions

QuoteThe argument from first cause proceeds as follows.
Everything that comes into being must have a cause.
This is determined from both observation and the logic behind causality. Everything that is observed in the universe has some form of cause behind it and this forms the basis of conservation of momentum and energy. Within causality there is a unifying logic between an effect (something caused) and an affect (cause). An affectless effect and an effectless affect are logically nonsensical propositions.
An infinite regress of causes is impossible.
Disallowing an infinite regress of causes is, technically speaking, an assertion and just a requirement for the argument to work. However, a form of pleading can be made that while an infinite regress of temporal causes may be allowable, an infinite regress of non-temporal causes may not. In other words, a sequence of events in time may be able to go infinitely forward through the future and back through the past but time itself must have some other form of cause.
We must therefore arrive at a first cause.
Following from disallowing an infinite regress of causes, there must be a point where the first cause appears. This is the concept first developed by Aristotle and expanded upon by Aquinas as the "unmoved mover" or the "uncaused causer".
This first cause is God.
Having established the existence of the first cause, it is asserted that this cause is none other than the God of choice of the person making the argument.

QuoteThe assumptions

Self-causation is impossible

Related to the infinite regress of causes is the idea that something may cause itself to come into being. Aquinas argues that this is impossible on account of it never having been empirically observed, but also because of the impossibility and absurdity of an object causing itself. Specifically, for an object to cause itself to come into being, it must be prior to itself. This expressly forbids the universe from causing itself, which would otherwise scupper the conclusion.

The reasoning does not seem to apply to the laws of physics, since the notion of "being prior", e.g. preceding something in time, requires time to already exist to have any meaning.

This is to help our friend out here, since he seems to be stuck on this argument.

ONCE AGAIN. EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED IT.
LIKEWISE, THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED IT.

You cannot therefore use either one as evidence. did you get it this time?

And please note the word assumption. Please note that.

DrewM

Hello PickelledEggs,

QuoteI wouldn't be able to disprove god, nor would anyone else. In order for something to be disproved, it needs to be proved in the first place.

I'm not asking anyone to disprove God, just provide evidence and make your case between these two competing hypothesis.

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

QuoteYou seem to be misled on what science is claiming. Science only claims what it finds and is able to test what is true and repeatable in nature. From what science has found, all things from where we are now on this multi-billion-year timeline that we're on to all the way back to the big bang, there is no evidence of a god found. Nothing with extraordinary conscious creation power.

I have a few more lines of evidence I intend to present and argue from that do provide circumstantial evidence of a Creator (besides the two I have presented).

QuoteCan you argue that a god with conscious creation power caused the big bang? possibly. But I would have to follow up with a major question that would be begging to be asked:

Who or what made that god?

And a bonus question would be:
If another god made the god that made our universe's conscious creator, who or what made that?

And so-forth...

You realize that every atheist on every board eventually asks that 'gotcha' question. The answer is I have no idea how God came into existence or if a Creator created God, I'm not attempting to debate the question of how God came into existence, I'm debating the question of how the universe, life and humanity came into existence. The conundrum you point out isn't solved by ruling God out. I can ask what caused the big bang and what caused whatever caused the big bang and so on. If so we are faced with a greater conundrum, are we the result of an endless recession of events? If so how did we cross an endless recession of events to get to this point in time? It would appear then that time began to exist. What except a force transcendent to the laws of nature and time could cause time to begin? I should note some atheists will toss out the idea (not that they actually believe it) that the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. But they won't classify that as a magical supernatural event.

Hakurei Reimu


QuoteThe evidence that would clinch the case wouldn't fit on this entire forum, let alone in a single post. Forgive us if we seem a bit reluctant to post it.

I wonder how it would go over if I was asked (as I was) to make a case for theism and I gave this self serving response?


At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.


QuoteBecause an "intelligent transcendent personal agent" would have to be an amazingly complex thing in and of itself, and is even more unlikely to occur on its own than even a universe with complex life in it, emerging spontaneously and fully formed, is easier to believe, let alone that complexity emerging from those mindless forces.

Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur? If we trace back the existence of a car, we trace it back to something more complex than the car. Same with computers, cell phones, tablets and so forth.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time. 


Hello Hijiri Byakuren

QuoteHow about addressing my post you never got to, bub? I'm very interested in hearing your response, because no theist has ever been brave enough to tackle this.

What you wrote (or pasted) appeared to be a rambling diatribe, not anything in response to what I wrote.

QuoteEven if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

Why don't you share with me what this means to you? I suppose we could call God a programmer or an engineer or even a scientist for that matter but if true, we owe our existence and that of the universe to a Creator and that would be simpatico with theistic belief.


Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMWhat you wrote (or pasted) appeared to be a rambling diatribe, not anything in response to what I wrote.
So in other words, you don't think it's worth your time to demonstrate why a deity is even a provable concept to begin with. Noted.
Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMWhy don't you share with me what this means to you? I suppose we could call God a programmer or an engineer or even a scientist for that matter but if true, we owe our existence and that of the universe to a Creator and that would be simpatico with theistic belief.
No, it wouldn't. Theists don't believe in a programmer, they believe in a god. A programmer wouldn't have irrational, emotional beliefs tied to it. The fact that you went to this old fallback tells me you have no real interest in countering anything anyone on this forum has to say. You're just here to proselytize. Noted.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Nam

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 29, 2014, 11:32:19 AM
So in other words, you don't think it's worth your time to demonstrate why a deity is even a provable concept to begin with. Noted.No, it wouldn't. Theists don't believe in a programmer, they believe in a god. A programmer wouldn't have irrational, emotional beliefs tied to it. The fact that you went to this old fallback tells me you have no real interest in countering anything anyone on this forum has to say. You're just here to proselytize. Noted.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked.

Can I proselytize you to Namgod so I can get blocked? Okay, Namgod is a lazy god. It doesn't want anything from you except for you to leave it alone. It's a busy god doing nothing, and if you bother it it gets frustrated and may pee (rain) on you. Sometimes if one keeps bothering it it'll take a massive dump but don't worry, it usually breaks up in the atmosphere.

Don't you want to worship Namgod?

Do I get blocked now?

:smile:

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

stromboli

Please present your evidence, since you haven't actually presented any yet.

DrewM

The third fact (evidence) that leads me to conclude we are the result of a Creator is:

3. The existence of sentient life.

As unlikely as it might seem that mindless lifeless forces would without plan, design or intent without a degree in physics or biology would cause a universe to exist with the conditions necessary for life, it would seem even more unlikely such forces would also cause sentient intelligent life to exist. No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence. There is a reason why the vast majority of intelligent humans believe we are the result of a Creator and it’s not because they are ignorant, or brainwashed, or brought up to believe in God. It’s because between the two competing hypothesis:

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The belief we are the intentional result of a Creator is more plausible given the evidence available to us.

Atheists continue to claim the reason they don’t believe we are the result of a Creator is because there is no evidentiary reason to believe there is a God. If there was no universe, no life and no sentient life I would absolutely agree, there is no evidence of a Creator. The fact there is a universe in a configuration that not only caused life but also maintains life and produced sentient life is the very evidence they claim doesn’t exist. Or are atheists going to say the existence of the universe, life and sentient life is evidence that mindless forces without plan intent or knowledge caused our existence?

Moralnihilist

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
The third fact (evidence) that leads me to conclude we are the result of a Creator is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLI0GMMbQaQ
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Green Bottle

Quote ''Atheists continue to claim the reason they don’t believe we are the result of a Creator is because there is no evidentiary reason to believe there is a God. If there was no universe, no life and no sentient life I would absolutely agree.''

This is a really stupid statement.

If there was no universe no life and no sentient life then you would not exist so how could u then 'absolutely agree or not.
fucking moron
God doesnt exist, but if he did id tell him to ''Fuck Off''

stromboli

Special pleading.

The mere fact of sentient life does not prove god. There are known prehistoric hominids- Neanderthal Man, Denisovan Man and us- that exhibited sentient behavior, and all developed within a window of a few million years. There is not "one species" selected out by a god for any specific reason.  Developmental capabilities have been shown with chimpanzees and bonobos, up to the point of communicating with sign language and even mechanical communication methods like typing.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending

Quote"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." They could also have included fish, for whom the evidence supporting sentience and consciousness is also compelling (see also). And, I'm sure as time goes on we will add many other animals to the consciousness club.

Apparently sentience is available to other species as well.

So sentience may be nothing more than an unintended but natural result of evolution.

SGOS

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
The conundrum you point out isn't solved by ruling God out.
I don't rule a god out.  However, unlike you, I don't rule one in.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe
That's probably because there is no evidence for such a agent.  So yes, it is difficult to accept.  However, that doesn't mean it's ruled out.  It's just that it's no more compelling than saying we don't yet have an answer.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur?
It's not surprising, and it very well may be the case.  It's not being ruled out.  Not at all, but it doesn't point at a god.  It points at an unknown.  We would like to identify that unknown, be it a god or some other complex cause.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMI'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.
Unfortunately, this argument while somewhat clever, is irrelevant and/or non-sequitur:

Humans make computer games that simulate environments.
Therefore, a god created the universe. ???




Poison Tree

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
No one would propose that mindless forces exist;
Gravity, friction, air resistance, magnetic . . .

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence.
You really went out on a limb there, predicting something that already happened.


Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
The belief we are the intentional result of a Creator is more plausible given the evidence available to us.
Such as?
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

stromboli

You keep saying evidence. I don't think you understand what evidence actually is.  :naughty:

Well, thats 3 for 3. I believe that ends the inning. going for a no hitter here........

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
I'm posting to have a debate, not convert anyone.
We shall see…

QuoteI claim to live in a universe in which life exists and I can believe we are the intentional result of a Creator or the equally if not more outlandish claim we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or one of the complexity required to create and support life.
It is a possibility that our life containing universe exists due to the intentional manipulation of an intelligent creator. It is also possible that our life containing universe exists due to natural processes and no intelligent creator was responsible.

QuoteIt just happened by accident.
While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection acting on those mutations is not an accident. Neither are the processes that formed the stars which created the elements heavier than helium nor the chemical processes that converted those elements into the chemical compounds necessary for life. Your belief that the whole argument against god is it was all an accident is a straw man.

QuoteI won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

Originally I came to this discussion board because the top billing says Atheist Forums a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers I'm beginning to think its true minus the believers part. From the moment I made my introduction I was challenged to make my case for theism and I've been threatened with being banned since.

Of course given the available evidence I have come to the conclusion our existence and that of the universe is more likely due to the intentional act of a Creator than the result of mindless forces that just happened to get it right. The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board. Besides its supposed to be fun and would be if you folks didn't take it so seriously. All we have is a philosophical difference of opinion about something neither of us can be sure of.
And this is our problem with you and your ilk. You are here to preach. You want to present your argument, but by your own admission don’t want to discuss available alternatives to your hypothesis. Shit happens therefore god is a weak ass argument. I don’t believe natural forces could be responsible is an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy if you exclude other possibilities. You are arguing Russell’s tea pot. Sound reasoning alone does not make a proposition true.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.