Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1261 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:32 PM

No i mean when the jewish scholars and intellectuals finally gave up their belief in both the g-d of abraham and baalim and baalot and chose to believe in the one diety , the g-d of abraham .


When did Jewish scholars and intellectuals finally gave up their belief in multiple gods such as Yahweh and Baal? And believe in one deity, which is Yahweh?

I don't know if I even agree with your premise.. the "belief" needs to be defined either through "worship" or "recognize". Because I surely "believe" that the devil exists though I choose not to "worship" the devil. Get that?

So Jewish scholars worship only one God, as the shema presents, but do they believe in the idol of Baal? I'm sure they do. I don't know if I'm answering you correctly or giving you what you are seeking.. May I inquire as to what this has to do with anything?

Which post # was that again??

What does my monitor have to do with the evidence for God?


Not sure as there are a number of different threads each providing you with evidences.

It's a basic question answer it.

If you took apart your monitor piece by piece, then put it in a closed environment in which you shook up for trillions of years, will you reassemble your monitor? Y/N?
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#1262 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:33 PM

Does historical data count?

Primary source data as well as eye witness historical claims show that there was a Jesus character that was brought back to life. These are similar manuscripts which have even better textual criticism than manuscripts used to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Do you believe in Alexander the Great, or is he just another myth?


You could maybe argue you have historical data that a person named Jesus may have existed. People named Jesus exist now. That is hardly proof of a god.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1263 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:34 PM

If you took apart your monitor piece by piece, then put it in a closed environment in which you shook up for trillions of years, will you reassemble your monitor? Y/N?


Aaah the argumentative equivalent of the shell game! Wee!

Edited by J.R., 21 September 2012 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1264 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:34 PM

Has anyone actually read some books on the topic of theism and atheism? Like more than either Lee Strobel or Richard Dawkins?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1265 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:36 PM

Has anyone actually read some books on the topic of theism and atheism? Like more than either Lee Strobel or Richard Dawkins?


This one's a "gooder" ;)

Posted Image
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1266 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:39 PM

The perfect antidote to the fiery rhetoric that dominates our current national debate over religion, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality is the ideal companion to such bestsellers as The God Delusion and God Is Not Great. In this inspiring book, bestselling author and philosopher André Comte-Sponville offers a new perspective on the question of God's existence, acknowledging the good that has come of religion while advocating tolerance from both believers and non-believers. Through clear, concise, and often humorous prose, Comte-Sponville offers a convincing appeal for a new form of spiritual life-one that at its heart celebrates the human need to connect to one another and the universe.

Sounds interesting JR. Not so malicious as Harris or Dawkins.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1267 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:52 PM

When did Jewish scholars and intellectuals finally gave up their belief in multiple gods such as Yahweh and Baal? And believe in one deity, which is Yahweh?

I don't know if I even agree with your premise.. the "belief" needs to be defined either through "worship" or "recognize". Because I surely "believe" that the devil exists though I choose not to "worship" the devil. Get that?

So Jewish scholars worship only one God, as the shema presents, but do they believe in the idol of Baal? I'm sure they do. I don't know if I'm answering you correctly or giving you what you are seeking.. May I inquire as to what this has to do with anything?



Not sure as there are a number of different threads each providing you with evidences.

It's a basic question answer it.

If you took apart your monitor piece by piece, then put it in a closed environment in which you shook up for trillions of years, will you reassemble your monitor? Y/N?



I checked, there's no credible evidence. You must have been mistaken in thinking you provided some. No worries. Here's your opportunity to do so.

And for the teleological argument that you're attempting to argue, i submit this.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI-wuW84nZQ&feature=related


And for those who aren't aware of the 'teleological argument'


Edited by Sharpshooter, 21 September 2012 - 05:05 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1268 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:06 PM

When did Jewish scholars and intellectuals finally gave up their belief in multiple gods such as Yahweh and Baal? And believe in one deity, which is Yahweh?

I don't know if I even agree with your premise.. the "belief" needs to be defined either through "worship" or "recognize". Because I surely "believe" that the devil exists though I choose not to "worship" the devil. Get that?

So Jewish scholars worship only one God, as the shema presents, but do they believe in the idol of Baal? I'm sure they do. I don't know if I'm answering you correctly or giving you what you are seeking.. May I inquire as to what this has to do with anything?



Not sure as there are a number of different threads each providing you with evidences.

It's a basic question answer it.

If you took apart your monitor piece by piece, then put it in a closed environment in which you shook up for trillions of years, will you reassemble your monitor? Y/N?


i was just wondering if you knew the facts ,about the god you believe in , if you knew that the first people to accept and believe in him did this because they believed he was a vengeful god , a punishing god .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1269 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:11 PM

I checked, there's no credible evidence. You must have been mistaken in thinking you provided some. No worries. Here's your opportunity to do so.

And for the teleological argument that you're attempting to argue, i submit this.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI-wuW84nZQ&feature=related


And for those who aren't aware of the 'teleological argument'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40_Ce5uj38I&feature=related


you could say the rock was designed by wind and rain B)

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 21 September 2012 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1270 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:19 PM

not a lot of these were addressed to me, but I'm going to answer anyway lol

Let me add a bit more then.

If God exists, you would accept him to be the creator of all things, right? As creator, do you think he created things without purpose? I don't believe so.

I believe all things have purpose, and so with God we can end the age old question, what is the meaning of life.

Don't view God as a clock maker who winds up the universe and lets it go without any interaction. God is a personal infinite God who created everything with purpose. Every person in the world.


Yes I'd accept a God as the creator of the universe, though I'm not positive that a God couldn't "create things without purpose".

Personally I believe that the universe has a bit of chaos to it, as well as a bit of determinism, so that a creator could possibly be that clock maker you speak of, but also puts his hand in at times.

So you don't even know what evidences you seek for, you just want more. Typical I suppose, but how do you consider yourself open minded with that attitude? Your requirements for proof aren't even established.


For me I would be satisfied if someone presented themself to me and claimed they were God, then did some miracles like whisked me around the universe or grew some of my hair back. Then they would be a supreme being (I'd worship him for that last one lol).

they might just be an alien or they might not be responsible for creation anyway, I don't know. Maybe they could time travel with me and show me how they did it all

Basically, I'm not going to be easy to convince

Does historical data count?

Primary source data as well as eye witness historical claims show that there was a Jesus character that was brought back to life. These are similar manuscripts which have even better textual criticism than manuscripts used to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Do you believe in Alexander the Great, or is he just another myth?


I think nearly everyone believes that Jesus existed as did Alexander the Great (not claiming to speak for everyone in this thread though lol) but I don't happen to believe any of the miracles claimed in the bible, like the resurrection or turning water into wine or w/e

Alright here's some more logical evidence for you - if you took apart your monitor piece by piece, then put it in a closed environment in which you shook up for trillions of years, will you reassemble your monitor? Y/N?


I'm sure there's some positive probability of that outcome, sure. Though "trillions" of years is orders of magnitude greater than the current accepted age of the universe

edit: just to clarify, before sharpshooter has at me, I'm not trying to use a watchmaker analogy myself, I'm just saying that I personally believe it to be a reasonable possibility

Edited by GodzillaDeuce, 21 September 2012 - 05:23 PM.

  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#1271 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:47 PM

I checked, there's no credible evidence. You must have been mistaken in thinking you provided some. No worries. Here's your opportunity to do so.

And for the teleological argument that you're attempting to argue, i submit this.

And for those who aren't aware of the 'teleological argument'


Problems with the video:

1) The argument misrepresents the way we determine whether objects are designed. He asserts that "because [he] has never seen coral been designed" therefore the universe and human beings should not be assumed we are designed either. Only because we know how a watch is designed, that we know there is a designer.

This is a pretty poor argument, as what the critic is doing is presenting differences of the analogy. So the watch has to be intelligently made. Did you know that coral itself has a process in which it needs to be made too. Possibly not human made, but naturally made, right? Can one assert that there is a complex process behind the coral being made? Is this process within the scope of God's intelligence? Y/N?

To point out that something as complex as coral is not humanly intelligently made does NOT refute the fact that an intelligent supreme being may be the maker.

2) Complexity and design are independent of each other. Again he points to something man-made (a ball) vs something naturally occuring (the rock)... Although it is true that in a human sense complexity and design are independent of each other, how does this refute the presence of God behind the complexity of everything?

It's a sleight of hand by the critic who uses a man-made object vs a natural object to show complexity and design are independent of each other. But that's not the argument. The argument is that complexity and design of even the UNIVERSE is evidence that points to a creator. These complexities are the natural processes that produce what we can observe. Even the rock is pretty complex by its own regard. How did random molecules just come together at that particular density? Is there a natural process behind how rock is formed? Is this process void of complexity? Perhaps we should define what is complex or not.

3) Complexity is unnecessary for an omnipotent God. The critic asserts that because God is so omnipotent.. being able to make a clock without gears.. shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to make humans without organs? The critic asserts that, because things are so complex, it makes no room for an omnipotent God.

This is really reaching here. The critic puts his own thought, behaviour, and agendas into God's own mind. The critic uses his own psychology to speak on God's behalf. The critic thinks that an all powerful God is foolish to rely on the complexity of organs and cellular structures to keep people alive. Another sleight of hand by the critic, since the critic cannot speak for God. It is an unknown why God does certain things, but the unknown is not evidence of an absent God.


4) Infinite regression of God is illogical. The critic here states that a God who is able to produce complex things must be complex himself, therefore who is God's creator??

The critic even provides the counter argument that God may be eternal - but that's just an assumption - the critics says.

Absolutely brutal. The critic here is committing logical fallacies and conveniently dodging them with careful semantics. The notion of God NEEDS to be eternal. Not assumed. What kind of God is NOT eternal? The whole purpose of a being who existed before time IS EVIDENCE to his eternal character.

5) I don't know what purpose is or can't assume purpose exists, therefore a designer who pre-supposes purpose cannot be logical.. Wow talk about your own circular argument here.

The critic asserts that since he doesn't know his purpose, or even thinks purpose can exist, therefore he rejects the notion of a purpose driven designer. But how did he reach that conclusion that purpose cannot be attained? He doesn't state that at all. He just says "I don't really see how we can distinguish what purpose is, or even if we can assume a purpose exists"...

The argument is that a purpose exist BECAUSE a designer exists. The critic uses HIS unknown purpose to refute the existence of a designer. Well to use the critic's own language, I could say "I know my purpose! So therefore God DOES exist!" Oh I wonder what Sharpshooter would say about that.

I make the SAFE assumption that there is purpose in life because there is a very safe bet that God exists. Just look at all the evidences presented by scholars who have done their due diligence in the field. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, to name a few.

The critic in this video does not provide logical responses to the argument of complexity and design because I believe he misunderstands it altogether, or has a shallow understanding of the complexity of nature and its processes.


i was just wondering if you knew the facts ,about the god you believe in , if you knew that the first people to accept and believe in him did this because they believed he was a vengeful god , a punishing god .


First, the Jewish people did not really come about until post exile, after Israel was pushed out of the mother land. They were still considered Israel at the time. The Jews came out during 6th century BCE.

Jewish scholars by that matter, what do you mean? Like rabbis and priests? When did they started worshiping one God? I would say at the beginning. The shema is the core of their religion and it dates back all the way from when their traditions started.

Edited by dajusta, 21 September 2012 - 05:53 PM.

  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#1272 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:09 PM

Yes dajusta there are a ton of problems with the video...but these discussions are just going go round and round and round. Here's evidence for this, that's bad evidence because (a), well here is why that's faulty logic, well here's why thats faulty logic, well here's why...and on and on it goes :)

It can be fun though... I think I'm just tired.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1273 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:11 PM

Ya I know. But I enjoy the mental gymnastics.

So Sharpshooter, you going to dialogue with me, or just copy/paste some video into the forum here and present it as your own work?
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#1274 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

Problems with the video:

1) The argument misrepresents the way we determine whether objects are designed. He asserts that "because [he] has never seen coral been designed" therefore the universe and human beings should not be assumed we are designed either. Only because we know how a watch is designed, that we know there is a designer.

This is a pretty poor argument, as what the critic is doing is presenting differences of the analogy. So the watch has to be intelligently made. Did you know that coral itself has a process in which it needs to be made too. Possibly not human made, but naturally made, right? Can one assert that there is a complex process behind the coral being made? Is this process within the scope of God's intelligence? Y/N?

To point out that something as complex as coral is not humanly intelligently made does NOT refute the fact that an intelligent supreme being may be the maker.

2) Complexity and design are independent of each other. Again he points to something man-made (a ball) vs something naturally occuring (the rock)... Although it is true that in a human sense complexity and design are independent of each other, how does this refute the presence of God behind the complexity of everything?

It's a sleight of hand by the critic who uses a man-made object vs a natural object to show complexity and design are independent of each other. But that's not the argument. The argument is that complexity and design of even the UNIVERSE is evidence that points to a creator. These complexities are the natural processes that produce what we can observe. Even the rock is pretty complex by its own regard. How did random molecules just come together at that particular density? Is there a natural process behind how rock is formed? Is this process void of complexity? Perhaps we should define what is complex or not.

3) Complexity is unnecessary for an omnipotent God. The critic asserts that because God is so omnipotent.. being able to make a clock without gears.. shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to make humans without organs? The critic asserts that, because things are so complex, it makes no room for an omnipotent God.

This is really reaching here. The critic puts his own thought, behaviour, and agendas into God's own mind. The critic uses his own psychology to speak on God's behalf. The critic thinks that an all powerful God is foolish to rely on the complexity of organs and cellular structures to keep people alive. Another sleight of hand by the critic, since the critic cannot speak for God. It is an unknown why God does certain things, but the unknown is not evidence of an absent God.


4) Infinite regression of God is illogical. The critic here states that a God who is able to produce complex things must be complex himself, therefore who is God's creator??

The critic even provides the counter argument that God may be eternal - but that's just an assumption - the critics says.

Absolutely brutal. The critic here is committing logical fallacies and conveniently dodging them with careful semantics. The notion of God NEEDS to be eternal. Not assumed. What kind of God is NOT eternal? The whole purpose of a being who existed before time IS EVIDENCE to his eternal character.

5) I don't know what purpose is or can't assume purpose exists, therefore a designer who pre-supposes purpose cannot be logical.. Wow talk about your own circular argument here.

The critic asserts that since he doesn't know his purpose, or even thinks purpose can exist, therefore he rejects the notion of a purpose driven designer. But how did he reach that conclusion that purpose cannot be attained? He doesn't state that at all. He just says "I don't really see how we can distinguish what purpose is, or even if we can assume a purpose exists"...

The argument is that a purpose exist BECAUSE a designer exists. The critic uses HIS unknown purpose to refute the existence of a designer. Well to use the critic's own language, I could say "I know my purpose! So therefore God DOES exist!" Oh I wonder what Sharpshooter would say about that.

I make the SAFE assumption that there is purpose in life because there is a very safe bet that God exists. Just look at all the evidences presented by scholars who have done their due diligence in the field. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, to name a few.

The critic in this video does not provide logical responses to the argument of complexity and design because I believe he misunderstands it altogether, or has a shallow understanding of the complexity of nature and its processes.




First, the Jewish people did not really come about until post exile, after Israel was pushed out of the mother land. They were still considered Israel at the time. The Jews came out during 6th century BCE.

Jewish scholars by that matter, what do you mean? Like rabbis and priests? When did they started worshiping one God? I would say at the beginning. The shema is the core of their religion and it dates back all the way from when their traditions started.


It never ceases to amaze me that people who believe in, and in your case preach to others about the existence of the g-d of abraham actually know so little about the circumstances of the birth of that belief in the g-d of abraham .
i suggest you do some research on babylon and Nebuchadnezzar , and you will realise why i reject their premise .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 21 September 2012 - 06:20 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1275 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:29 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that people who believe in, and in your case preach to others about the existence of the g-d of abraham actually know so little about the circumstances of the birth of that belief in the g-d of abraham .
i suggest you do some research on babylon and Nebuchadnezzar , and you will realise why i reject their premise .


Babylon and Nebuchanezzar is exactly what I referred to as post-exile.

First, the Jewish people did not really come about until post exile, after Israel was pushed out of the mother land. They were still considered Israel at the time. The Jews came out during 6th century BCE.

Jewish scholars by that matter, what do you mean? Like rabbis and priests? When did they started worshiping one God? I would say at the beginning. The shema is the core of their religion and it dates back all the way from when their traditions started.



Nebuchanezzar took Israel from their land and the scribes and priests were forced to live in Babylon. There, they had to form the scripture tradition and the official "Jewish" practice was born.

Daniel, a prophet, was made to one of the highest ranking officials of Babylon, but he chose NOT to worship other idols, for he was Jewish.

If there's more that I'm missing then please enlighten me. I'm always learning too.

Edited by dajusta, 21 September 2012 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#1276 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:04 PM

Of course..there MUST be problems with the video :rolleyes:

Problems with the video:

1) The argument misrepresents the way we determine whether objects are designed. He asserts that "because [he] has never seen coral been designed" therefore the universe and human beings should not be assumed we are designed either. Only because we know how a watch is designed, that we know there is a designer.

This is a pretty poor argument, as what the critic is doing is presenting differences of the analogy. So the watch has to be intelligently made. Did you know that coral itself has a process in which it needs to be made too. Possibly not human made, but naturally made, right? Can one assert that there is a complex process behind the coral being made? Is this process within the scope of God's intelligence? Y/N?

To point out that something as complex as coral is not humanly intelligently made does NOT refute the fact that an intelligent supreme being may be the maker.


How is a poor explanation? He's simply explaining the differences b.etween a watch, or your example, a computer monitor, and something that's undergone natural forces, like corral have. That's the whole effing point! There are differences in natural objects and man made objects, which is why the analogy of a watchmaker or a monitor-maker by theists is so effing ridiculous.

And the other point which you even brought up is the other part of the whole friggin point. Coral is made through a natural process, WHICH!!!! then makes God unnecessary, because there's a natural explanation available for coal, that doesn't f@#%ing exist for f@#$ing watches and f@#$ing computer monitors.

How you can't see the logic to this rebuttal makes me want to commit suicide by poking red hot pokers through my eyes into my brain in a swirling scrambled eggs fashion.

2) Complexity and design are independent of each other. Again he points to something man-made (a ball) vs something naturally occuring (the rock)... Although it is true that in a human sense complexity and design are independent of each other, how does this refute the presence of God behind the complexity of everything?

It's a sleight of hand by the critic who uses a man-made object vs a natural object to show complexity and design are independent of each other. But that's not the argument. The argument is that complexity and design of even the UNIVERSE is evidence that points to a creator. These complexities are the natural processes that produce what we can observe. Even the rock is pretty complex by its own regard. How did random molecules just come together at that particular density? Is there a natural process behind how rock is formed? Is this process void of complexity? Perhaps we should define what is complex or not.


So, according to you, it's true that complexity and design are independent of each other, but somehow it's sleight of hand???

Where are my pokers!?!

Seriously, just read the red highlighted part a few times, and tell me honestly that you don't see the problem with that, or the need to gouge my eyes out, because then you go on to say that the complexities are a product of a natural process, which is the same refutation and logic used to refute the first point in the teleological argument, up there in the 1st point, which is that there is no design by a designer but instead a natural process that produced us and everything.

Ahhhh!!!!! I feel like i'm going crazy even having to point this out. :frantic:

3) Complexity is unnecessary for an omnipotent God. The critic asserts that because God is so omnipotent.. being able to make a clock without gears.. shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to make humans without organs? The critic asserts that, because things are so complex, it makes no room for an omnipotent God.

This is really reaching here. The critic puts his own thought, behaviour, and agendas into God's own mind. The critic uses his own psychology to speak on God's behalf. The critic thinks that an all powerful God is foolish to rely on the complexity of organs and cellular structures to keep people alive. Another sleight of hand by the critic, since the critic cannot speak for God. It is an unknown why God does certain things, but the unknown is not evidence of an absent God.


SO your answer is God works in mysterious ways..... :lol:

The old classics never get old.

You missed the point entirely. The point was that if someone was as smart, wise and as powerful as God is claimed to be, then he as a master designer, like even the lesser master designers here on earth, would not have included inefficient and oft time useless and unnecessary parts to the finished product that they are claimed to have designed.

It's actually a very strong point...which only leaves you the wiggle room of "God works in mysterious ways" which is the biggest cop out ever, since it's a sure sign that the person saying it doesn't have a goddamned clue and sticks this place-holder response until they they can either move some goal-posts or wait for some scientific knowledge to leech onto as if it was the answer to that particular question all along!.

Gag me.

4) Infinite regression of God is illogical. The critic here states that a God who is able to produce complex things must be complex himself, therefore who is God's creator??

The critic even provides the counter argument that God may be eternal - but that's just an assumption - the critics says.

Absolutely brutal. The critic here is committing logical fallacies and conveniently dodging them with careful semantics. The notion of God NEEDS to be eternal. Not assumed. What kind of God is NOT eternal? The whole purpose of a being who existed before time IS EVIDENCE to his eternal character.


Absolutely spot on, IF you actually understood the argument's logic. By the way, just for a larff.....exactly which logical fallacy or fallacies did the guy commit? ;)

Show me a simple being that can make complex things using thought and design.....not instinct now, but actual thoughtful design.

I bet you can only think of humans thus far. WELL, according to you, you concede that intelligent beings such as ourselves can design complex things such as computer monitors and space shuttles and large particle colliders. I mean you'd agree that they're complex things right? However, you and your kind, also claim that we and the universe were ALSO created in the way that we create what we create, because we are complex and the universe is complex and that things THAT complex MUST have been designed, because it works so well, and is so 'fine-tuned'.....remember?? :P

So, the argument in rebut AND its logical regressive path can be charted from that asserted claim as supported by its own inference(that the universe is complex fine tuned, ergo must have come from a creator) that a complex thing would need a complex designer, especially one that was able to create a whole universe. It just means that this creator is also a complex being because a simple being couldn't have thought up, designed and built such a complex thing.

But, as the argument goes, if a watch is complex and needs a complex creator, and the universe is complex and needed a creator, then a complex being like God, would logically raise the question, (and that's the magic word here big guy...LOGICALLLY) who designed the designer and who or what created the creator, because that creator would have to be even more complex, and on and on into an infinite regression.......that's called logic and that's how formal logic is applied to bullsh!# claims in order to show just how full of bullsh!# they really are.


5) I don't know what purpose is or can't assume purpose exists, therefore a designer who pre-supposes purpose cannot be logical.. Wow talk about your own circular argument here.

The critic asserts that since he doesn't know his purpose, or even thinks purpose can exist, therefore he rejects the notion of a purpose driven designer. But how did he reach that conclusion that purpose cannot be attained? He doesn't state that at all. He just says "I don't really see how we can distinguish what purpose is, or even if we can assume a purpose exists"...

The argument is that a purpose exist BECAUSE a designer exists. The critic uses HIS unknown purpose to refute the existence of a designer. Well to use the critic's own language, I could say "I know my purpose! So therefore God DOES exist!" Oh I wonder what Sharpshooter would say about that.

I make the SAFE assumption that there is purpose in life because there is a very safe bet that God exists. Just look at all the evidences presented by scholars who have done their due diligence in the field. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, to name a few.

The critic in this video does not provide logical responses to the argument of complexity and design because I believe he misunderstands it altogether, or has a shallow understanding of the complexity of nature and its processes.


I don't even want to bother with the last point.....it's pointless, and I know that my purpose in life isn't to beat my head against the wall, which is what would happen if I tackled anymore of this.

And no, the author did not fail to provide logical responses to the teleological argument, he in fact present very logical argument. The problem lies in the fact that you don't know what 'logic' is, what its fallacies are, and have got a grasp on even a shred of a piece of a sliver of formal logic in that bible-soaked brain of yours,

God luv ya, dajusta. It would take a being of infinite patience and time to explain and teach you how logic and science operates. Of that i am a full believer.
  • 3

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1277 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:05 PM

Ya I know. But I enjoy the mental gymnastics.

So Sharpshooter, you going to dialogue with me, or just copy/paste some video into the forum here and present it as your own work?


I paste those videos and articles in hopes that something may eventually get through that thick skull of yours, because it's obvious that as far as this human family of ours is concerned, you definitely came from the Neanderthal side.

And yes, you get a gold medal in mental gymnastics. No doubt you are an all time champ when it comes to mental gymnastics.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 21 September 2012 - 07:07 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1278 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:14 PM


  • 0

Posted Image


#1279 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,067 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTSwUig2-0&feature=related

What a ridiculous bunch of propaganda :lol:
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#1280 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:04 PM

No...God comes from the realization that one of the possibilities of how the universe came to be was that it was created.

For myself, Christianity is what aligns with me. I align with Christianity.

Again, religion is man made.

Belief in a creator has nothing to do with religion - I believed in a creator long before I came to religion.

"Sky father"? Please...

Of course Religion is "connected" to God - that's how we try to explain God.


The belief argument – it’s true because I believe it to be true. Implies that belief is truth
  • 0

#1281 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:38 PM

No offence intended, but better men have tried and also walked away shaking their heads.


Heretic is one of the most confused person I have seen post on this site. It's very clear he is not of sound mind even though he thinks he is. I'm not attacking him, but he needs help that his beliefs can not provide.

The weakest of minds that fail to comprehend life as just life will find "God" to bring simple meaning to their existence, religion was brought into existence to manipulate that weakness with a hint of goodwill to hide its many flaws.
  • 0

#1282 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,880 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:52 PM

The belief argument – it’s true because I believe it to be true. Implies that belief is truth


The non-belief argument - "The premise of the argument is that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence."


Heretic is one of the most confused person I have seen post on this site. It's very clear he is not of sound mind even though he thinks he is. I'm not attacking him, but he needs help that his beliefs can not provide.

The weakest of minds that fail to comprehend life as just life will find "God" to bring simple meaning to their existence, religion was brought into existence to manipulate that weakness with a hint of goodwill to hide its many flaws.


Posted Image

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAA!!!!!!!!!
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1283 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:57 PM

The non-belief argument - "The premise of the argument is that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence."


Seems reasonable to me.
  • 0

#1284 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,880 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:00 PM

Seems reasonable to me.


Yes - no different than saying something like "I don't believe God exists therefore he doesn't".
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1285 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:08 PM

Yes - no different than saying something like "I don't believe God exists therefore he doesn't".


The god you describe wants everyone to know he exists. The god you describe is omnipotent, and therefore capable of making everyone aware of his presence. The only evidence for the god you describe is a 2000 year old poorly sourced and self-contradicting book. Thus people do not believe the god you describe exists. Therefore he doesn't. Why is that hard to follow?
  • 1

#1286 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:13 PM

Yes - no different than saying something like "I don't believe God exists therefore he doesn't".


You should have a word with Dajusta then.

Apparently the Bible tells him that God exists because the Bible was written by God, which proves that God exists.

I think he's been on the merry go 'round even longer than you. ;)
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1287 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

You should have a word with Dajusta then.

Apparently the Bible tells him that God exists because the Bible was written by God, which proves that God exists.

I think he's been on the merry go 'round even longer than you. ;)


Posted Image
  • 2

#1288 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,880 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:21 PM

The god you describe wants everyone to know he exists. The god you describe is omnipotent, and therefore capable of making everyone aware of his presence. The only evidence for the god you describe is a 2000 year old poorly sourced and self-contradicting book. Thus people do not believe the god you describe exists. Therefore he doesn't. Why is that hard to follow?


It isn't hard to follow - why aren't you getting what I am saying?
It's no different than what Vancanwincup said about "the belief system".

Self Contradicting? Maybe....maybe not:

http://www.geocities...radictions.html

Remember, all the sites that say it is are biased - that is, usually on the God does not exist side. So don't give me flack providing a source that is biased on the God does exist side.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1289 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:37 PM

It isn't hard to follow - why aren't you getting what I am saying?
It's no different than what Vancanwincup said about "the belief system".

Self Contradicting? Maybe....maybe not:

http://www.geocities...radictions.html

Remember, all the sites that say it is are biased - that is, usually on the God does not exist side. So don't give me flack providing a source that is biased on the God does exist side.

Simple question: Why do you need "God" to exist ?
  • 0

#1290 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:55 PM

You should have a word with Dajusta then.

Apparently the Bible tells him that God exists because the Bible was written by God, which proves that God exists.

I think he's been on the merry go 'round even longer than you. ;)


Except for that part about Noah. That was written by men, about a regional flood, who had no knowledge of the outside world.
  • 1
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.