Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?
- Thread starter pseudonymous
- Start date
By rigorous & logical means, one can neither 'prove' nor 'disprove' the existence of god. This is the basic assertion of the agnostic position, which is unassailable. Those who are not satisfied with this truth fall into well-trodden camps: the Faithful and the Atheist.
The Faithful holds that God, defined minimally as a 'higher power,' exists. This belief is founded on an emotional basis: they 'feel' that it must be true. What happens to the souls of their deceased loved ones? Who arbitrates morality & justice? What causes existence? The Atheist holds, of course, the opposite. There is, and can be, no god. There is no soul. There is nothing beyond the life we (seem to) know. Morality and justice are strictly relative.
Practically then, the Faithful can appeal to a father figure who codifies a divine law for all to follow. The Atheist must be more pragmatic, but can achieve similar legal conclusions. This leads to a special case of the Faithful, called the Religious. These can be burdened in ways that the Atheist cannot. Since their leaders maintain laws of 'divine origin,' they are unquestionable and have lead to many an atrocity. The Religious hold to their scriptures as 'inspired' despite having no foundation for its 'divinity.' Proceeding logically from such a premise, (i.e. the unproven, hence illogical, existence of god) there is no end, nor means to it, that cannot be 'logically' justified. As such, religion is distributed as opium to the masses in service of political purposes.
Religious systems, per se, function for their own continuity. Those systems that have successfully converted and held significant membership through the ages continue to exist. A corollary function of such systems is to destroy competing systems. There have been few greater, or more senseless, sources of suffering than the inherent instability amongst these systems. Crusaders, Jihadi (the Religious) & their ilk outnumber the (generally pacifist) Faithful by no accident.
No such negative aspects stem from the position of the Atheist. A well-adjusted, intelligent Atheist knows that benevolent reciprocity is the best policy in personal relationships, without spiritual guidance. They know that murder, larceny & covetousness must not be tolerated in society. All creatures appreciate beauty, quite irrespective of divine influence, although the standards are decidedly relative. Without an afterlife, Atheists control their own destiny, understanding that they “only live once.” There is no strife amongst Atheist sects, since there are no such sects.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is some minimal level of Faithfulness that does no harm. Agnostics & Atheists are not generally to blame for suffering. In contrast, the Religious must make a case for themselves against a hostile jury, and apologize for much of human history in so doing.
A parting shot:
If God existed,
It would be an Atheist.
The Faithful holds that God, defined minimally as a 'higher power,' exists. This belief is founded on an emotional basis: they 'feel' that it must be true. What happens to the souls of their deceased loved ones? Who arbitrates morality & justice? What causes existence? The Atheist holds, of course, the opposite. There is, and can be, no god. There is no soul. There is nothing beyond the life we (seem to) know. Morality and justice are strictly relative.
Practically then, the Faithful can appeal to a father figure who codifies a divine law for all to follow. The Atheist must be more pragmatic, but can achieve similar legal conclusions. This leads to a special case of the Faithful, called the Religious. These can be burdened in ways that the Atheist cannot. Since their leaders maintain laws of 'divine origin,' they are unquestionable and have lead to many an atrocity. The Religious hold to their scriptures as 'inspired' despite having no foundation for its 'divinity.' Proceeding logically from such a premise, (i.e. the unproven, hence illogical, existence of god) there is no end, nor means to it, that cannot be 'logically' justified. As such, religion is distributed as opium to the masses in service of political purposes.
Religious systems, per se, function for their own continuity. Those systems that have successfully converted and held significant membership through the ages continue to exist. A corollary function of such systems is to destroy competing systems. There have been few greater, or more senseless, sources of suffering than the inherent instability amongst these systems. Crusaders, Jihadi (the Religious) & their ilk outnumber the (generally pacifist) Faithful by no accident.
No such negative aspects stem from the position of the Atheist. A well-adjusted, intelligent Atheist knows that benevolent reciprocity is the best policy in personal relationships, without spiritual guidance. They know that murder, larceny & covetousness must not be tolerated in society. All creatures appreciate beauty, quite irrespective of divine influence, although the standards are decidedly relative. Without an afterlife, Atheists control their own destiny, understanding that they “only live once.” There is no strife amongst Atheist sects, since there are no such sects.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is some minimal level of Faithfulness that does no harm. Agnostics & Atheists are not generally to blame for suffering. In contrast, the Religious must make a case for themselves against a hostile jury, and apologize for much of human history in so doing.
A parting shot:
If God existed,
It would be an Atheist.
Good Evening Drew,DrewJMore said:
Perhaps you are correct. But before you close the book on your convictions, I invite you to take a good look around you. Look past the people, pain, and the dirt. Everything has form and function. Nothing is lost to chaos. Everything has order. Order can only come from an orderly something. If anything is left to its own devices, the natural "order" of things is the Entropy effect. That is, to break down to the most basic simple state. But that does not happen. Everything repairs itself (or tries to). Why? That is not a natural state of being. What is keeping it all together? Humans?
You know...God loves it when someone thinks of Him/Her/It, especially an Atheist.
v/r
Q
Blue
Member
Consider these words of Q:
"Everything has order. Order can only come from an orderly something. If anything is left to its own devices, the natural "order" of things is the Entropy effect. That is, to break down to the most basic simple state. But that does not happen. Everything repairs itself (or tries to). Why? That is not a natural state of being. What is keeping it all together?"
It contains the words: "IF anything is left to its own devices...."
This 'natural order of which you speak seems to deny the observations any of us can make... Where is the 'order' in an unexpected vehicle crashing into mine? Where is the order in the chaos of a Tsunami swamping the land and causing thousands of deaths? Where is the order in the gradual rundown apparent in all living creatures as they age? Where is the order in you maybe winning the lottery this week?
A human body will only repair itself under certain conditions, at other times it needs external help from surgeons and medics.
If you are looking for some universal priniciple of 'order', could you please tell us where to look?
Is there 'order' in your free choice to answer this Post or not?
If there was a universal concept of 'order' observable it would seem there would be no free will, no choices to be made.
Even mathematics abstractly now considers a possible state of 'disorder' or Chaos as a main possible principle.
You say, Q, that nothing is lost to chaos.... do you really think that?
=======
I cannot fault the Thread post here by DrewJMore... it is reasonably and coolly presented and your argument seems affected by affective prejudgements concerning entropy.... If you have 'order' and wish to define 'order', you have to consider the converse - 'disorder' and chaos - in human experiences as well as in the sciences... for disorder is immediately apparent in most human social dealings and the apparent randomness of natural events, like you tripping and breaking a leg or falling down an unforseen hole or catching an incurable disease through no fault of your own.
There may well be unknown causes for these effects as some part of a grand design or 'order', but a grand design needs a grand designer, and there is no objective evidence of such a being'entity' beyond the heart and soul of an affirmer and believer when they validate it for themselves.
"Everything has order. Order can only come from an orderly something. If anything is left to its own devices, the natural "order" of things is the Entropy effect. That is, to break down to the most basic simple state. But that does not happen. Everything repairs itself (or tries to). Why? That is not a natural state of being. What is keeping it all together?"
It contains the words: "IF anything is left to its own devices...."
This 'natural order of which you speak seems to deny the observations any of us can make... Where is the 'order' in an unexpected vehicle crashing into mine? Where is the order in the chaos of a Tsunami swamping the land and causing thousands of deaths? Where is the order in the gradual rundown apparent in all living creatures as they age? Where is the order in you maybe winning the lottery this week?
A human body will only repair itself under certain conditions, at other times it needs external help from surgeons and medics.
If you are looking for some universal priniciple of 'order', could you please tell us where to look?
Is there 'order' in your free choice to answer this Post or not?
If there was a universal concept of 'order' observable it would seem there would be no free will, no choices to be made.
Even mathematics abstractly now considers a possible state of 'disorder' or Chaos as a main possible principle.
You say, Q, that nothing is lost to chaos.... do you really think that?
=======
I cannot fault the Thread post here by DrewJMore... it is reasonably and coolly presented and your argument seems affected by affective prejudgements concerning entropy.... If you have 'order' and wish to define 'order', you have to consider the converse - 'disorder' and chaos - in human experiences as well as in the sciences... for disorder is immediately apparent in most human social dealings and the apparent randomness of natural events, like you tripping and breaking a leg or falling down an unforseen hole or catching an incurable disease through no fault of your own.
There may well be unknown causes for these effects as some part of a grand design or 'order', but a grand design needs a grand designer, and there is no objective evidence of such a being'entity' beyond the heart and soul of an affirmer and believer when they validate it for themselves.
I acknowledge Blue's deconstruction of your arguement, Q, and offer one of my own:
Further, and I understand that this is not the case with yourself, those whose faith is based on such reasoning are doomed to eventually discover that their 'house-of-cards' is built upon an unstable foundation-- as described in my previous message.
The Religious claim, under various pretenses, that they have achieved certainty regarding divine will or motivations, usually to the exclusion of other similar claims. However, the logical bases for the proofs of any of these claims are flawed from the outset.
The point is that one cannot expect to find irrefutable evidence of divine presence. From a theological standpoint, their could be no faith without grounds for doubt. The Faithful must recognize that thier faith is ultimately founded on a sense that a higher power exists. They feel happier because they 'know' that there is a higher purpose in life. Again speaking theologically: God (or any other such Name) has given us a soul which yearns to return to It. Religions are generally constructed to conceal these fundamental assumptions.
But, say they, those things which are in the mind, in that we can by the mind itself discern them, we have no need to know through the eyes of the body; but those things, which you say unto us that we should believe, you neither point to without, that through the eyes of the body we may know them; nor are they within, in our own mind, that by exercising thought we may see them.
-AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430)
Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
Translated by C. L. Cornish, M.A.
(my emphasis, of course- djm)
The contrasted position of an Atheist is simply that there is no compelling reason to make this intellectual leap towards divinity.
Religions place emphasis on faith first, then construct moral and legal codes based upon dubious premises or, more typically, upon the 'revealed word of God,' the proof of which must follow from faith alone. Now recall descriptions of paradise to which Jihadi martyrs cling, or the assertions of the medieval Roman Church: the punishment of the afterlife as a commodity to be bought & sold. The potential for subversion of Faith by religion, and the resulting mindset of the Religious, is the strongest 'proof' against it-- and against its rhetorical foundations.
I have distilled your comments above to show how it is internally inconsistent. Your understanding of elementary thermodynamics seems sound, and yet you deny its primary conclusion. Such flaws abound in any purported demonstration of the reality of divine powers.Quahom1 said:
Further, and I understand that this is not the case with yourself, those whose faith is based on such reasoning are doomed to eventually discover that their 'house-of-cards' is built upon an unstable foundation-- as described in my previous message.
The Religious claim, under various pretenses, that they have achieved certainty regarding divine will or motivations, usually to the exclusion of other similar claims. However, the logical bases for the proofs of any of these claims are flawed from the outset.
The point is that one cannot expect to find irrefutable evidence of divine presence. From a theological standpoint, their could be no faith without grounds for doubt. The Faithful must recognize that thier faith is ultimately founded on a sense that a higher power exists. They feel happier because they 'know' that there is a higher purpose in life. Again speaking theologically: God (or any other such Name) has given us a soul which yearns to return to It. Religions are generally constructed to conceal these fundamental assumptions.
But, say they, those things which are in the mind, in that we can by the mind itself discern them, we have no need to know through the eyes of the body; but those things, which you say unto us that we should believe, you neither point to without, that through the eyes of the body we may know them; nor are they within, in our own mind, that by exercising thought we may see them.
-AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430)
Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
Translated by C. L. Cornish, M.A.
(my emphasis, of course- djm)
The contrasted position of an Atheist is simply that there is no compelling reason to make this intellectual leap towards divinity.
Religions place emphasis on faith first, then construct moral and legal codes based upon dubious premises or, more typically, upon the 'revealed word of God,' the proof of which must follow from faith alone. Now recall descriptions of paradise to which Jihadi martyrs cling, or the assertions of the medieval Roman Church: the punishment of the afterlife as a commodity to be bought & sold. The potential for subversion of Faith by religion, and the resulting mindset of the Religious, is the strongest 'proof' against it-- and against its rhetorical foundations.
Good evening Blue, and Drew.Blue said:
I fault neither of you for your thoughts on this matter either.
You bring up interesting challenges. I will attempt corrallaries to drive my point.
1. If you left your house, and left everything as is, but walked away from it, never to return, what would eventually happen? I submit nature would begin to take its course, and break your house down. The weather would begin to affect the paint, wood and brick. Inside the dust in the air would begin to settle, the fabrics of your furniture and walls would begin to go stale, mildew would proliferate. The dust on the surfaces would absorb the moisture from the materials they cover. Dry rot begins. Slow oxydation begins. In short, your house would begin to fall apart after time. Within 100 maybe 200 years, your house would be a hulking shell of its former self.
But tell me, what stops this from occuring? You. You live there, and you make adjustments. You repair, you clean, you improve. Without you, however, there would be nothing in time but a pile of rot, breaking down into its most basic elements.
The universe should do exactly the same thing. I can not maintain order on its own, because natural law does not allow it. Natural order of things wants everything simple, basic.
2. Life itself defies the natural order of things. The human body dies every day, and decomposes. But Life fights it by rebuilding, and cleaning away the broken down waste products.
Atoms want to fly apart by their nature. Electrons will disperse into the cosmos, while the nucleas tries to repel against its like parts and neutral parts. However, the electrons can not ignore the attraction to the protons, and the protons and neutrons can not break free of this "glue" that holds the nucleas together. And science still can not explain what this "nucleaic glue" is. It is not natural that protons remain locked together in a core. By nature they are repelled by eachother, yet everything is made up of this "un natural" bit of material.
3. Even in death, parts of the human body will continue to function The heart will struggle to beat even if blown apart. Fingernails and hair folicles will grow until the nutrients are gone. Man's ability to hear is the last sense to end during death. The brain will live on until there is no more oxygen or nutrients going to it, then it will continue until it exhausts what it actually contains. Life, continues to strive to maintain, even when the materials used to contain it fail.
4. Someone striking your vehicle from behind is not an accident. Oh we call it that, but the truth is they weren't paying attention, or they misjudged, or they overestimated their control over road conditions and the car and their trajectory/velocity. That is the absolute truth. They did not have control of their vehicle, because they let go of it.
5. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that living on the coasts or in the shadow of a volcano, or a mountain subject to heavy snow is inherently dangerous. Yet we choose to live there anyway. We know the tectonic plate shift all the time, we know volcanoes are vents for pressure deep in the earth. We know living in flat lands or plateaus leave us subject to predictable wind conditions that can flare up and anytime. Yet, we stay and take our chances.
6. Our body according to scientists, is designed to function in a healthy fashion for about 120 years (based on our metabolism). This of course is subject to what we take into our bodies, or have affecting our bodies. In a best case scenario, of clean environment and healthy living, we also know that there is a "clock" in our DNA that goes off at a particular point in the body's existence that tell our system to stop growing, and just maintain repairing the body. That clock goes off again at a later point, telling the cells of our body to begin a gradual break down of cellular regeneration. It allows for the next generation of our kind to proliferate the earth, without our crowding it.
7. Is there free choice in my choosing to answer this post or not? What do you think dear Blue? I'm not the one searching for the particular answers you are searching for. I'm just sorry I don't have the answers you seek, or can't put them in a way that you can accept. I'm not even certain that I am capable of answering your questions.
8. Free will is the ultimate equalizer Blue. More importantly, "Shear Will" is the driving force that holds back the Entropy Effect. Whether or not it is our Shear Will, or that of something greater, is a question you must answer privately.
9. By its very nature, mathematics cannot not be random or disorderly. Whoever told you that is, mistaken. I can give you a thousand examples of what happens when math becomes random, and loses cohesive logic...and all end up in chaos, or a failed equation, if you will. Which means the failed formula is meaningless garbage. Heh, he, even the Heisenberg principle has logic behind it. And it is not founded in the chaotic.
10. Finally, yes Blue I believe that nothing is lost to chaos, unless we choose to be lost to it...but then, even that has a sense of order...
v/r
Q
Q,
Allow me to restructure your argument, and develop a picture of the paradigm to which you subscribe. Please forgive my ad-hoc logical symbology.
"Natural order” is defined in (1) above. We agree here; in common parlance it is said that bodies tend towards the simplest state, which means that with the lowest energy.
The premise implied by (2.a) is that life does not tend towards the state of lowest energy. Therefore from (1) and (2.a) the following conclusion is drawn:
(1 + 2.a)‘Life’ is governed by super-natural rules.
The conclusion (1 +2.a) is erroneous. The reason for this is simply that life does tend towards its simplest state, negating premise (2.a). (The “run-down house” metaphor demonstrates this, despite the fact that it was parleyed in support of the contrary position.) Only the free will of the individual in this parable keeps wild-nature from encroaching--unless you mean to assert that all life has free will, which seems doubtful. Without the constant influx of energy from the Sun, all life that we know of would submit to entropy.
Presumably what proceeds from there does not rest entirely upon what precedes, so we continue.
Assertion (2.b.i) separates inter-atomic behavior from the “Natural order.”
The conclusion in (2.b.ii) implies a super-natural influence that restrains an explosive tendency inherent in all matter. Statement (2.b.i) states the obverse of (1) regarding atomic structure: working against the “Natural order,” atomic nuclei tend towards a more organized (higher energy) state.
Finally, assertion (2.b.iii) formally removes the fundamental structure of practically all matter from the realm of the “Natural order.”
It would seem that the reader must draw the conclusion, familiar in pre-renaissance theology, that God’s will holds the very fabric of reality together.
(a.1) In refutation of the above, I define that there is nothing more natural than the atomic structure. This is fundamental to reality as we perceive it. Sub-atomic behavior may be counterintuitive, but postulation of super-natural forces begs a simple question: what rules must these newly imagined forces obey?
(a.2) The proposed explanation provides no utility other than to side step the conclusion that some god must exist, which has previously been shown to be logically fallacious.
(b) Further, the established phenomenon of nuclear fusion demonstrates that the disintegration of an atomic nucleus results in the release of energy, lowering the overall energy of the system in question, thereby dismantling (2.b.i).
(c) Furthermore, the assertion that ‘nucleic glue’ between protons & neutrons ‘cannot be explained’ is erroneous because it also begs a question. There is no complimentary ‘explanation’ for the ‘natural’ repulsion between protons that this ‘glue’ must resist. Must it also be a super-natural force? (Ref. (a.2))
Your commentary in 3 through 9 continues in a similar vein, with progressively less meaningful content. Please understand, I have undertaken to respond to this thread (again) in hopes that the original question of “Proof ,” can come to rest, and also to provide some rational discussion of the topic. My impression is now that your personal faith IS founded on the idea that you have proof of God’s existence, reversing my earlier opinion to the contrary.
If you wish, we could engage in the construction of a new paradigm by stipulating the existence of your deity. However, this exercise would only be meaningful if you could accept that it may not magnify your pre-existing faith.
Allow me to restructure your argument, and develop a picture of the paradigm to which you subscribe. Please forgive my ad-hoc logical symbology.
Quahom1 said:
"Natural order” is defined in (1) above. We agree here; in common parlance it is said that bodies tend towards the simplest state, which means that with the lowest energy.
Quahom1 said:
The premise implied by (2.a) is that life does not tend towards the state of lowest energy. Therefore from (1) and (2.a) the following conclusion is drawn:
(1 + 2.a)‘Life’ is governed by super-natural rules.
The conclusion (1 +2.a) is erroneous. The reason for this is simply that life does tend towards its simplest state, negating premise (2.a). (The “run-down house” metaphor demonstrates this, despite the fact that it was parleyed in support of the contrary position.) Only the free will of the individual in this parable keeps wild-nature from encroaching--unless you mean to assert that all life has free will, which seems doubtful. Without the constant influx of energy from the Sun, all life that we know of would submit to entropy.
Presumably what proceeds from there does not rest entirely upon what precedes, so we continue.
Quahom1 said:
Assertion (2.b.i) separates inter-atomic behavior from the “Natural order.”
The conclusion in (2.b.ii) implies a super-natural influence that restrains an explosive tendency inherent in all matter. Statement (2.b.i) states the obverse of (1) regarding atomic structure: working against the “Natural order,” atomic nuclei tend towards a more organized (higher energy) state.
Finally, assertion (2.b.iii) formally removes the fundamental structure of practically all matter from the realm of the “Natural order.”
It would seem that the reader must draw the conclusion, familiar in pre-renaissance theology, that God’s will holds the very fabric of reality together.
(a.1) In refutation of the above, I define that there is nothing more natural than the atomic structure. This is fundamental to reality as we perceive it. Sub-atomic behavior may be counterintuitive, but postulation of super-natural forces begs a simple question: what rules must these newly imagined forces obey?
(a.2) The proposed explanation provides no utility other than to side step the conclusion that some god must exist, which has previously been shown to be logically fallacious.
(b) Further, the established phenomenon of nuclear fusion demonstrates that the disintegration of an atomic nucleus results in the release of energy, lowering the overall energy of the system in question, thereby dismantling (2.b.i).
(c) Furthermore, the assertion that ‘nucleic glue’ between protons & neutrons ‘cannot be explained’ is erroneous because it also begs a question. There is no complimentary ‘explanation’ for the ‘natural’ repulsion between protons that this ‘glue’ must resist. Must it also be a super-natural force? (Ref. (a.2))
Your commentary in 3 through 9 continues in a similar vein, with progressively less meaningful content. Please understand, I have undertaken to respond to this thread (again) in hopes that the original question of “Proof ,” can come to rest, and also to provide some rational discussion of the topic. My impression is now that your personal faith IS founded on the idea that you have proof of God’s existence, reversing my earlier opinion to the contrary.
If you wish, we could engage in the construction of a new paradigm by stipulating the existence of your deity. However, this exercise would only be meaningful if you could accept that it may not magnify your pre-existing faith.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
This thread topic is one of those that will go round and round with no end.. no resolve.. and no proof. God does not require proof.. he has given us proof enough in creation.. but then you have the world who argues that it wasnt God.. that it was something else. Thats when you have to make the choice.. believe God or believe the world. I choose God.
Hello Drew,
As soon as I get home, I will indulge you on my take of things. I must tell you, that I greatly appreciate your break down of my previous post. I look forward to an engaging conversation, and hope I make sense...
v/r
Q
As soon as I get home, I will indulge you on my take of things. I must tell you, that I greatly appreciate your break down of my previous post. I look forward to an engaging conversation, and hope I make sense...
v/r
Q
Honey, I'm home...sorryDrewJMore said:
Let's get down to brass tacks here, shall we?
You state:
"Natural order” is defined in (1) above. We agree here; in common parlance it is said that bodies tend towards the simplest state, which means that with the lowest energy.
agreed.
You state:
The conclusion (1 +2.a) is erroneous. The reason for this is simply that life does tend towards its simplest state, negating premise (2.a). (The “run-down house” metaphor demonstrates this, despite the fact that it was parleyed in support of the contrary position.) Only the free will of the individual in this parable keeps wild-nature from encroaching--unless you mean to assert that all life has free will, which seems doubtful. Without the constant influx of energy from the Sun, all life that we know of would submit to entropy.
Life in and of itself is anything but simple. If it were so simple, we would have created it thirty years ago. Furthermore, we can not bring life back to tissue that is dead, but once was alive, Therefore (2.a.) has not been negated yet. There is nothing simple about life. You can't explain it, you can't describe how it works, and you can not simplify Life. You have no qualifications to justify doing so. You do not even know how life works (neither do I), so your argument is mute.
I began on the premise that life is, and therefore something created it, a "supernatural" power if you will, because natural powers can't do it.
Assertion (2.b.i) separates inter-atomic behavior from the “Natural order.”
The conclusion in (2.b.ii) implies a super-natural influence that restrains an explosive tendency inherent in all matter. Statement (2.b.i) states the obverse of (1) regarding atomic structure: working against the “Natural order,” atomic nuclei tend towards a more organized (higher energy) state.
Finally, assertion (2.b.iii) formally removes the fundamental structure of practically all matter from the realm of the “Natural order.”
It would seem that the reader must draw the conclusion, familiar in pre-renaissance theology, that God’s will holds the very fabric of reality together.
Why? What explosive tendancy? The tendancy of atoms without outside properties to keep them in check is to seperate peacefully, not blow up. The only time something "blows up" is when it is forcefully split apart.
You are funnin' me right? You think I'm a moron don't you Drew? This is all fodder.
It isn't a game I will play with you. Give me some serious information to work with. Or don't bother.
Q
Quahom1 said:
The above assertion is yet another example of what is known as "begging the question." This means an idea has been proposed that rests on an unstated assumption. This assumption must be expounded to validate the original idea. You submit that life must have been created, but then assume that the creator must not have been. In this case the question being begged is,
"What created the creator?"
Allow me to preemptively point out that any positive reply to this question will only beg another, similar question.
Personally, with the help of a special someone, I have created exactly one life: we have named her Meredyth.
Quahom1 said:
From your previous message:
Quahom1 said:
I offer apologies for placing the word "explosive" into your mouth, when "want to fly apart" was such a carefully chosen phrase. Such semantic objections on your part, however, do not weaken my position.
I suspect that radioactive nuclear decay is the process you have in mind, which is quite different than you've described. To reiterate: I am certain that atoms, in general, do not fly apart with any regularity under typical conditions. Thankfully, much precise work must be done to intiate such a reaction, keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of most individuals.
Quahom1 said:
Although I have occasionally wished that you had spell-check,
and grammer-check, I hold your opinions in the highest esteem. This should be evident in the care that I take in challenging them.DrewJMore said:
Hello Drew.
I do not know what created the "Creator". In the same context there doesn't seem to be an understanding of what caused a singularity to exist, let alone evolve into the "Big Bang" theory, or how many times the universe might have existed before its current form. I think the answers to these questions are out there, we just do not have them yet. However, when looking at the apparent precision of the design of DNA for example, I find it extremely difficult to fathom that DNA happened to come together by shear luck, or chance.
DrewJMore said:
Once long ago, I too had a very special someone in my life...and her name was... "Meredith".
DrewJMore said:
Actually Drew I was not referring to anything concerning radioactive decay, nor forcing an atom to split (artificially). I specifically meant that we do not know what the "force" is that keeps the nucleus of an atom from literally flying apart (due to the repulsive nature of two like charged particles, as well as neutral charged particles, which are attracted to nothing), at any given point in time. Protons and neutrons should not remain packed into the nucleus of any atom, yet they do. The natural tendency for an atom it seems would be to disintegrate into its most basic parts. Perhaps protons and electrons would attract each other, but neutrons should simply spin off in random directions.
DrewJMore said:
I stand corrected. BTW, I think you meant "grammar"...(had to do it Drew, just couldn't ignore that one)
v/r
Q
That Man created god (in the beginning...) is the simplest reasonable explanation.Quahom1 said:
This discussion has been fulfilling, thank you Quahom, and I am tempted to leave your final point intact out of gratitude. Obstinate to last, however, I must leave you with these final words:Quahom1 said:
'strong nucular force'
B
Bandit
Guest
Now that explains everything. How could I be so blind.
Blue
Member
" However, when looking at the apparent precision of the design of DNA for example, I find it extremely difficult to fathom that DNA happened to come together by shear luck, or chance."
=========
Dear Quahom,
You find it extremely difficult, and so does my son as a geneticist.
The fact is that all organic material behaves according to its nature as determined under scientific investigation.
The fact there are unanswered questions is not evidence of anything other than that. It does not require or necessitate any hypothesis of a 'prime mover', 'Creator', or anything else. That is just something one would affectively validate for oneself.
Bandit,
Have you any evidence at all that this is not so: "That Man created god (in the beginning...)"?
=========
Dear Quahom,
You find it extremely difficult, and so does my son as a geneticist.
The fact is that all organic material behaves according to its nature as determined under scientific investigation.
The fact there are unanswered questions is not evidence of anything other than that. It does not require or necessitate any hypothesis of a 'prime mover', 'Creator', or anything else. That is just something one would affectively validate for oneself.
==============
Bandit,
Have you any evidence at all that this is not so: "That Man created god (in the beginning...)"?
Satanist
Well-Known Member
Love this topic.
All moral questions are irrelevant for the existence of a diety becouse there no reason to believe that dieties must be moral beings.
For there to be a deity in the first place.
I must be controlling cosmos or at least and minimally be controling of
a small part of cosmos.
Which leads to minimal requirement number two.
That the universe shows off the personalty of the deity.
No deity can can lack power or lack personalty of the material universe.
It doesn't have to be human sentience so you can't disprove it that easy.
Since we can read personalties out from any natural force we observe
and becouse it's easy calcylate patters of principes such a evolution, desire
or destiny as being powers.
The later does change and dominate large spheres of logic chains.
They also favours and punnish people according to how they fit with them.
This leaves only two reasonable argument that there is no gods.
1.
The scientific analys of pointing out how these forces works
contrary to any form of sentience.
If these forces have zero resemblence to sentience.
2.
To disprove the existence of any kind of large scale metapysical power.
Magic,science or evolution.
If any of these two remains. There could be gods.
As long as there is exist power and sentience.
Mankind or another animal could evolve into Gods.
And as long as there is any resemblance of sentience in the natural forces
then planets and other concept could be sentient simply due to their large scale.
All moral questions are irrelevant for the existence of a diety becouse there no reason to believe that dieties must be moral beings.
For there to be a deity in the first place.
I must be controlling cosmos or at least and minimally be controling of
a small part of cosmos.
Which leads to minimal requirement number two.
That the universe shows off the personalty of the deity.
No deity can can lack power or lack personalty of the material universe.
It doesn't have to be human sentience so you can't disprove it that easy.
Since we can read personalties out from any natural force we observe
and becouse it's easy calcylate patters of principes such a evolution, desire
or destiny as being powers.
The later does change and dominate large spheres of logic chains.
They also favours and punnish people according to how they fit with them.
This leaves only two reasonable argument that there is no gods.
1.
The scientific analys of pointing out how these forces works
contrary to any form of sentience.
If these forces have zero resemblence to sentience.
2.
To disprove the existence of any kind of large scale metapysical power.
Magic,science or evolution.
If any of these two remains. There could be gods.
As long as there is exist power and sentience.
Mankind or another animal could evolve into Gods.
And as long as there is any resemblance of sentience in the natural forces
then planets and other concept could be sentient simply due to their large scale.
Satanist
Well-Known Member
I think that the even better argument against the existence of Gods
are religions who define Gods irrationally and anti-logically.
The more irrational the expectations of what God would be like,
the less chance that God exist.
For example all human religions not based on reason and logic
are just human inventions.
No god can hope to fullfill human fantasies of an entire other universe.
Should a deity play with human religion along just to exploit misdirected faith?
Deities are cosmic creatures, they can't conform to personal human ideas
unless they have some cosmic fundation.
Love is not a natural force.
There is no great order in the universe.
Deities are the highest form of realistic materialism.
are religions who define Gods irrationally and anti-logically.
The more irrational the expectations of what God would be like,
the less chance that God exist.
For example all human religions not based on reason and logic
are just human inventions.
No god can hope to fullfill human fantasies of an entire other universe.
Should a deity play with human religion along just to exploit misdirected faith?
Deities are cosmic creatures, they can't conform to personal human ideas
unless they have some cosmic fundation.
Love is not a natural force.
There is no great order in the universe.
Deities are the highest form of realistic materialism.
DrFree
In Pluribus Unum
Maybe God listened to the old aphorism "Give a man fish, you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
Maybe God believes it is better for us to learn how to use our free will to avoid or deal with our challenges than to rescue us every day.
Maybe God believes it is better for us to learn how to use our free will to avoid or deal with our challenges than to rescue us every day.