Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostI have debated literally hundreds of atheists on the Internet, and over 75% of them use that line of reasoning for their atheism. If you watch the prominent atheists debate theists, they also use that line of reasoning. The one line I have heard from scores of atheists is... "If God existed, why does he allow babies to suffer" ... or something similar. Many atheists say they became atheists because of the perceived injustices in the world that they believe would not exist if God (who they think should think exactly like them) existed
"Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostWhat is a liberal philosopher? A problem with the word "liberal" is that people use it in several senses.
Then a few years ago I found that over 90% of atheists considered themselves to be liberal (Hitchens also said this) , and atheism to me is also void of logic because it makes philosophical assumptions about what life forms do and do not exists throughout the entire universe, all without even knowing what exists in our own solar system, and logic can find no reason to put limitations on the intellectual capabilities of any potential life form, yet subjective philosophy that does not stay within the framework of critical thought can find myriads of reasons
For example: Liberal (and only liberal) atheists say not believing God exist does not equate believing God does not exist, when in fact it does. Either God exists or he does not exist, its a true dichotomy. Just as your team can either win or lose the championship, there are only two choices to chose from, If you say you don't believe your team will lose, you have no choice but to say I believe my team will win. Its a logical absolute they honestly can't even see. And if you can't recognize logical absolutes, you will philosophy right around them, which is exactly what they do
I guess what you are saying is that atheists tend to assume that whatever God they are arguing against is a being that has whatever "working theory about the universe" and ethics that the atheists assume, perhaps unwittingly. And won't you believe, atheists tend to assume God would be a being whose ethics and working theory are like the atheists'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostEveryone is a philosopher to some degree or another
Originally posted by IDScience View Postphilosophy is what we use to fill in the gaps between known logical absolutes or empirical facts.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostBut many atheists tend to completely ignore frame work of logical absolutes all together in favor of an imaginary (if they can imagine it to be true, it can be true) subjective philosophy.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostFor example many atheists don't understand if evolution is false, ID must be true
Originally posted by IDScience View Postthese are the only two possibilities for the origins of life
Originally posted by IDScience View PostDawkins understands this
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience
I don't illogically put a "cap" on the attribute and intellect levels of all life that can exist in the universe as the atheists do.*
Originally posted by IDScienceAlso the universe and biological life (admittedly by science) have the appearance of design, therefore that which appears to be designed can not be rejected from being what it appears to be, because that would be an irrational deduction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThere are two, actually. First, it assumes the constants are not inter-dependent. That is, a change to one constant without subsequent changes in the others might not allow life as we know it, but there's no reason to suspect that each constant exists independently. Second, it assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form it can take.
Even taken as is, the fine-tuning argument greatly overstates how 'fine' the tuning has to be. What's worse is when people extend it to describe earth's position in the solar system.
1)Most of the papers vary several parameters
The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70′s until today, vary many parameters1. I’ve addressed these issues at length in my review paper. I’ll summarise some of that article here.
The very thing that started this whole field was physicists noting coincidences between the values of a number of diffehttp://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/rent constants and the requirements for life
2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry
Comment
-
Originally posted by LaplacesDemon View PostI think you're mistaken about the assumptions. I'll quote physicist Luke Barnes who did a recent review of the fine-tuning literature in physics
1)Most of the papers vary several parameters
.
2) We know that if not for fine tuning there would not be any kind of complex chemistry (some universe turn out with only hydrogen gas if not for nuclear force fine-tuning) and no stable bodies like planets for life to live on and no stars to provide an energy source. its a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry
I'll address an important point from your link, though.
"Remember that fine-tuning doesn’t claim that our universe is uniquely life-permitting, but rather that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universe."
This sort of reliance on rarity is a non-starter when arguing for a specific conclusion. It's the same problem Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism suffers from. Let's grant readily that our existence is based on a rare chance and then ask what difference it makes how common it turns out to be. Rarity isn't an argument for God and never will be.
Your response to point #2 doesn't really counter what I said. You say that it's a reasonable assumption that intelligent life needs complex chemistry. I happen to disagree. Even if I granted that it's reasonable, it remains an assumption. Perhaps more importantly, intelligent life isn't a necessary goal. It's still a discussion of rarity.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThe PoE is expressed in terms of the Christian belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has nothing to do with whether God thinks like them, but with the consistency of claimed attributes and observed behavior.
"Hundreds of atheists on the internet" is not anywhere close to 'most atheists'.
My claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%
Comment
-
The term "logical absolutes" was not used in any of the classes I took. What are logical absolutes?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes
So, you think there is something we should call objective philosophy?
I don't understand that, either. Could I trouble you to show me your proof?...Not just because you say so, they aren't...
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker
"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Douglas Futuyma
It isn't true just because he says so, either.Last edited by IDScience; 06-11-2014, 04:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostYes you do. You put a cap on God's attributes and intellect by denying He created species through evolution.
You also have the appearance (admittedly by science) of coming from a long line of primates. Therefore, if you appear to be a primate through epistemologically sound methods of investigation, rejecting that would be an irrational deduction.
"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.
"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.
Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel
DATE: February 12, 2011
RUN TIME: 42 minutes
SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham
Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationships
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostHow is God not consistent with these attributes?,
Originally posted by IDScience View PostIn order to know this you would need to possess the attributes yourself and find them not consistent with your own
Originally posted by IDScience View PostMy claim was of the hundreds of atheists I have debated, most atheists used these arguments. These would be considered polls numbers accurate + or - 5%I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostThere is a long list on why atheists choose to be atheists, my example is a common argument atheists make, and its the main argument used by Sam Harris & Dawkins and the argument Christopher Hitchens made for rejecting God.
Also I have a different definition of God than atheists do. Because its religion that the term God originated from, therefore its only religion that can properly define the term. And the oldest know definition of God found is from the sumer civilization and the bible, and that definition is Elohim, which simply means a position of authority. Psalms 82 calls men gods. And the Hebrew Judges and Angels were also called Elohim (gods)Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-11-2014, 05:54 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostOf course not, I never said God was not capable of producing Darwinian evolution, and if the evidence was there I would accept it. But since every prediction (that I know of) Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified, and both the fossil record and species have massive gaps between them, and a theory is only as good as the predictions it makes, I have no reason to believe God used Darwinian evolution to create the species.
The phylogenetic relationships do not match, this is old news to informed creationists
"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.
"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.
Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel
DATE: February 12, 2011
RUN TIME: 42 minutes
SPEAKERS: Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham
Craig Venter Informs Dawkins and Davies Darwin's "Tree of Life" is false, its now the mangled "Bush of Life". There is no way to decipher the predicted relationshipsGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IDScience View PostA logical absolute is what I refer to as an axiom that can logically only have a limited number of choices. for example, Its a logical absolute that a coin flip can only be either be heads or tails, provided it does not get lucky and stand on its end.
Originally posted by IDScience View PostBut in the way I am using it, its a logical absolute that the universe and life on earth were either created by cognitive mechanisms using intent, or non-cognitive mechanisms without intent
And up to this point, by the way, I might agree with you. If I understand your assertion correctly, I would restate it thus: It either is or is not the case that the universe, including life on earth, was created by a cognitive mechanism using intent. If that is what you mean, I have no problem with it. The logical form of such a premise is "A or not-A," and if we can demonstrate the impossibility of not-A, then we have proved the truth of A.
Originally posted by IDScience View Postno third hypothesis can possibly exist
Originally posted by IDScience View PostThis is something many subjective philosophers don't recognize
Originally posted by IDScience View PostThe "something from absolutely nothing" hypothesis for the origins of the universe does not stay within the known laws of thermodynamics,
Originally posted by IDScience View PostName the third hypothesis for the origins of life on earth other than ID or chemical abiogenesis.
Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIf the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable expectation of a better world to come.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand" Richard Feynman
I see no reason to take this claim seriously. It is, at best, pure assumption on your part.
Does a single celled organism know what a human would do in any given situation, of course not, but the arrogant illogical ones are certain they do know.
Your initial claim was "most atheists". You've since modified that statement to apply only to those you've encountered. You're now trying to tell me that the modified statement was your original claim. It was the modification I took issue with. I have no way of knowing whether or not your initial claim was only meant to apply to those you've interacted with, but it's not remotely clear that this was so.
Polls are not conducted by asking 100% of the targeted audience, they are conducted by asking a large group of them so that an accuracy rate of + or - 5% will be achieved. (Just Google "How are Polls Conducted"). And in my experience with debating atheists, the vast majority of those that are intelligent enough to carry on a debate, use the "IF ANALOGY", i.e. "IF GOD EXISTED, X,Y&Z WOULD NEVER HAPPEN" as a main reason for their atheism.
And the ironic part of this is, you seem to be blind to the fact that you're using these same ""IF ANALOGY" arguments in this debate, with... "If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply"... , then turn around and argue most atheists don't use that argument.
Shooting down the same arguments you're trying to making in the exact same post you are setting them up in, is not conducive to winning the debate
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
12 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
539 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment