I'll debate you. It will be like watching a Nic Cage movie. Awful but enjoyable. @sacerdotus @dave_was_here @patman412 @nostradamnisuck
— Mouse Cop (@justfole) November 25, 2012
The above individual wants to debate me, so here we go:
This is the debate and its rules:
- God, can He be proven to exist?
- Can He be proven not to exist?
- Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
- No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
- Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
- If an argument is not clear or is too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
- The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest arguments.
- If any participant fails to continue, he/she will be disqualified and deemed the loser.
- No one other than @justfole and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment here.
Format:
Opening Speech - Opponent
Opening Speech - Sacerdotus
First Rebuttal - Opponent
First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus
Second Rebuttal - Opponent
Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus
Closing Statement - Opponent
Closing Statement - Sacerdotus
God cannot be proven to exist.
ReplyDeleteGod cannot be proven to not exist.
Is there anything more to discuss?
Sincerely,
The Player Formerly Known As Mousecop
You have to back that opening statement now with evidence.
DeleteHow can I provide evidence that there is no evidence? I am making the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, and no way to prove the nonexistence of any gods. In order to prove me wrong, you must provide the evidence that I am claiming does not exist.
DeleteIf you are unable or unwilling to prove me wrong, either concede defeat or admit that we agree.
You are not sticking to the debate:
DeleteGod, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist?
These are the issues at hand.
I am sticking to the debate. The answer to both questions is NO.
DeleteNo god, yours or others, can be proven to exist.
No god, yours or others, can be proven to not exist.
Please refute.
I say otherwise. God can indeed be proven by use of reason. Since man has existed, the concept of God or a Creator has always come up in all societies.
DeleteIf your contention is that a god can be proven by use of reason, then please proceed to do so. But keep in mind, you are arguing for the existence of ONE out of THOUSANDS of gods.
DeleteSince the dawn of time, the concept of a god has existed in all societies as an explanation for the unknown. This fact does not make any of these gods real.
There is only ONE God. There is no need to play on the different ways Man has interpreted this one reality. I can say mom, you can say mother. The reality remains that we both have a parental female unit that gave birth to us both. It would be foolish to claim that my mother is the Mother while your's is not. The same with God. Regardless of how man see's God or names Him. God is God and there is only One.
DeleteYet you and I have different mothers.
DeleteIs there any evidence or logical reason to believe that there exists only one god? Perhaps there are thousands of gods. Maybe they're scientists collaborating on this experiment we call our universe. Maybe all the religions are right and these gods are manipulating the experiment.
There is no evidence to support ANY claim of understanding the nature of "god". This is the root of atheism. "I don't believe you."
Religions don't claim a vague belief in an intelligent creator, religions assert knowledge. They ascribe personalities and actions to said intelligent creator. There is no evidence to support these claims, and I as a rational intelligent person cannot believe them.
Different mothers, but they function as the same. Similarly, each society may have a "different God" but that God is basically the same - the Creator/Origin of all.
DeleteIf there were more than one God, then why is one allowed to act on mankind while the others are dormant? How can a plurality of divine minds create the universe and design will and purpose to it? This would result in disorder.
If these "Gods" are scientists experimenting on what we call the universe, why? What will they gain from experimenting on created subjects? If they created us, they already know us. Why experiment on us if they know what they made already? Why would Steve Jobs experiment on an Ipad if he designed it? He already knows what it entails.
I disagree. Religions can offer evidence, it is up to the outsider to objectively study it and not brush it aside with the "I don't believe you" filter.
"If there were more than one God, then why is one allowed to act on mankind while the others are dormant?"
DeleteThis is an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence or logical reason to believe.
"How can a plurality of divine minds create the universe and design will and purpose to it? This would result in disorder."
This is an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence or logical reason to believe.
"If these "Gods" are scientists experimenting on what we call the universe, why? What will they gain from experimenting on created subjects?"
I don't know. I don't claim to know the motivations of the creator of the universe. That is where you and I differ.
"If they created us, they already know us."
This is an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence or logical reason to believe.
"Religions can offer evidence"
And so far you have offered none.
It is not an assumption, but a question that demands an answer. Since when does a question need supportive evidence? The point of question is to obtain information, not provide it.
DeleteSo either answer the questions or just concede that your position is invalid and has no supporting evidence since the questions deal with your premise.
You claim I have offered none, yet you have not refuted my first rebuttal. Unfair of you, don't you think?
Repeat the question in a clear concise manner so I can be sure to answer it.
DeleteRepeat the claim in your first rebuttal that you wish me to refute in a clear and concise manner and I will respond.
Do not elaborate or go on in great length about anything or I may again miss the question you want an answer to. In your reply to this post, clearly indicate the question or assertion you want a response to and nothing more. It might help if you number them, as such:
1) Question I did not answer
2) Rebuttal I did not refute
Thank you for clarifying your points.
The questions are clear and concise:
DeleteIf there were more than one God, then why is one allowed to act on mankind while the others are dormant?
How can a plurality of divine minds create the universe and design will and purpose to it? This would result in disorder.
If these "Gods" are scientists experimenting on what we call the universe, why?
What will they gain from experimenting on created subjects?
If they created us, they already know us. Why experiment on us if they know what they made already?
Why would Steve Jobs experiment on an Ipad if he designed it? He already knows what it entails.
You brought the issue of plurality of gods, so I questioned it. Now answer please.
(Sorry for reverting back to my registered Google name instead of my Twitter name, I didn't realize it happened.)
DeleteI will now address your questions as clearly as I can.
1) If there were more than one God, then why is one allowed to act on mankind while the others are dormant?
**I have already stated that you don't know this. You are making an assumption that only one god is allowed to act. I already posited the hypothesis that all religions are correct, and that there are multiple gods simultaneously acting in our lives. We have no information from which to draw a conclusion. All discussion on this topic is speculative. I don't believe there are ANY gods taking an active role in human affairs.
2) How can a plurality of divine minds create the universe and design will and purpose to it? This would result in disorder.
**Again, this is an assumption. You have no evidence that a plurality of divine minds working together to create the universe would result in disorder. All polytheistic religions have one god above all others, be it Zeus or Jupiter or Brahma. One plan does not negate multiple workers.
3) If these "Gods" are scientists experimenting on what we call the universe, why?
**Impossible to know the motivations behind these "gods" as there is no evidence to support their existence. Any discussion is purely speculative and based on imagination, not data. (I feel like I've already said all of this. deja vu)
4) What will they gain from experimenting on created subjects?
**See above
5) If they created us, they already know us.
**This assumes omnipotence. What is the point of starting an experiment if you already know how it will go? My hypothesis for the multiple scientist gods requires them to not be able to predict the future, as no scientist can. Prescience would negate the need for experimentation.
6) Why would Steve Jobs experiment on an Ipad if he designed it? He already knows what it entails.
**A designer often only realizes the flaws in his design after it is created and used. If you follow the Bible, this is seen in the JudeoChristian god. He created Adam and Eve but didn't like that they ate that fruit, so he kicked them out and thus changed the design of his world. He again changed the design of his world by flooding it, saving only Noah's family and 2 (or 7) of each animal, and starting over. He again changed the design of his world by impregnating a preteen girl with himself so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to save mankind from himself. The JudeoChristian god is constantly changing his creation to suit his needs/desires. With that in mind, you would better be able to answer your question than I would.
Steve Jobs is not an omnipotent deity. He changes the design of the iPod/iPhone/iPad to stay on top of increasingly advanced technology. The materials required to make the iPhone 5 were not available in 2001 when the first iPod came out. That is why Steve Jobs (for example) repeatedly changed his creation. Can the same be said for a deity who created the universe and everything in it from the unlimited powers of his imagination?
I hope I have clearly answered your questions. If not, please rephrase them because I think I provided a sufficient rebuttal.
The questions are hypothetical based on your comment regarding the plurality of Gods. Therefore, I was expecting you to answer them in the same manner you proposed the ideas.
DeleteMoreover:
What is your evidence that there are not "any gods taking an active role in human affairs?" You seem to be sure of something that there is no evidence for. How is it that theists cannot have evidence for God, yet you can state "I don't believe there are ANY gods taking an active role in human affairs" and not expect interrogation?
How would you explain your position to someone who has experienced God or an act of God that defies nature?
My evidence is based on cognitive psychology. If there are many gods and each created mankind in its image and each has a temperament with cognitive abilities, then how is that possible if 2 minds do not think alike?
You do not have to have tangible gods before you to answer these questions.
If it is impossible to know motive, then why mention the experimentation done by gods?
My questions reflect you comment:
" Is there any evidence or logical reason to believe that there exists only one god? Perhaps there are thousands of gods. Maybe they're scientists collaborating on this experiment we call our universe. Maybe all the religions are right and these gods are manipulating the experiment."
The Bible says creation was "good." The dismissal of Adam and Eve is an allegory showing the fall from grace, not imperfection or flaws in design. For all intent and purpose, this universe functions exactly how it is supposed to function. The flood etc are not a "change" to the world, but a punishment against those human beings who lived immoral lives.
No one implied Jobs was an omnipotent deity. He is a designer so I proposed the question that why would he need to study what he already designed and knows well on?
"What is your evidence that there are not "any gods taking an active role in human affairs?""
Delete**I have no evidence that there are no gods. However, you have no evidence that there are. In the absence of evidence, the logical conclusion is no conclusion. Thus, I have no belief in any gods. Asserting the belief in gods in the total absence of evidence is not logical. I have made it quite clear that I am not sure. "I don't believe" is not the same as "I know there isn't."
"How would you explain your position to someone who has experienced God or an act of God that defies nature?"
**No experience anyone has had has defied nature. Perhaps it defied their understanding of nature, but if it happened, it was possible. Any experience that defies my understanding of possibility I would ask for evidence of. Since there is no evidence of the afterlife, I don't believe there is one. Since there is no evidence of divine intervention, I don't believe the claims of such. That doesn't mean I'm certain, just skeptical.
"My evidence is based on cognitive psychology."
**That's not evidence.
"If there are many gods and each created mankind in its image and each has a temperament with cognitive abilities"
**This is an assumption for which there is no evidence. Your question is contingent on an unproven and illogical assertion.
"If it is impossible to know motive, then why mention the experimentation done by gods?"
**I was offering you an alternate, yet equally plausible, explanation for the origins of the universe. I was using your logic to refute your assertion. My unfounded assertion is actually more believable than yours based on our current understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. Any creator god would likely use a form of science rather than magic to create the universe. And considering our knowledge of the universe beyond our planet, the idea that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything takes such an interest in our lives is beyond silly.
"The Bible says"
**As I am not a Christian, I do not follow the Bible as anything more than a collection of barbaric tribal mythology. You might as well quote the Koran to me.
"this universe functions exactly how it is supposed to function."
**This is a logical fallacy known as argument from design. You are assuming that the current state of the universe was designed to exist as it does, and therefore must have had a designer. There is no evidence to assume a designer, so any belief in such is illogical.
I've already explained that because Jobs is not all knowing and all powerful, he studies his design to ensure its proper functionality and he modifies his design to implement new technology. It is a poor analogy.
If you have no evidence, then why make such a claim?
DeleteEvidence of God acting in the world exists. People's prayers
are answered, miracles occur. People experience God.
Many Atheists become Catholic, not by reading the Catechism
or Bible, but by these "winks" of God that open their eyes to Faith.
Over 2 billion people cannot be wrong, can they? So to claim there is
no evidence is absurd. People don't go to Church for the heck of it.
They do so because they've experienced God.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. By stating "I don't believe"
you are already assuming the object to be false. For example, If I tell someone
"I don't believe you," in a sense, you are calling the person a liar.
As for the afterlife, there was a recent story about a neuro surgeon who experienced
it. I wrote a blog on it, go check it out. It goes into detail why it was not
a hallucination or the brain acting strange.
Cognitive psychology is not evidence? Excuse me??
My questions are hypothetical and do not endorse a position either way.
I mentioned the Bible because you mentioned the story of Genesis etc.
No, there is no fallacy from design. In astrophysics, the term anthropic principle is used to describe the universe as being designed to support life.
This will be my final statement. Your reply to this should also take the form of your final statement.
Delete"By stating "I don't believe" you are already assuming the object to be false."
**This is a fair assessment. When people say they've seen Bigfoot and I say "I don't believe you," what I am really saying is "Bigfoot is not real." When people say they've been abducted by aliens and I say "I don't believe you," what I am really saying is "aliens are not abducting people." I am asserting that what they claim to be truth is fiction. I am not necessarily calling them liars, but merely stating that in order for me to believe, I need to see some evidence. So when a person says "God is real" and I say "I don't believe you" the same holds true. God is a fiction, and if you want me to believe, you need only provide proof. I'm not calling you a liar, only saying I don't believe what you believe.
Which is as good a segue as any to bring this to a close.
This debate began with two simple questions,
God, can He be proven to exist?
Can He be proven not to exist?
I answered both in the negative right off the bat. The idea of something existing outside of time and space is beyond our ability to measure at this point. God can neither be proved, nor disproved.
With that in mind, is it logical to assume the existence of any god or gods? Is it not more logical to NOT assume the existence of any gods and continue to search for the truth behind our existence? If science one day finds evidence for a god, that would be fantastic. However, the odds that the intelligent creator of the universe is as described by any religion is so ridiculous that I have no doubt in my mind that all religions are false. I am aware of the history of many religions, and all of the major ones. I know the historical context behind their founding and the political motivations behind much of their dogma. Religion is a tool to control the masses and keep the lower classes in line. Period. This is to say nothing of the existence or nonexistence of any deity. This is to say simply that every religion on this planet is a lie and their followers are victims of a con.
If you tell me you believe the universe could not have come into being without the help of a higher power, that's fine. I would respect that belief, even though I see no logical reason to believe it. However, when you tell me that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe is your personal friend and takes your requests, that is an belief I do not respect. You are entitled to have it, but I am entitled to mock it.
The arrogance of the idea that the universe was created for you offends me as a human being. That is the reasoning behind countless genocides throughout history committed in the name of one god over another. Maybe it made sense thousands of years ago when humans had no understanding of their own planet, much less the greater universe beyond. But now we have knowledge. We have the Hubble Telescope and the Cassini Probe and the Mars Curiosity Rover. To stand there and claim that all of the beauty of the universe was created as an unseen backdrop to humankind, that the creator of all that cares whether I eat a pork chop or have a beer, is insulting to my intelligence.
If you want to know why I am an atheist, that's the reason right there. I have seen no legitimate description of a god from any religion. I have seen only petty insecurities and justified violence. Silly myths perpetuated as fact.
Every religion is filled with stories of their gods interacting with humans. Yet since people started keeping accurate records and exploring the world around them, not a single god has kept in touch. Odd, isn't it?
God is not a problem for anyone, religion is a problem for everyone.
My name is Mousecop, and I approve this message.
My opponent in his final statement pretty much agreed with me while at the same time contradicting himself.
DeleteBy stating "I don't believe" one is already assuming that said object is false." This is one of the many instances in which Atheism fails. My opponent makes claims that "Atheists do not know" what created the universe, yet God is somehow known NOT to be a factor in its creation. How is that possible? How can one not have knowledge of what caused the universe, yet know it was not God?
In order to state that God was NOT the cause, one must know what caused it which would obviously be something else, not God.
To claim that "God is fiction" presents the one making the claim as one who knows for a fact that God is not real. So which one is it? Do atheists know there is no God or do they not know?
My opponent states: "... if you want me to believe, you need only to provide proof." For centuries, believers of all faiths have provided proof of God. The problem is not the proof, but the objectivity of the one studying that proof.
In America, jurors are meticulously selected based on objectivity. If a juror presents a verdict based on race, religion, mutual understanding, culture etc, then the trial would not be just. A juror must present a verdict free from any filters. He/she must study the evidence, testimony and make an objective decision.
Atheists do not do this. They start out on their quest already convinced God is not real. This filter prevents them from assimilating any proof presented to them.
Readers can see here in this debate how I present physics and critical thinking and yet my opponent takes a contarian position and completely rejects it without even studying it.
Moreover, my opponent bashes religion based on prejudice. If religion is based on a lie, then what is the truth? To date, neither my opponent nor any other atheist has presented the contrast to religion.
This debate was not about the description of God, but rather if God can be proven to exist or not exist. My opponent has failed to show that God is not possible in this universe. All mentions of scientific theories I have shown to be compatible with belief in God as a causality.
If my opponent feels entitled to mock any belief in an "all-powerful creator etc" then those he mock are entitled to a rational explanation as to why those beliefs are not possible. To date, no atheist has done this. The late Christopher Hitchens attempted to do so but merely recycled the same misunderstanding and ignorance atheists have presented since they became vocal in society.
There is no arrogance in believing the universe was created for life. This is a scientific fact. It is called the Anthropic Principle. This is a "dogma" of science which is often ignored by atheists for obvious reasons. It explicitly describes the universe as being designed for life. This is nothing to feel arrogant or shameful about.
Genocides happen for a variety of reasons. Most of these reasons are socio-political, not religious.
DeleteToday our knowledge of Earth and the cosmos adds to belief in God. The more we study, the more we see this Antropic Principle literally come to life.
The suggestion that this universe came from nothing, is managed by nothing, and means nothing insults reason and intelligence. It defies common sense.
In order to cease being an atheist, one must think. Atheists hide behind a pseudo rationalism that does not critically think.
God still "keeps in touch" with man. In the Catholic Church, we constantly get reports of apparitions - many of them proved to be valid. In the 60's, we had St. Padre Pio who had the stigmata which defied all biological facts known to man. He also could read the thoughts of those who came to him and knew their conscience. This was not his own doing but God's. Every day countless people are "touched" by God in a variety of ways.
Neither God nor religion are a problem. The problem is the misapplication of both by man.
God can be proven in many different ways. I found God through my own studies in science. It wasn't until I prayed that I really experienced God not as a possibility but as a reality.
There is nothing in science that disproves God. On the contary, theories suggesting the origin of the universe and life on Earth show design. Design is only possible through intelligence and will. We know that the universe had a beginning and that something outside of it caused it into being. Since there was no universe prior to the Big Bang, then based on current evidence the cause is supernatural.
The current position that Atheism holds is that the universe created itself. This is like saying a car built itself. A car has no awareness and no ability to build itself. Similarly, this universe is not self aware and does not have the ability to build itself since it began at a point due to an external source since it did not exist in the first place.
In closing, I hope this debate has shown that there is no logical in the dismissal of God's existence. When applying critical thinking skills to scientific knowledge, one can come to the conclusion that God must exist.
My opening:
ReplyDeleteIn this debate, I hope to provide reasons supported by evidence for the existence of God. This evidence is widely accepted in academia and is taught in every university across the globe. As the debate moves forward, I will apply this evidence to each argument where appropriate along with philosophical and theological supplements.
This debate is about the existence of God. Regardless of natural phenomenon having explanations, this does not negate that they have a primal cause. This primal cause I argue to be God.
If an intelligent, all knowing, all power being is not the primal cause of the natural phenomena which we find explanations for using science, then what is? It is illogical to assume a non-conscious agent which uses mathematical probabilities to form designs out of nothing is possible.
My opening:
ReplyDeleteIn this debate, I will repeatedly claim that there is no evidence for or against the existence of any deity, not just the Christian deity my opponent is arguing in favor of.
Any such evidence provided by my opponent will be evaluated and considered by me. I will either refute or dismiss said "evidence" based on its validity or stupidity.
This debate is about the existence of the Christian god, but I hope through my skepticism and rational dialogue, I can show that not only is there no evidence to support my opponent's god, there is no evidence to support any of the almost 3000 known deities.
If my opponent plans to provide evidence in support of the existence of a deity, I will also expect his evidence to prove the existence of his chosen god, and not just any deity.
Rebuttal 1:
ReplyDeleteGod can be proven to exist by mere Physics. We today hold onto the theory of "Big Bang." In this event, all that exists "exploded" into existence from a singular point. Prior to this, there was "nothing," or what we best can describe as nothing.
A source outside of space and time is the obvious cause of this "big bang." Furthermore, usually after an explosion of any kind, we notice disorder. In the case of the "Big Bang," things "exploded into order," if you will. All the components from this "Big Bang" began to expand at a rate that would allow the universe to exist and produce "laws of physics" and life. Some might say this is coincidence, or "it just happened." However, a rational mind would see that order can only come about from an intelligence that can manipulate things outside itself.
For example: No mater how many times I splash paint on a wall or paint splashes on a wall by accident, it will not form into the Mona Lisa. In order for the paint to take the form of the Mona Lisa, it would need to be manipulated by a rational, self aware, creative, intelligent mind that not only can manipulate the matter (paint), but can also manipulate it in such a way that it depicts an abstract.
It seems that your argument is this:
ReplyDelete"I don't know" = "god"
I'm sorry, let me rephrase that:
"I don't know" = "My god, but not any other"
That's very poor logic. Also, your understanding of the Big Bang Theory is outdated. Modern physicists don't assert that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. The "I don't know" here does not prove your god exists. I am not going to spend the entire time teaching you physics. As I am not a physicist, I would probably do a poor job of it anyway. This information is readily available on the internet and can be found with even a cursory Google search. Try a search for "M Theory and the Big Bang" to begin.
Regardless, let's for a moment concede that the universe could not have come about without the assistance of an intelligent being. There is no evidence of such, but let's just take this to its logical conclusion. Assuming an intelligent creator, there is still no rational reason to believe that any of the barbaric tribal myths that are the basis for most modern religions are true.
There is no logical reason to believe in any one god over any other. Why your god and not Zeus? I'm sure you've heard that question a hundred times so you probably have a very good explanation.
Strawman. I never said, "I don't know." Furthermore, you have not refuted anything I posted. Modern physicists do not know what was prior to the "Big Bang." There is no way to measure this. My argument is that: "A source outside of space and time is the obvious cause of this "big bang."
DeleteYou have not shown otherwise.
I hold a degree in physics and know the material very well. "M-Theory" will just supplement what I've just described to you. The universe began at a point - it is expanding. String theory does not negate this. String theory offers a different way of looking at what already is. The reality that all physicists understand is that the universe is expanding from a single point and is running out of energy. This much we know.
Try to separate the myth from logic. This is your issue. Can the universe come about in the way that it exists without intelligence? This is the real question. Ask yourself that question in light of the Mona Lisa analogy I posted prior to this.
If the universe can form without intelligence in the way that it did, then you are basically saying that Yes, the random splashing of paint can form the Mona Lisa. This is mathematically impossible. This reasoning would be more mythological than scientific.
See my prior comment regarding the Oneness of God.
I didn't say YOU didn't know, I said NOBODY knows, and you agreed. ("Modern physicists do not know what was prior to the "Big Bang."") Science hasn't provided a definitive answer yet, so you assert "god".
Delete"Try to separate the myth from logic. This is your issue."
My issue is that I don't believe the myths.
"Can the universe come about in the way that it exists without intelligence?"
I don't know. Here is where you would say, "I don't know = god" and I would say, I disagree. Your Mona Lisa analogy is a false analogy. Paintings do not exist in nature.
"If the universe can form without intelligence in the way that it did, then you are basically saying that Yes, the random splashing of paint can form the Mona Lisa. "
I am not saying that, nor would any rational person. False analogy.
So far, I have not seen any evidence to support the existence of a deity. Your argument of "We don't know how it was done, therefore god" is a weak one. If there is evidence to support the existence of a higher being, please provide some.
No, I wrote: "Prior to this, there was "nothing," or what we best can describe as nothing."
DeleteScience focuses on processes not causality. I assert "God" for the reason mentioned in the first rebuttal which you have not addressed.
You claim to not believe in myths, yet accept the myth that an unconscious agent created the universe and from which you have no proof to support this idea. A bit hypocritical don't you think?
If you do not know whether or not the universe can exist without an intelligent agent moving it, then you are advocating agnosticism, not atheism. Therein, lies your confusion. Moreover, why accept this position over the theist one? Why would an unconscious agent creating the universe make more sense over a conscious one?
I'm glad that you agree with me that no rational person would say that the random splashing of paint can form the Mona Lisa. You have just disputed Atheism, thanks! :)
Again, you are falling into a strawman. I never said, "we don't know, therefore God." We know how it was done. I never said we did not.
"Prior to this, there was "nothing," or what we best can describe as nothing."
Delete**That is an assertion for which there is no evidence to support, and you have no logical reason to assume.
"Science focuses on processes not causality."
**This is an incorrect statement. Science focuses heavily on causation. The scientific approach is built on the assumption that any development may be represented by an alternating sequence of causes and effects, where the last effect is the cause of the next effect.
Your first rebuttal seems to assert "something had to cause the Big Bang, and that something is my god." If I read that incorrectly, please clarify, as I've just asked you to do in the above alternate thread. If I've accurately summarized your assertion, I will rebut it thus: You have no information or rational reason to believe that said cause was your god, or for that matter, any god. As I said earlier, "I don't know" does not equal "god" and it certainly does not equal "your god". Even if it did, proof of the existence of an intelligent creator god would not in any way lend itself to your religion, or any known religion, being the least bit true.
"You claim to not believe in myths, yet accept the myth that an unconscious agent created the universe and from which you have no proof to support this idea."
**I do not accept that. I conceded the point because it is pointless to argue something for which neither side can be proven. I am willing to accept, for the purpose of this discussion, the idea that the beginning of the universe required an intelligent creator. I do not believe it, but it is not relevant as there is no evidence of such. We should move on, unless you are able to provide evidence of an intelligent creator of the universe. I have seen no reason to believe such a claim.
You are going to now argue semantics, the difference between agnosticism and atheism. They are different. Technically, you could call me an agnostic atheist. I do not claim to know for a fact whether there is a god or not, but I do not believe there is one. But this is an issue of semantics, and is entering the area of an ad hominem attack, with the assertion that I am a hypocrite. You are now debating ME instead of the issue at hand.
"I'm glad that you agree with me that no rational person would say that the random splashing of paint can form the Mona Lisa. You have just disputed Atheism, thanks! :)"
**No atheist in the world would have made such a claim, so I did not dispute atheism at all. I have already said, that is a false analogy.
"We know how it was done. I never said we did not."
**And allow me to succinctly summarize atheism in its entirety: "You don't know. You claim that you know, and I don't believe you."
No, Science by definition is the search for knowledge of the natural world and presenting that knowledge in a systematic way. In the natural world, for every cause there is a cause. Science would be wasting time pin pointing each cause of each object of interest since each cause will lead to a primordial cause.
DeleteIt is obvious that "something" caused the Big Bang. This is the law of cause and effect. No effect can occur without a cause and vice versa. Ergo, if there was a bang, then something caused that bang.
I already addressed your concern about God. You keep running in circles:
"A source outside of space and time is the obvious cause of this "big bang." Furthermore, usually after an explosion of any kind, we notice disorder. In the case of the "Big Bang," things "exploded into order," if you will. All the components from this "Big Bang" began to expand at a rate that would allow the universe to exist and produce "laws of physics" and life. Some might say this is coincidence, or "it just happened." However, a rational mind would see that order can only come about from an intelligence that can manipulate things outside itself. "
Think about it. Do things happen without a reason? If you say yes, then you cannot be "for reason." A rational person who is "for reason" understands that anything attainable by means of empirical observation must be analyzed by "reason."
Now, is it logical to presume that an unconscious agent can create a universe capable of sustaining life with particular laws that govern it?
Moreover, the universe has extremely complex mathematical properties. This is why math works well in Physics. Even aliens from another world can use math to study this universe and come up with the same conclusions as those of the human race. I don't want to get too deep into physics because then we will waste time with the specifics. Based on this knowledge, and common sense, "I don't know" cannot apply.
When the impossible is extinguished and all that is in its place may be improbable due to any apparent lack of tangible evidence, then the latter must be the reality that holds what is true.
What is your position on the creation of the universe? You need to be clear on it.
Do you believe it happened all by itself and it so, how can you explain it?
Or
Do you believe a conscious intelligence designed it?
Whether you are an agnostic or not is irrelevant. Both "isms" contain fallacious reasoning that defeat themselves when presented.
My comment about hypocrisy was to highlight the inconsistency in your reasoning and that of atheists. If you believe that this universe came into being by an unconscious agent, then that is a myth because it cannot be proved. Therefore, you would be a hypocrite calling theists myth chasers when you yourself hold fast to one.
I know many atheists who make the claim that the universe just happened.
Atheism does not mean "you don't know etc."
"It is obvious that "something" caused the Big Bang."
ReplyDelete**That is only 'obvious' based on our limited understanding of how the universe works. I would agree on that point, but that would then require any intelligent creator of the universe to also have a cause. You can't say " No effect can occur without a cause and vice versa." and then go on to say "god didn't have a cause." You are invalidating your own argument.
"A source outside of space and time is the obvious cause of this "big bang."
**That is your assertion based on no evidence or rational argument. I disagree entirely. We don't know the cause of the big bang, nor its relative position to time and space.
"In the case of the "Big Bang," things "exploded into order,""
**This is an incorrect assertion, and science does not make this claim. Out of the big bang came chaos and disorder. Over the course of billions of years, the laws of physics wrangled the disorder into order. The space dust coalesced into rocks, which coalesced into asteroids and planets. Those were trapped by the gravity of stars, forming solar systems. This universe did not come out of the big bang fully formed. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the claims of science to better dismiss them. This is what is known as a straw man.
"a rational mind would see that order can only come about from an intelligence that can manipulate things outside itself.""
**This is an opinion. A rational mind would not make that assumption given the known laws of physics. If I throw a handful of marbles on a hill, they all miraculously group themselves together at the bottom. A rational mind might assume the invisible hand of an intelligent being, unless said rational mind had any understanding of gravity. The rules of the universe dictate how order manifests. This is not evidence of a god, it is an argument from the final result. It is an assumption, and one which I do not share.
"Now, is it logical to presume that an unconscious agent can create a universe capable of sustaining life with particular laws that govern it?"
**No, it is not logical to assume that in the absence of any supporting evidence. You are arguing from ignorance. 'Because we don't know, my answer is correct.' Poor logic. In the absence of evidence, I make no conclusion and I do not accept your conclusions based on what is essentially a guess.
"Even aliens from another world can use math to study this universe and come up with the same conclusions as those of the human race."
**Objection, your honor. Speculation. No evidence exists to support the idea that any aliens exist on any other worlds.
[Sustained]
(That is only 'obvious' based on our limited understanding of how the universe works. I would agree on that point, but that would then require any intelligent creator of the universe to also have a cause. You can't say " No effect can occur without a cause and vice versa." and then go on to say "god didn't have a cause." You are invalidating your own argument.)
DeleteNot at all… Space and time exist from the point of the big bang, therefore, anything that caused this bang is outside of this parameter and does not have a beginning or an end. Remember, the law of cause/effect is only applicable in our universe. It has no bearing on anything outside of it.
(That is your assertion based on no evidence or rational argument. I disagree entirely. We don't know the cause of the big bang, nor its relative position to time and space.)
The Big Bang is the evidence. Everything came into existence at that point. What was before? Something has to exist in order to form something else. The Big Bang created all space, time, matter and energy; therefore, what caused it is beyond space, time, matter and energy: SUPERNATURALIS - beyond nature. There is no other logical conclusion based on the evidence we have.
SUPERNATURALIS AGENT + Big bang = Working Universe with life, space, time, matter and energy.
(This is an incorrect assertion, and science does not make this claim. Out of the big bang came chaos and disorder. Over the course of billions of years, the laws of physics wrangled the disorder into order. The space dust coalesced into rocks, which coalesced into asteroids and planets. Those were trapped by the gravity of stars, forming solar systems. This universe did not come out of the big bang fully formed. You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the claims of science to better dismiss them. This is what is known as a straw man.)
Reread what you are describing: “space dust into rocks, rocks into asteroids, asteroids into planets. You are describing in detail what I stated before, “exploded into order.”
(This is an opinion. A rational mind would not make that assumption given the known laws of physics. If I throw a handful of marbles on a hill, they all miraculously group themselves together at the bottom. A rational mind might assume the invisible hand of an intelligent being, unless said rational mind had any understanding of gravity. The rules of the universe dictate how order manifests. This is not evidence of a god, it is an argument from the final result. It is an assumption, and one which I do not share.)
How is it an opinion? Elaborate. Can an unconscious agent create art, mathematical equations? The laws of physics are mathematical order. Who “wrote” those laws into the universe?
(No, it is not logical to assume that in the absence of any supporting evidence. You are arguing from ignorance. 'Because we don't know, my answer is correct.' Poor logic. In the absence of evidence, I make no conclusion and I do not accept your conclusions based on what is essentially a guess.)
Atheism by default posits that assumption. If God did not create everything, then what did? In answer to this, Atheists will list all kinds of theories which are UNCONCIOUS AGENTS.
(Objection, your honor. Speculation. No evidence exists to support the idea that any aliens exist on any other worlds.
[Sustained])
Actually water, carbon and all elements needed for life as we know it exist throughout the universe. Hence, SETI and other institutions are “listening” in the night sky. Based on the evidence, it is logical to conclude that we are not alone in this universe.
"When the impossible is extinguished and all that is in its place may be improbable due to any apparent lack of tangible evidence, then the latter must be the reality that holds what is true. "
ReplyDelete**Incorrect assumption. For one thing, what you claim is impossible is merely unproven, not impossible. You are (intentionally?) confusing 'unproven' with 'unprovable'. Just because we don't have an answer yet doesn't mean we never will. And it certainly doesn't mean your god.
"What is your position on the creation of the universe? You need to be clear on it."
**Let me be as clear as possible. I. Don't. Have. One. I am not a philosopher, nor am I an astrophysicist. Nor am I omniscient. I will listen to any theories and judge them according to my own rational mind and the available evidence. I dismiss the theory of god because there is absolutely no reason to believe it. I also dismiss the "big bang from nothing with no cause" as just another form of creationism. String theory and M-theory are interesting, and make sense to me as a possible explanation for our universe. I would believe that theory based on the knowledge that the people who know a lot more than I do support it. But I would not claim to 'know' the answer until it is sufficiently proven as fact.
Again, because I don't know doesn't mean I will accept any answer. I require proof, or at the bare minimum, some evidence. I do not claim to know how the universe was created.
Agnosticism and atheism are both simply doubts in your claim of knowledge. If it helps, agnostic = I'm not sure if you're right, atheism = I don't believe you.
"If you believe that this universe came into being by an unconscious agent"
**I don't believe that. There is no evidence to support such a claim.
"I know many atheists who make the claim that the universe just happened."
Do they have any evidence they'd like to share with the rest of us? This argument is known as 'poisoning the well' and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I know many creationists who think the chaos of the early universe coalesced into a cosmic egg for about 18,000 years. Within said egg, the perfectly opposed principles of Yin and Yang became balanced and Pangu emerged from the egg. Pangu set about creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (Yin) and the Sky (Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky.
Do you accept this version of creation? Why or why not?
"Atheism does not mean "you don't know etc.""
**Atheism literally means "without a belief in god(s)" but many believers seem to have trouble understanding so I simplified it for you. I accept the term "atheist" as applying to me because I do not believe in any god. I make no claims of knowledge, I simply don't believe the claims that have been made thus far. If you could provide evidence, I might believe you.
(Incorrect assumption. For one thing, what you claim is impossible is merely unproven, not impossible. You are (intentionally?) confusing 'unproven' with 'unprovable'. Just because we don't have an answer yet doesn't mean we never will. And it certainly doesn't mean your god.)
DeleteYou misunderstood my words. What I wrote is that once we get rid of what is impossible and all that is left are factors that may or may not be improbably due to any possible lack of evidence, but still are applicable, then that remainder must be the truth.
For example: Someone is found dead with a wound. The person is in a zoo with pelicans. The wound is a “stab” wound. No one saw the crime, no video captured it. The pelicans cannot speak. No DNA was found, no tracks or weapon. There is only a dead body with a stab would.
1) A pelican could have used its beak to stab the person
2) Someone else came in and stabbed the person
3) The person stabbed him/herself
After investigating, police will find that suggestion 1 is impossible. The pelican does not have the strength to penetrate its beak in such a manner as the wound shows. Suggestion 2 is improbable because no tangible evidence links another party. Suggestion 3 is also improbable because no stabbing instrument is present. If the person committed suicide, he/she would not have had time to dispose of the weapon and at the same time prevent making tracks or leaving blood trails.
Therefore, suggestion 2 makes the most sense.
Someone else came in and stabbed the person. It is the only suggestion that while improbable, is the most valid of suggestions.
(Let me be as clear as possible. I. Don't. Have. One. I am not a philosopher, nor am I an astrophysicist. Nor am I omniscient. I will listen to any theories and judge them according to my own rational mind and the available evidence. I dismiss the theory of god because there is absolutely no reason to believe it. I also dismiss the "big bang from nothing with no cause" as just another form of creationism. String theory and M-theory are interesting, and make sense to me as a possible explanation for our universe. I would believe that theory based on the knowledge that the people who know a lot more than I do support it. But I would not claim to 'know' the answer until it is sufficiently proven as fact.)
DeleteWell hopefully you will have a reason now. Remember, physics deals with things as they are now. We cannot study anything beyond the properties of the known physical world. If you believe God is not a valid reason, then you must explain why these other theories which basically present an unconscious agent make sense.
(Again, because I don't know doesn't mean I will accept any answer. I require proof, or at the bare minimum, some evidence. I do not claim to know how the universe was created.
Agnosticism and atheism are both simply doubts in your claim of knowledge. If it helps, agnostic = I'm not sure if you're right, atheism = I don't believe you.)
The evidence is there. All you need to do is set aside the filter of doubt.
(I don't believe that. There is no evidence to support such a claim.)
You have just inferred it.
(Do they have any evidence they'd like to share with the rest of us? This argument is known as 'poisoning the well' and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. )
If God did not cause the universe, then “it just happened.” Think about it.
(I know many creationists who think the chaos of the early universe coalesced into a cosmic egg for about 18,000 years. Within said egg, the perfectly opposed principles of Yin and Yang became balanced and Pangu emerged from the egg. Pangu set about creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (Yin) and the Sky (Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky.
Do you accept this version of creation? Why or why not?)
Well for one, these are unconscious agents creating order. This is logically not possible.
(Atheism literally means "without a belief in god(s)" but many believers seem to have trouble understanding so I simplified it for you. I accept the term "atheist" as applying to me because I do not believe in any god. I make no claims of knowledge, I simply don't believe the claims that have been made thus far. If you could provide evidence, I might believe you. )
Atheists love to play with the word, but the definition still stands.