Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Exian]

[quote='Exian]Lets just use the increments we see on earth and let our intelligence play the role of the highest possible achievement in that arena. We start with the emergence of life, which we then build on to create ever increasing intelligence until we arrive at us. It's at this point that you would then state humans have created everything. Do you see the giant hole in your argument?"

Why would I state that at that point?

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

My bolding

I don't know why, but there it is.

"The reason we can agree on a 1% higher intelligence is that we can look at the current gradient existing today, as well as our own evolutionary journey. But even if we use this reasoning to arrive at the maximal level of intelligence, how does this intelligence then go back and create everything that it built itself on for its own existence?"

This brings up another topic. I believe God "evolved" (via self direction) before the singularity and before the 2nd law of thermodynamics existed. The first law is never violated, therefore we must believe energy in some form existed for all of eternity in the past. And because entropy can not be eternal, usable energy must have existed forever in the past. Therefore this eternal usable energy had literally forever to become aware of its self, i.e. “I think therefore I am” (abiogenesis of God).

What does "evolved" via self direction mean? Is "evolved" in quotes because you're making a claim about a state of existence where we have no idea the laws in which it works? You said it yourself- "before the singularity" "before the 2nd law"- so before anything of which we have any knowledge, or methods for observation. This may be the safest gap to cram in a god. I'll definitely need sources to swallow any of this.

And any life form that exists in a place in which entropy does not exist, can never die, and any life form that can never die must eventually become/evolve into an all knowing all powerful being, no matter how painstakingly long it may take.

How can you claim any knowledge of this when you have arrived at this point using evolution; a theory under the laws of our known universe?

Therefore if the eternal "something" exists, the chances of it becoming a sentient all knowing being is 1/1 (100%) because it has literally all of eternity for it to happen. Thus if the eternal something exists, God must also exist. And atheistic science knows this very well, this is why they need an illogical "something from nothing" hypothesis to reject God from existing.

Listen, even if your philosophical argument is sound, it gets us zero results. Atheistic science, otherwise known as "science", is concerned with actually working and getting results. We may never have a chance to peer beyond our universe, so I guess you have found a cozy place to hide your god. Let me know when you find a way to demonstrate it.

[IDScience]

"Then you didn't read the definition I so helpfully quoted and linked for you. Atheism is a lack of belief in god not necessarily a belief that god does not exist"

Not believing there is a purple monster under the bridge = believing there is not a purple monster under the bridge
Not believing the moon is made of cheese = believing the moon is not made of cheese
Not believing species were intelligently designed = believing species were not intelligently designed
Not believing invisible unicorns exist = believing invisible unicorns do not exist

And this grade school principle of semantics can be demonstrated true in all other cases. Its only when the atheist adds the term God to the sentence, that they suddenly lose the ability to understand semantics 101. Which tells me atheists are not that bright to begin with, or they really don't believe God does not exist, but lie to themselves for personal reasons

"No they are far from equally probable. For example you observe fish from the size of anchovies to the size of the largest shark. If you pay attention you will note that the number of species and the number of actual fish cluster around the smaller end of the scale. Smaller fish are more probable than larger fish. Infinitely small or large fish are not possible, even though imaginable...This is also true of intelligence. Most organisms are not very intelligent. Humans are at the extreme upper end of what we observe. Thus beings of greater intelligence are less probable. Infinitely intelligent organisms are not remotely probable.

We are not talking about probabilities of the numbers of organisms in a species, we are talking about the probability any given species can evolve to become more intelligent (or be ID more intelligent by another life form). There are far less apes, humans, dolphins etc.. than bacteria, yet the less intelligent bacteria have vastly out numbered the more intelligent species for billions of years, thus rendering your argument of "species numbers" moot.

In fact the more intelligent a species is, the more likely it will develop the ability to manipulate and control its own evolution (just as science has recently predicted it will do) , thus making it more likely a vastly superior intellect would have much greater odds to become even more intelligent through self directed evolution/genetic engineering

Sure it is. It is possible, likely even, that life exists on other planets, but that life will still be restricted the the physical constraints of gravity, finding nourishment, maintaining body temperature, etc"

Your first problem is evolutionary theory does not work that way. It predicts life will develop and evolve according to the surroundings its in. Therefore vastly different physical constraints will contain & develop vastly different life forms that are adapted to the surroundings.

Secondly, life on earth contains a wide range of species with a wide range of intellects and attributes, and we have no reason to believe the physical properties on earth prohibit I.Q. levels from continually increasing, since humans don't even have the largest brains on earth, thus I.Q. levels are directly related to how DNA sequences (thus genes) are arranged, and nothing more.

Intellect resides in physical structures called brains. Physical structures have physical limitations"

Incorrect, study the HAR genes (human accelerated regions). The same 118 bases can produce vastly different results depending on how they are arranged

"Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity

"Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases..."We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said"

"In fact, Pollard et al. (2006) demonstrated that human HAR1F RNA folds into a structure found only in humans, wherein one of the helices is extended at the expense of its neighbor. This suggests that human HAR1F RNA adopts a conformation appreciably distinct from to the common human/chimpanzee ancestor"

I'll grant that an infinite intellect is not necessary to create the universe. It's quite possible the universe began without any intellect involved. But the intellect required to design the universe is so far
off the scale of intelligence that we observe as to make such an intellect ridiculously improbable"

The only thing its off the scale of, is your ability to comprehend it. I have no doubt bacteria can't comprehend our existence either. You fail to grasp a basic tenet of critical thought, which is SIZE does not have any relevance to something existence. The tiny atom that acts like a solar system should be a clear example to you. Study fractals and you will understand size has no relevance at all to somethings existence

Further, a mere intellect cannot create anything tangible. Physical abilities are required to build what the mind's eye sees"

Everything that exists in the universe is nothing more than a specific arrangement of energy/matter. Thus God, and his intelligence, would also be made of the same thing everything else is, eternal energy.

"If you are going to define people as gods, we are hip deep in them. But that's disingenuous on your part. You are postulating a creator god who made the universe and that is the god you are attempting to prove"

Yes, but when discussing Gods (creator of the universe) existence, you must first fully understand the definition of God. Elohim is a position of authority not a proper name. So just as we have positions of authority over the animals on earth via our intellect, other beings (life form 1.1) could hold that same authority over us, and still other beings (life form 1.2) could hold that same authority over them, etc. etc..

And according the bible, and all other religions, there is a hierarchy of life forms throughout the universe. Your problem is your mind can't process a life form big enough to create a universe, this is because your an emotional thinker as most atheists, philosophers and liberals are.

Actually no. Increased intelligence remains rare. That's the point. Mammals, birds, and other larger animals with greater intelligence remain extremely rare both in numbers of species and in actual numbers of organisms. The more intelligent the rarer. Brains are biologically expensive organs."

Progressively increasing intelligence is a prediction of evolution from natural selection. It amuses me when atheists unwittingly fight against the tenets of their own pet theory.

I don't reject option 3. I accept option 3 as a general rule. I accept option 2 with regard to a number of particular gods: Zeus, Yehweh, Shiva, Thor, The Tooth Fairy, Allah."

If you reject the existence of the God who created the universe, then you are in fact an atheist and not an agnostic. Its seems to me many "atheists" are only atheists for convenience sake. i.e. they don't have to worry about morality, judgment etc...That position is akin to sticking you proverbial head in the sand so you don't have to worry about any possible trucks headed towards you.

---

I WANT TO SAY TO ALL OF YOU, SOMETHING IS MESSED UP ON THIS BOARD. I HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM POSTING SOME OF MY RESPONSES TO SOME OF YOU DUE TO OVERLAPPING OF THINGS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY WROTE, WHICH MAKES IT APPEAR I HAVE RESPONDED TO TWO OR THREE PEOPLE ON THE SAME POST. I HAVE HAD TO DELETE SOME OF THEM BECAUSE OF THIS

JENNY A, I HAVE TRIED TO DIRECTLY RESPOND TO YOUR LATEST POST WITH THIS SAME MIXED MESSAGE RESULTS. SO I HAVE DELETED SOME OF THESE POSTS

THIS MISTAKE IS NOT MINE, AS I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS FOR 10 YEARS AND I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. SO IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE, THIS IS WHY

EDIT... AND AS YOU CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS... I DID NOT EVEN DIRECTLY RESPOND TO ANYONE IN THIS LATEST POST, BUT SIMPLY DID A GENERAL REPLY, THIS BOARD IS MESSED UP

[Exian]

Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true. And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this

Ha! If he did say this, I would say it speaks more of his confidence in the evidence of evolution and not about the possibility of god.

[Alex K]

What's wrong with your last post? The board just merges consecutive posts by one person into one with separators.

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, he can't even figure out the forum software, yet he wants to say that he understands the nature of god?

[Whateverist]

Either God exists or does not exist, there is no possible third alternative.

There is, however, a third possible statement, to wit, "I don't know whether or not god exists."

A possible 4th response would be "I don't care enough about the possible existence of what you're calling a 'god' to give it any thought."

[Jenny A]

Not believing there is a purple monster under the bridge = believing there is not a purple monster under the bridge
Not believing the moon is made of cheese = believing the moon is not made of cheese
Not believing species were intelligently designed = believing species were not intelligently designed
Not believing invisible unicorns exist = believing invisible unicorns do not exist

And this grade school principle of semantics can be demonstrated true in all other cases. Its only when the atheist adds the term God to the sentence, that they suddenly lose the ability to understand semantics 101. Which tells me atheists are not that bright to begin with, or they really don't believe God does not exist, but lie to themselves for personal reasons

Wrong, lacking a belief the moon is made of cheese is different from believing it it's made of green cheese. In the case of the moon, I know it isn't made of green cheese but if I knew less I could lack a belief one way or the other. For example, I lack a belief about whether my husband is reading in bed or has fallen asleep, because I don't know. Chances are about 50/50. There are much more important issues on which I lack a belief. Gang voting primaries is an initiative on the ballot here. They're supposed to result in less extremist candidates and there are arguments to support that view. But there are arguments to be made that they result in more extremist candidates. I wish I knew then answer, but I don't. Until there is certainty, lack of belief is always a possibility.

"No they are far from equally probable. For example you observe fish from the size of anchovies to the size of the largest shark. If you pay attention you will note that the number of species and the number of actual fish cluster around the smaller end of the scale. Smaller fish are more probable than larger fish. Infinitely small or large fish are not possible, even though imaginable...This is also true of intelligence. Most organisms are not very intelligent. Humans are at the extreme upper end of what we observe. Thus beings of greater intelligence are less probable. Infinitely intelligent organisms are not remotely probable.

We are not talking about probabilities of the numbers of organisms in a species, we are talking about the probability any given species can evolve to become more intelligent (or be ID more intelligent by another life form). There are far less apes, humans, dolphins etc.. than bacteria, yet the less intelligent bacteria have vastly out numbered the more intelligent species for billions of years, thus rendering your argument of "species numbers" moot.

In fact the more intelligent a species is, the more likely it will develop the ability to manipulate and control its own evolution (just as science has recently predicted it will do) , thus making it more likely a vastly superior intellect would have much greater odds to become even more intelligent through self directed evolution/genetic engineering

You are missing the point. We have a billion years of evolution to look at. Species have developed all sorts of niches. The intelligence niche is rare. Therefore it is less probable.

Self controlled evolution might create brighter people, but only within the constraints of the possible. Infinite smarts does not appear possible. Nor do people appear likely to bread just for smarts anytime in the near future. One look at People Magazine will show you otherwise.

Sure it is. It is possible, likely even, that life exists on other planets, but that life will still be restricted the the physical constraints of gravity, finding nourishment, maintaining body temperature, etc"

Your first problem is evolutionary theory does not work that way. It predicts life will develop and evolve according to the surroundings its in. Therefore vastly different physical constraints will contain & develop vastly different life forms that are adapted to the surroundings.

Secondly, life on earth contains a wide range of species with a wide range of intellects and attributes, and we have no reason to believe the physical properties on earth prohibit I.Q. levels from continually increasing, since humans don't even have the largest brains on earth, thus I.Q. levels are directly related to how DNA sequences (thus genes) are arranged, and nothing more.

Assuming anything can continue infinitely is silly, unless that thing is without cost. Human I.Q. comes at a substantial cost. Your brain is biologically very expensive. Mine's still worth every calorie. I'm beginning to wonder about yours.

Intellect resides in physical structures called brains. Physical structures have physical limitations"

Incorrect, study the HAR genes (human accelerated regions). The same 118 bases can produce vastly different results depending on how they are arranged

"Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity

"Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases..."We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said"

"In fact, Pollard et al. (2006) demonstrated that human HAR1F RNA folds into a structure found only in humans, wherein one of the helices is extended at the expense of its neighbor. This suggests that human HAR1F RNA adopts a conformation appreciably distinct from to the common human/chimpanzee ancestor"

None of which suggests limitless I.Q.

I'll grant that an infinite intellect is not necessary to create the universe. It's quite possible the universe began without any intellect involved. But the intellect required to design the universe is so far
off the scale of intelligence that we observe as to make such an intellect ridiculously improbable"

The only thing its off the scale of, is your ability to comprehend it. I have no doubt bacteria can't comprehend our existence either. You fail to grasp a basic tenet of critical thought, which is SIZE does not have any relevance to something existence. The tiny atom that acts like a solar system should be a clear example to you. Study fractals and you will understand size has no relevance at all to somethings existence

Size does indeed have relevance to the probability of a thing's existence. The universe can contain extremely vast things. But the more vast the thing, the more unlikely that it can go unnoticed. You are suggesting without evidence an intellect that is a vast compared to a human's as ours is to bacteria without proof or proof of anything beyond our intelligence. Yes that's improbable.

Further, a mere intellect cannot create anything tangible. Physical abilities are required to build what the mind's eye sees"

Everything that exists in the universe is nothing more than a specific arrangement of energy/matter. Thus God, and his intelligence, would also be made of the same thing everything else is, eternal energy.

This is an assertion nothing more.

"If you are going to define people as gods, we are hip deep in them. But that's disingenuous on your part. You are postulating a creator god who made the universe and that is the god you are attempting to prove"

Yes, but when discussing Gods (creator of the universe) existence, you must first fully understand the definition of God. Elohim is a position of authority not a proper name. So just as we have positions of authority over the animals on earth via our intellect, other beings (life form 1.1) could hold that same authority over us, and still other beings (life form 1.2) could hold that same authority over them, etc. etc..

And according the bible, and all other religions, there is a hierarchy of life forms throughout the universe. Your problem is your mind can't process a life form big enough to create a universe, this is because your an emotional thinker as most atheists, philosophers and liberals are.

Seriously. You can't sneak a creator in by defining people as gods. The rest is just blather.

Actually no. Increased intelligence remains rare. That's the point. Mammals, birds, and other larger animals with greater intelligence remain extremely rare both in numbers of species and in actual numbers of organisms. The more intelligent the rarer. Brains are biologically expensive organs."

Progressively increasing intelligence is a prediction of evolution from natural selection. It amuses me when atheists unwittingly fight against the tenets of their own pet theory.

Wait a minute. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that suggests anything will reach infinity. Species evolve to fit their current environment nothing more or "ideal."

But the real hold the phone problem is you are arguing the first mover evolved through natural selection. If there were a first mover it has to be first, not evolved through many generations. Duh.

I don't reject option 3. I accept option 3 as a general rule. I accept option 2 with regard to a number of particular gods: Zeus, Yehweh, Shiva, Thor, The Tooth Fairy, Allah."

If you reject the existence of the God who created the universe, then you are in fact an atheist and not an agnostic. Its seems to me many "atheists" are only atheists for convenience sake. i.e. they don't have to worry about morality, judgment etc...That position is akin to sticking you proverbial head in the sand so you don't have to worry about any possible trucks headed towards you.

If I lack a belief in such a being, and don't believe in any other gods, I'm and atheist.

JENNY A, I HAVE TRIED TO DIRECTLY RESPOND TO YOUR LATEST POST WITH THIS SAME MIXED MESSAGE RESULTS. SO I HAVE DELETED SOME OF THESE POSTS

THIS MISTAKE IS NOT MINE, AS I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS FOR 10 YEARS AND I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. SO IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE, THIS IS WHY

Um? Why are you screaming at me? Yes, quoted responses to responses are hard to sort out. Don't yell. Just proof. Kay?

---

So you're saying it's irrational to believe in free-will? If a child appreciates his mother and praises her thinking she is doing something kindly of out her free-will then the child is being irrational?

Free will is an interesting situation. There's no rational proof it exists anymore than there is rationalproof that we aren't a computer simulation.

However, look at it this way: If there is no free will then there's no point worrying about it because you have no free will about whether you are going to fret about it or not. You will just do what you do.

But if there is free will you have it, and should act accordingly. If you do act as if there is free will, but there actually isn't free will and you act as if there is, that's how you are destined to act anyway. So best act as if there is free will.

Exactly. There aren't any universal moral truths.

So you don't think murder is wrong?

I do think murder is wrong. But I don't think that either all people believe that or that those who do would agree with me about what is justified killing and what is murder.

So called holy books contain lauded acts most contemporary humans would consider immoral. No, there are no universal moral truths.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is only one way to "dismantle" atheism, and that is to provide testable evidence that a god exists. This has never happened, and until it does, atheism is the rational position (as well as a very
misunderstood position). If god gets defined as something untestable, then that's that. It is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

We do have testable evidence for ID (not necessarily God). The universe and biological system contain the Hallmarks all other ID systems. These Hallmarks are functional fixed (can not evolve) elements (FFE). The universe has FFE with the constants, and biological systems have FFE with the conserved elements. These are elements that must remain frozen in place or the system will not function Just as your car engine, PC codes, a bicycle, carnival rides etc.. all have functional elements that are fixed in place and do not evolve.

And because 100% of ID systems have FFE, we can deduce the conclusion that the universe and biological systems were also ID, from the premise that all ID systems also have FFE.

Stable function is impossible without fixed elements firmly established. Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true. And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this

You know when there's so much wrong in such a short time and you can't even be bothered to respond to it?

The above is evidence of this feeling.

[robvalue]

100% of ID systems? What on Earth does that mean?

We have one universe, which people assert is designed. We have no other ones (yet) to compare it to. Looking at things within the universe and extrapolating them to be properties of the universe itself is just plain wrong.

So we have a pool of one data sample, and you want to prove it is designed by asserting that it is designed and therefore all universes must be designed, so the universe must be designed.

And as usual, even if it is (was) designed, that makes no practical difference to anything ever. Even if I knew for certain some god created the universe, I would see no need to alter anything I do at all. If the god had any idea how things would turn out, I'd be disgusted with it. That's about all.

So in conclusion, I'll happily admit that there could be a god. Most atheists would, I'm sure. So there, I've dismantled what you think atheism is for you.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

100% of ID systems? What on Earth does that mean?

We have one universe, which people assert is designed. We have no other ones (yet) to compare it to. Looking at things within the universe and extrapolating them to be properties of the universe itself is just plain wrong.

So we have a pool of one data sample, and you want to prove it is designed by asserted that it is designed and therefore must be designed because all universes are designed.

It's just another theist attemting to use his apologist websites to bullshit his way through an argument he doesn't understand.

It's funny because he thinks he's made some valid points, when in reality all he's done is tout the same incorrect and fallacious BS we've all seen before. I cite the above quoted post as evidence demonstrating this.

Bless 'im. Most accurate thing he's said is 'I'm not a physicist'.