What Is The Point Of Prayer?

[Esquilax]

You would be an easy person to set-up in some kind of a gambling card game if you can believe in coincidences of this sheer magnitude. You would even think to ask how you lost 100 times in a row to the same set of cards from a shuffled pack. You would just think it's a chance coincidence and "Happened that way and not some other way".

That's a flawed analogy: cards games demonstrably require a conscious designer to run, there needs to be a dealer to scam me or there wouldn't be a scam at all. Nobody has been able to provide any evidence that the universe requires the same.

A more apt analogy would be a landslide; the chances of each individual piece of rubble landing in their eventual resting point in space exactly as they did is very, very small, considering the rest of the available space in the universe, but there's no designer involved. Very small probabilities do not automatically require designers.

God or an intelligent creator would be the relatively mundane explanation when you're faced with something on this scale.

Again, god isn't an explanation at all. It's just a bigger mystery. And I can say that safely on two counts; one is that saying a god created things doesn't tell us how that creation occurred, and to what end, meaning nothing has actually been explained. When I ask you want you want for dinner, "food" is not a helpful answer. When I ask you how the universe came to be, "god" is similar.

The second thing I'd do is ask you what created god. Obviously a designer of such complexity must have a creator, right? Omnipotent universe creators don't just happen by chance!

Do you understand why I'm not convinced, yet?

Either it was purpose made this way for a reason or it was some kind of chance byproduct. Scientifically speaking a view of the universe that was purpose made with an eventual outcome in mind makes perfect logical sense.

Something can be logical and still be wrong. Your premises just need to be faulty. My submission is that "complex things require a creator," is a faulty premise, and it's one you yourself don't even subscribe to, unless you think your god has a creator.

This would be the nature of the universe we can see and understand. It could have just been some kind of nonsensical chaos we eventually emerged from. Rather than a finely structured order and a sequence of a chain of events.

Have you seen how much of space is on radioactive fire before you say that? Our universe is random chaos, from top to bottom. How many worlds have been devoured by black holes, or incinerated by dying stars, or pummelled by meteors?

You might see order, from your cozy little controlled world, but even the most cursory glance at the world outside shows you otherwise. Stop pretending.

Again this isn't one of those "if you believe in it hard enough it just might be true" things it's based on what you can actually see and understand. Your scientific evidence for the existence of God is there and it's as good as it could possibly be.

Are you ever going to show any of this evidence, or just assert that all things everywhere are evidence? Because I think you should have figured out by now that that's not going to fly here.

If anything in the laws of physics that lead up to the cosmological formation of the universe and life in the sequence was 0.0000000001% out of it's perfect balance something would still happen but stars, planets, galaxies and life would be the end the result. We can run computer simulations of this now.

Then it should be relatively easy for you to pull up and link to a citation. I don't know why you didn't already.

The level of fine tuning we're talking about here is obscene, if this was put together by coincidence without a purpose in mind this would actually be far more miraculous than God. Do you have any idea how incredible that would be?

The universe doesn't care, and you haven't yet given a single shred of credible evidence to demonstrate that something out there does. Is the landslide miraculous because it crushes this specific house just so? The chances of it happening exactly as it did are infinitesimally low, after all...

You can speak for yourself, we have known for thousands of years. If you're planning on proving God through science, this is how you prove God with science. You point out all the details of what we know and you draw the only real conclusion it would be rational to make when faced with such overwhelming odds.

Do I need to explain again how this is an argument from ignorance? Not to mention leading the evidence. Here, let me show you:

You're absolutely right! I'm now a follower of Nikmi, the one and true designer of the universe! Not that god chap!

What evidence can you provide that discounts Nikmi, and demonstrates God? What if I were to go on further, describe Nikmi in such a way that he's not a conscious being at all, and his act of design was purely accidental? Could you exclude those possibilities, from the evidence at your command? What if I just kept manufacturing made up gods for you to try and discredit? Can you point me to a reason that it's your god at the helm, and not all of them?

If you can't, how can you possibly make a knowledge claim based on the evidence?

Well yes, unless you have a better explanation of how a universe purpose made for life can be, well purpose made for life?

Okay, so first of all, another argument from ignorance. My lack of not having an explanation does not mean yours is correct.

Second, you're wrong anyway. Nothing here is purpose made for life; have you noticed that if you were to step into most of the universe- space, that is- you'll die almost immediately without a protective suit? Or burn? Or freeze? And even if you're on a planet, most of them won't... you know, support life? And all those hostile deserts on this one planet we know does support life? Water, when we drown, covering most of its surface? Natural disasters? The eventual destruction of our planet due to the sun dying? The constant barrage of space radiation?

It takes a very selective mind to claim that the universe is purpose made for life.

You need an intelligence to do this not a blind random force. People understood this thousands of years ago and we ought to understand it all the more. The evidence merely heaped itself up.

Funny how you never seem to give any, then.

That's what I think I'm doing, how much proof would you need? There is vast vast amounts of evidence to suggest a purposeful origin of the universe. At this stage we ought to be debating God nature not his existence.

What you've been doing is pointing at things that exist, saying they're complicated, and then telling me what I already know: that you can't think of any other way they might have come about. This is not an argument, though. It's an admission that you don't know everything yet, and then a desperate plea that we accept the answer you really want to be true, sight unseen of any demonstrably real answer.

And I can say this because, even if I were to just blindly accept your premises as you've given them, nothing you've said so far gets us to the christian god you worship, or even any such god that our world has yet dreamed up. I could say it was the cosmic ham sandwich that designed the universe, and be equally as correct, based on the arguments you've made thus far.

Science points toward God, that's the answer science is giving you.

Right, that's why I can go look in a science journal or two and see plenty of peer reviewed, mainstream accepted papers about god and how he exists. Yep. That's also why the majority of scientists are christians in your specific sect.

Oh wait no all of those are wrong because that's fucking stupid.

The evidence is right there in plain sight, I've been pointing it out to you, it's right there.

Alright, let me play the same game from my side, see if it convinces you:



Does that look designed to you? See? See?! No designer!

Are you convinced yet? Because I can find plenty of ugly looking shit to point to all day. It's basically what you're doing: why don't you find it convincing when it's done to you?

This may be the only universe that exists for all we know. If there are other universes they could all be made by God and all be perfectly balanced for life if that's what they're intended to do.

Just so long as you don't have a presupposition tainting everything you say.

This is the only universe in which the formation of intelligent organic (or silicon based possibly) can exist.

And there's your knowledge claim. Alright: how do you intend to demonstrate this? Please tell us about the infinite other, minutely different universes that you created and oversaw, so you are sure of this? We'd certainly love to know about this groundbreaking research that you've definitely done, because you wouldn't be arrogant enough to make a certain knowledge claim based upon absolutely nothing, right?

Unless you want to argue the existence of a fundamentally different kind of reality beyond this universe?

Not really, but then again, I'm not making broad, blanket claims about what can and can't exist based on my own ignorance, now am I? I'm keeping an open mind, something your last sentence demonstrates you clearly have no interest in.

If you want to be an atheist you may want to avoid claiming that there is anything like that, because that would be a supernatural realm. Do you know the kind of possibilities a supernatural realm would give you?

Or we could be inhabiting a multiverse. Perhaps there's an anteroom universe before this one, spitting out new ones every so often. Maybe there's just two, like Futurama once showed. How would we know? We can't even say for sure how this one got started, and yet you're sitting there saying it's the only one that could ever exist with life in it. I'm saying don't because history tends to prove people who make claims based on ignorance wrong, and I'd hate for you to be wronger than you already are.

So you're saying in other dimensions of reality there can be beings such as say angels? Something entirely different to what we know in this universe? But if you want a universe for complex biological life it has to be this one there isn't an alternative.

How do you know?

99.9~% certainty of Gods existence in general. It does drop a little when you get into the specifics of what we know about this God as some of that is taken on faith rather than what can be figured out by observation and deduction. No doubt I'm going to be wrong about a few things, but not as wrong as you're going to be.

How do you know?

You would have to believe this if you're basing your view of the universe purely on naturalism and physical laws. It isn't something that would be optional as a belief it would be a fact given what you assume to be true. Unless you want to say God exists?

Atheism isn't a statement on creators. It's a statement about gods: there could very well be a creator, and it might even be yours, too. All I'm saying is that I- quite justifiably- do not believe you based on the arguments you're making, nor do I believe in any other god definition that has been put forward. That doesn't mean there wasn't a creator or a designer; I'm keeping an open mind on that score, as are most of my atheist peeps here. So your false dichotomy kind of falls flat at the first hurdle.

It's called agnostic atheism, before you tell me I should call myself an agnostic. It's a different thing to pure agnosticism.

But look at the way it did actually form, look at everything that was involved, look at the sheer intricacy of the entire thing. That's not blind coincidence, you're having a laugh.

Please demonstrate that it's more than a coincidence. Don't just point to the fact that it's currently very complex. Demonstrate.

B-b-b-but *is aghast* there is masses masses of data my God, just, argh! Look at the formation of all this.

Yeah, we already know: you see something big and pretty that you don't understand, and based on your ignorance you claim it was the work of a magic man. This is not how evidence works.

If the universe is purpose made for life then evolution has a direction within it toward an eventual goal. On Earth this goal was humanity, therefore God is our creator.

How do you know?

He just needed to create the whole thing. If he didn't create the whole thing then suggest what the reasonable alternative is. The burden of proof is if anything on you.

Again, the argument from ignorance. Jeez, just go and marry the damn thing already, you're already so far up its colon its practically a mascot suit.

What other universes? Provide evidence that other universe even exist. You may as well say God exists if you're going to make hypothetical claims that are not based on evidence.

That was my point, you can't say that this universe is the only one suited for complex life, because you have no other universes with which to make a comparison. You're sitting in the only one you know that we've got.

This argument is like if I showed you my dog, who has black fur, and then you claimed with absolute certainty that I only have dogs with black fur. After all, I just showed you a dog with black fur!

And then I proceed to show you my wife's brown furred dog.

God isn't a process he began the process of the Big Bang that eventually formed and structured our universe. If you have a better idea that makes more sense of this I haven't seen it. If you want to claim God doesn't exist or there no good reason to believe God exists then it falls on you to explain why you think this, and evidence you have to support your claim. The scientific evidence is stacking against your position.

I'm just... I'm just going to link you to a few places. Please read what's there, before you post again. Maybe they'll help.

You're doing this if you claim that God is fictitious or some kind of superstition. Actually no there is strong support from science and the observable universe, coupled with deductive reasoning itself to support the claim that God exists. Far more to this claim than to support your counter claim which is what you're doing.

My claim is that I don't believe you because I think your evidence is insanely fallacious. The only evidence I need to bring to bear on that front is my own mind; I know what I'm thinking, and therefore I know that I don't believe you.

You shot yourself in the foot by claiming anything can go "backward" or revert to a lesser "advanced" form. Though I don't think there are any clear examples of this. Complex structures once formed will remain unless like eyes of a fish a dark cave they atrophy.

Summary: unless complex structures disappear, they remain. Awesome.

The direction is general over the planet as a whole. Unless you to say the Carboniferous period was equally in advanced state to the world as it is today? Well no there was a clear level of progress along a trajectory. You can link this in to the formation of the universe as a whole and see the intentional design behind it.

Please demonstrate, using examples, how this is so. Don't merely assert it. What's that? You want examples of the reverse? Okay. Pretty clear, no? This isn't hard.

A dolphin is far more physically advanced and intelligent an animal in the sea than it ever was on the land so not a great example. Yes it adapted to a new way of life but it didn't become a more primitive form of life. I did mention atrophy but that's not so much a regression as the loss of dead weight. We wouldn't become less advanced if we lost our appendix. Apes when they lost their tails didn't become less advanced they just didn't need tails anymore.

So essentially you've set up a dishonest system where you can never be wrong on this point because you've not defined the parameters well enough, and you'll keep moving the goalposts back time and again no matter what evidence is presented to you. Outstanding.

Well no not really. Not that this relevant to the universe being purpose made by God to create advanced life on planets such as Earth. This is fully compatible with the Biblical God, at least if you read it figuratively.

Read: at least if you read it with a mind that it's already true no matter what.

No when we see mathematical patterns and structure in the universe we are understanding something that is actually there we're not reading something into it. This isn't like the face on Mars.

If you're just going to keep making unevidenced assertions I'm not going to want to play anymore.

Your argument is an argument from "not wanting something to be true" as you haven't explained what the alternative is. This is just a belief or do you have a rational/scientific reason for this belief that God isn't the likely or reasonable answer?

I have a simple logical argument: the time to believe that something exists is where there is sufficient evidence to do so, and so far all you've provided is fallacious arguments from top to bottom.

If you want to believe things without sufficient evidence, then you'll be in the position of having to believe every claim anyone has ever made. And as to why I don't find your arguments sufficient, I want you to go back and read your own posts, replacing the word "god" with the word "Thor." Would you accept that same argument then? If not, why not? The only thing that's changed is the name, after all.

There are other arguments in favor of Christianity such as the resurrection, the empty tomb, the advancement we have seen in our moral standards through Christianity. But first we need to establish that God exists and made the universe specifically for life and civilization. This is what the Bible claims is true and this is what science and deductive reason appears to support. You begin with the basics and build upward. You don't start with the Bible then try to fit the universe around it as Young Earthers would do. You don't necessarily start with a naturalist/materialist purposeless assumption either. You start with an open mind and go to where the evidence itself will take you.

You've already been told, by myself and others, why those arguments are wrong. You just reply with yet more assertions. And I don't believe for a second you came into this with an open mind.

I
The ball is in your court to explain why the universe exists at all and why it is as complexly structured as it is without being intentionally this way. If it was intentional then it would have to have been created by God or some other supreme intelligence, who would essentially be still be God.

Argument from ignorance again. Getting bored of this one.

Scientific evidence (masses of it) + deductive reasoning + an open mind= God

Wow, you've convinced me. Yep. I'm a christian now. Congrats.

So who was it who had the better idea since Darwin that would rule out Gods involvement/purposeful design?

You don't need an alternative to an idea that has no rational basis in itself.

It does if you want to state that evolution demonstrates that our creation was not an intentional outcome. Who's to say it wasn't? There was clearly some kind of progress series of advancements on a global scale over time. Not just individual organisms but across whole ecosystems. All of this could have been intentional from the moment of the BB. This was the way God created us, and it makes perfectly good sense. More sense than the alternative you're (not) suggesting.

Argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity, with a side order of shifting the burden of proof. Please, no more! I'm already full of fallacies, I could not eat another bite!

It doesn't have to be the Christian God, there are other very good arguments for that. If you want to believe in the Muslim God you can, but Mohammed had a 9 year old wife and flew to heaven on a horse with wings. Not really my cup of tea but if you like that.

So, in the end your beliefs aren't really about what conforms to reality, but what you want to be true? You're a christian because it feels less icky that worshiping Mohammed? Okay, cool. I'm glad you admitted that.

What would be "evidence for God" you have to define what kind of evidence you're looking for to begin with. People can give you a ton of evidence for God but it isn't necessarily the evidence you want. But this would be the scientific evidence for God we're looking at here.

It's actually really easy: imagine you wanted to prove your girlfriend existed to me. The same things you would do there would do as evidence for god. If you can't provide any of those and would like to rely on arguments instead- as you have been doing- then they'll have to be pretty special to surmount the extraordinary claims you're making. Nothing you've given so far is doing that.

How do you know its a product of the brain? Do you have evidence for this claim or are you just asserting it as fact?

When your brain gets damaged, so too does your consciousness. Here, check this out: this guy studies split brain patients, and in this video he discusses a man with a severed corpus callosum, whose consciousness is one half theist and one half atheist, after having his brain split:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

Pretty cool, right? Now show me a mind that exists without a brain.

All of these are easily explainable/practical behaviors. If a race of atheist aliens who never had contact with religion visited Earth what would they make of us? How would they explain what we're doing?

Gee, thanks for just brushing off my argument with a non sequitur.

So we recognize that there is a chain of command/order of being and at the very top of the ladder there is the ultimate form of being that conceivably could exist and that being is God? And it is to this power that our future survival into eternity will depend?

That is absolutely not what I'm saying. Gee, it's almost like you have an agenda to push that doesn't require a corresponding truth value!