Answers needed

[paulpablo]

This is incorrect. An atheist 'believes', to varying degrees, that we do not know how life (the universe, theoretical paradigms on the origin of life on earth are pretty robust at this point but naturally need further evidence and theorising to clarify) came into existence. Occam's razor precludes a god explanation though naturally the only logically consistent answer for atheists and theists alike is 'nobody knows'. Some atheists may say there is definitely no god, most will say they don't know but there's currently no reason to believe there is.

Irreducible complexity as a thesis for God has been debunked so many times on this forum alone it's not even fun to do it anymore.

Welcome To the forum.

OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe? Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)

I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe. 

---

Really??? Pascal's Wager?

Dude... you really need to look around the forum a little.  You're in way over your head.

Thanks for the advice. It is a novel experience for me. btw. Have you actually read Pascal for yourself? As you know, many things get lost in transmission. And besides, he is more complex than just his "wager argument."

---

The behavior of others only effects what I believe they believe.  If I see someone jump from a building and flap their arms I'd believe they were crazy and belived they could fly.
When I see Muslims or Christians still cling on to money, having sex outside of marriage, and fear death, it makes me think they believe in the bible/quran about as much as I do (I don't believe in what the bible says at all)
I believe the bible and quran are both unbelievable for reasons other than peoples behavior.
And Muslims would disagree with what you say about the quan, they would see it the other way around.

Paulpablo,

Why don't you use the inductive approach like you do for the building jumper? The Christians you know don't have an appropriate fear of God, so they must not really believe what the Bible says.

I think they have an apropriate fear of god (none at all) but an inapropriate fear of admitting to themselves/others that they don't believe the bible/quran.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is incorrect. An atheist 'believes', to varying degrees, that we do not know how life (the universe, theoretical paradigms on the origin of life on earth are pretty robust at this point but naturally need further evidence and theorising to clarify) came into existence. Occam's razor precludes a god explanation though naturally the only logically consistent answer for atheists and theists alike is 'nobody knows'. Some atheists may say there is definitely no god, most will say they don't know but there's currently no reason to believe there is.

Irreducible complexity as a thesis for God has been debunked so many times on this forum alone it's not even fun to do it anymore.

Welcome To the forum.

OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe?

Not necessarily. Most atheists will agree that if irrefutable evidence (that which stands up to scrutiny and means of duplication) is forwarded, they would believe that a 'god' (however defined, in this context) exists. Worshiping and submission is another matter altogether, but as above, being an atheist doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a god or gods. It's just that, to date, for me personally, no deity thesis ever forwarded has come even anywhere near close to convincing me there might be something to their claims.

Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)

Yes, I did. Occam's razor is a famous argument of parsimony in which the easiest/simplest explanation is taken in lieu of other, wooly, tangential explanations that seek the same end. In this case, "The universe exists because of god. God made it come into being" is re-written in light of the evidence as "The Universe exists. It came into being."

His theological disposition is irrelevant in the grander scheme of using it a way to smite the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance (among others). I'm sure his beliefs were fascinating, but they have no impact on his razor.

I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe. 

Do not confuse my dismissal of the thoroughly debunked Behe as lack of interest. His thesis has been debated for 2 decades since he forwarded it. It's just, at it's heart, it's an argument from personal incredulity. It falls apart because his hypothesis is "this is complicated therefore god", when really, even if we take that as given, and that we agree a 'god' created it, that still doesn't give us an answer as to how x or y was created, what systems were involved, or a methodology. It forces us to accept and believe a non-answer as an answer.

[Aoi Magi]

[Louis Chérubin]

OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe?

Not necessarily. Most atheists will agree that if irrefutable evidence (that which stands up to scrutiny and means of duplication) is forwarded, they would believe that a 'god' (however defined, in this context) exists. Worshiping and submission is another matter altogether, but as above, being an atheist doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a god or gods. It's just that, to date, for me personally, no deity thesis ever forwarded has come even anywhere near close to convincing me there might be something to their claims.

Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)

Yes, I did. Occam's razor is a famous argument of parsimony in which the easiest/simplest explanation is taken in lieu of other, wooly, tangential explanations that seek the same end. In this case, "The universe exists because of god. God made it come into being" is re-written in light of the evidence as "The Universe exists. It came into being."

His theological disposition is irrelevant in the grander scheme of using it a way to smite the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance (among others). I'm sure his beliefs were fascinating, but they have no impact on his razor.

I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe. 

Do not confuse my dismissal of the thoroughly debunked Behe as lack of interest. His thesis has been debated for 2 decades since he forwarded it. It's just, at it's heart, it's an argument from personal incredulity. It falls apart because his hypothesis is "this is complicated therefore god", when really, even if we take that as given, and that we agree a 'god' created it, that still doesn't give us an answer as to how x or y was created, what systems were involved, or a methodology. It forces us to accept and believe a non-answer as an answer.

OK. Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously you feel that scientific evidence supports a naturalistic explanation. I would share my interpretation of evidence, but I know you're heard it before. I'll go search other threads for your wisdom.

Don't you think you've created a tautology with your revised razor? Maybe you've oversimplified it (pun intended).

---

OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe? Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)

I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe. 

---

Thanks for the advice. It is a novel experience for me. btw. Have you actually read Pascal for yourself? As you know, many things get lost in transmission. And besides, he is more complex than just his "wager argument."

---

Paulpablo,

Why don't you use the inductive approach like you do for the building jumper? The Christians you know don't have an appropriate fear of God, so they must not really believe what the Bible says.

I think they have an apropriate fear of god (none at all) but an inapropriate fear of admitting to themselves/others that they don't believe the bible/quran.

Which means you can ignore their behaviour . . . ?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not necessarily. Most atheists will agree that if irrefutable evidence (that which stands up to scrutiny and means of duplication) is forwarded, they would believe that a 'god' (however defined, in this context) exists. Worshiping and submission is another matter altogether, but as above, being an atheist doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a god or gods. It's just that, to date, for me personally, no deity thesis ever forwarded has come even anywhere near close to convincing me there might be something to their claims.



Yes, I did. Occam's razor is a famous argument of parsimony in which the easiest/simplest explanation is taken in lieu of other, wooly, tangential explanations that seek the same end. In this case, "The universe exists because of god. God made it come into being" is re-written in light of the evidence as "The Universe exists. It came into being."

His theological disposition is irrelevant in the grander scheme of using it a way to smite the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance (among others). I'm sure his beliefs were fascinating, but they have no impact on his razor.


Do not confuse my dismissal of the thoroughly debunked Behe as lack of interest. His thesis has been debated for 2 decades since he forwarded it. It's just, at it's heart, it's an argument from personal incredulity. It falls apart because his hypothesis is "this is complicated therefore god", when really, even if we take that as given, and that we agree a 'god' created it, that still doesn't give us an answer as to how x or y was created, what systems were involved, or a methodology. It forces us to accept and believe a non-answer as an answer.

OK. Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously you feel that scientific evidence supports a naturalistic explanation. I would share my interpretation of evidence, but I know you're heard it before. I'll go search other threads for your wisdom.

Don't you think you've created a tautology with your revised razor? Maybe you've oversimplified it (pun intended).

HA, yes, most likely. But for arguments sake as I'm sure you can understand. OR in the above context is reduced down, but at its heart it still rings true light of the evidence available to us and the conclusions which are logically consistent with it (again, I don't know).

I am always interested in other's thoughts, friend. Do not be afraid to share them. Forums are for discussion, after all.

[Louis Chérubin]

[abaris]

"The basic elements that form life is easily found in nature and is abundant is space as well." Just because the parts exits? Really? I have the ingredients for chocolate chip cookies in my kitchen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they form chocolate chip cookies. Maybe if I wait long enough? That's a yummy thought! JK

Try to put them out in the universe and see what happens in a few billion years. On the other hand you could open a science book.

[Louis Chérubin]

Yeah... if you look at the descriptor next to my avatar, you'll realize, OP, that I don't let up.  "Tenacious" is the word SteelCurtain used to describe me not too long ago, and I think he was being nice.  

I will keep posting this until you answer.  Thanks.

Well, you got your answer rex!  Happy now! What, did you actually think that we would answer honestly!  You should know better than that.
The whole forum knows he's not about to go and start killing people irrespective of his beliefs. He just can't bring himself to acknowledge that, for then, why is god needed, if his internal moral compass (The only true one, natures one) does the job anyway.
If you are going to live your life based on someone elses dogma, then that stops you from thinking for yourself, and that's where the danger lies.

Ignoramus,

I'm interested in the fact that you think you're not "living your life based on someone else's dogma." Do you think you aren't patterning your beliefs on previously conceived ideas? If you are implying that my thinking is blind following, what evidence do you have for that?

---

"The basic elements that form life is easily found in nature and is abundant is space as well." Just because the parts exits? Really? I have the ingredients for chocolate chip cookies in my kitchen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they form chocolate chip cookies. Maybe if I wait long enough? That's a yummy thought! JK

Try to put them out in the universe and see what happens in a few billion years. On the other hand you could open a science book.

Abaris,

I know you've heard arguments for the "mathematical improbability of evolution." So, I won't rehash . . . . However, I do realize the cookie analogy is dumb. :-) I think it's getting too late on the West Coast.

[Aoi Magi]

[Louis Chérubin]