Hey I need help to answer against this argument from the creation side. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers Smile
______________________________________________________________________

That's great you've managed to created more gaps for God to fill. The truth is that I'm not one the spoon fed by religion, I asked questions which makes more sense when intelligence is applied to bridge gaps than to assume the universe is based on chaos and disorder. God exists before time and makes His preexistence illogical for He's the source of all energy, time,space and matter. Tell me, are your thoughts products of randomness or consciousness? this consciousness is it a product of disorder? Because religion cannot base its argument on physical evidence doesn't make its claims invalid otherwise rather it superimposes science in its entirety. The problem is that nowadays people misuse religion for their selfish requests and make God distant them the non religious POV becomes warped about the truth throwing the baby out with the bath water, discrediting every ties to the Creator. We all know this but some people just choose apply the same principles of man to God. They think God is a finite entity that dwells in the Sky, that's limited because unfavourable things happen and fail to see they are part of a grand design. 
All scientific facts still change to meet up with God's word. Today, the prophecies of the Bible are unravelling : internet, cashless transactions, space exploration, cloning and Modern Warfare are all documented. If we disregard the Bible as the truth because of the God you despise, then only those who pay attention will tap into the knowledge and be able to preemptively avert dangers by calling unto the Savior 

Have ever wonder why there are miracles and faith healing that defy medical reports and diagnosis? 
Have you asked what happens to consciousness when the body dies? The universe is vast and unexplored dimensions are merely touched and observed and man on his little blue rock doubt the existence of a Supreme Being ,the creator of the universe? Definitely science is taking the common sense out of people and philosophy is doing more harm of twisting faith with facts

One more thing, God is not "god of the gaps" as He's the source of all creation

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” —C.S. Lewis

_______________________________________________________________

That is what he said.. I have come across a site that completely obliterates this quote: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/com..._joke_and/

My overall view on the topic is this, which is a point within itself:

It seems like he's not advancing his own position by trying to trash another. It's called the argument from ignorance and incredulity. He's setting up a false dichotomy where either the current scientific theory explains everything, or else "whatever his explanation is" wins by default. Not the case at all. If he did manage to debunk current theory (not likely) then we would simply have no good explanation. We would then investigate to find a new one. We wouldn't fill the gap of knowledge with magical fairy tales. He's really just displaying his ignorance. 

In short: "This is complicated and I think it would make more sense if someone did it deliberately" is not evidence. It is the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

But saying that I would want to try and counter the argument with what was said above and more, be it actually answering the questions or something else that science has taught us.

But the rest of it I would appreciate any assistance. I am doing this more for myself than debating but would like to do both.
Thanks Smile

Views: 360

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don’t know if it’s even possible to untangle this incoherent load of poppycock, since it is not based on anything evidentiary, but just a lot of wishful thinking.  But I’ll give it a shot.

“...to assume the universe is based on chaos and disorder.”  Certainly, chaos and disorder are present in some aspects of the universe.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a disordering process, of sorts, but it follows the laws of physics.  So to does chaos exist, but it, too, must follow natural law. 

God exists before time...”  This is a statement of belief, NOT fact.  Therefore it can’t be used to prove or disprove any religious claim.

Are your thoughts the product of randomness or consciousness?”  Your “thoughts” ARE consciousness. They are not random, in the sense that they occur isolated from physical reality, but there is no reason to believe they cannot occur without divine guidance.  In fact, if thoughts emanate from God, how is it that scientists can now manipulate thoughts in a variety of ways?  Is God helpless to prevent it because He is not as powerful as scientists?

“...(that) religion cannot base its argument on physical evidence doesn’t make its claims invalid...”  It does to me.  Religion should base its claims on something demonstrable, but it doesn’t.  It bases them solely on human desires.

“...fail to see them as a grand design.”  Again, the “grand design” is assumed without evidence.  Everything about living things, for example is fully explained by evolution, which is a non-random process powered by random mutations and natural selection.  .

All scientific facts still change to meet up with God’s word.”  No they don’t. Perhaps the most imporant thing the Bible says is that Christ will return during the lifetime of the prophets’ testimony.  But I’m still waiting.  If Christ has returned, he’s doing a lousy job of making it known to all.  The Bible says that the Sun hangs in the sky above earth.  It doesn’t.  Neither God nor Christ told us that man would one day walk on the Moon; or about the atomic bomb; or about germs causing disease.  In fact, neither God nor Christ seems to have had the slightest idea of any of the sicentic facts we have today.  Either they were ignorant of them, or they chose not to reveal them to Man.  For what reason?

Have you ever wondered why there are miracles and faith healing...”  No, I haven’t because I’ve never seen evidence that any have ever occurred.  I have, however, seen numerous of examples of children dying in agony because their parents expected God’s miracle to save them without the intervention of medical science. 

Definitely science is taking the common sense out of people...”  No, science is working to put some common sense into the muddled heads of people who refuse to believe proven facts.

He’s the source of all creation.”  So who or what created Him?

“...how can I trust my own thinking to be true?”  You can’t, so stop thinking.  I know, for sure, that I don’t trust YOUR thinking to be true.  Nor can I trust only in my own thinking.  That’s why I need the combined wisdom of hundreds of years of serious, learned scientists to inform me, rather than trusting my thoughts only.

I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”  Nor can I use thought to believe in God.  It is not a matter of DISbelief; it is a matter of lack of belief.  And, so far, all the thinking I’ve been doing for 80+ years has failed to lead me to any kind of supernatural belief system.  I do, however, use my thoughts to determine the best way to live my life during my short time in existence.         

  

Thanks for that. Much appreciated. It will help a lot :)

RE: The truth is that I'm not one the spoon fed by religion, I asked questions which makes more sense when intelligence is applied to bridge gaps than to assume the universe is based on chaos and disorder.

Atheists and secularists are much more willing to ask questions and willing to admit when they do not know. There is nothing spoonfed about that. And Atheism is NOT a religion. That is YOUR (misguided) assumption.


RE: God exists before time and makes His preexistence illogical for He's the source of all energy, time,space and matter.

THAT is most definitely an assumption which was most definitely spoonfed to you. Hypocrit much?


RE: Tell me, are your thoughts products of randomness or consciousness? this consciousness is it a product of disorder?

It means shit happens and we have no control over it. Consciousness is a byproduct of being a sentient being with an evolved brain.

RE: Because religion cannot base its argument on physical evidence doesn't make its claims invalid...

So what does make its claims valid? "Because the Bible tells me so?" That's not good enough for me.


..RE:....otherwise rather it superimposes science in its entirety.

That part of your sentence made no sense. Can you elaborate/clarify what you mean?


RE: The problem is that nowadays people misuse religion for their selfish requests and make God distant them the non religious POV becomes warped about the truth throwing the baby out with the bath water, discrediting every ties to the Creator.

No arguement there. Except how do you prove there is a Creator? You cannot. Unless you know something I don't there is no proof. It is taken on "faith alone". Your Bible even says that :-)


RE: We all know this but some people just choose apply the same principles of man to God. They think God is a finite entity that dwells in the Sky, that's limited because unfavourable things happen and fail to see they are part of a grand design. 

I am not sure how you can say that given that your religion claims that God is omniscient, omnipresent, the Alpha and the Omega...That is a heavy claim to try to substantiate. I dare you to prove it to me!


RE: All scientific facts still change to meet up with God's word. Today, the prophecies of the Bible are unravelling : internet, cashless transactions, space exploration, cloning and Modern Warfare are all documented.

Please show me the exact prophesies that say that these "prophesies" have been fulfilled. I want exact verses with explanations. Otherwise your point is moot and I am going to call bullshit. Fear based so-called prophesies of end times are nothing more than dressed up versions of sales pitch horoscope level hogwash. You wanna know what's going to bring about the real "End Times?" Climate change! Something that your people (conveniently) continue to deny especially in high offices of government. This makes our country look like idiots to the rest of the world (which we are, but that is a topic for another day.)

RE: If we disregard the Bible as the truth because of the God you despise, then only those who pay attention will tap into the knowledge and be able to preemptively avert dangers by calling unto the Savior 

I don't despise any God. I just don't believe one exists.

RE: Have ever wonder why there are miracles and faith healing that defy medical reports and diagnosis? 
Have you asked what happens to consciousness when the body dies?

Faith healings are scams that rob helpless people. Nothing you just stated has been based on any facts. Only anecdotal heresay. If I am wrong, name ONE legitimate example and I will reconsider my position. Otherwise you are just continuing to blow smoke.

RE: The universe is vast and unexplored dimensions are merely touched and observed and man on his little blue rock doubt the existence of a Supreme Being ,the creator of the universe?

Just because the universe is vast (which it is) HOW do you then conclude that there is a Creator?....One more example of YOU being the spoonfed one my friend. Not me.


RE: Definitely science is taking the common sense out of people and philosophy is doing more harm of twisting faith with facts.

On what basis can you make that claim? How do you draw THAT conclusion from what you just wrote? Do you hear how stupid that sounds? We reap the benefits on a DAILY basis of what science has brought us. Science does not take common sense out of people. Science is simply observation. Record. Experiment. Record. Update as needed. Repeat. It is data. There is no jusgement to it unless YOU make a jusgement about it. BUT the jusgement is NOT science. It is a conclusion. It doesn't invalidate the data. You clearly know nothing about science to make a claim about that.


RE: One more thing, God is not "god of the gaps" as He's the source of all creation

Another example of being spoonfed. Name 3 things tangible about this God of yours without quoting the Bible. If you can't, just admit you take it on faith alone that he exists. If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be telling me all about Allah. The Anrahamic Gods (like all gods) are human constructs to explain the unknown during a time when we had no other explanation.

RE:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” —C.S. Lewis


That ENTIRE quote begin with the presupposition that for something to exist there must be a purpose AND a Creator. It is eloquent, but very misguided.

"the God you despise

- that's a funny one.  Even nice Christians hold that "atheists hate God".  Guess what - we don't.  We can't hate something we don't believe in.  What is unpopular among atheists is religion itself. 

"Why would God let you into heaven if you hate Him?"  

- why does God have to be such an immature asshole?  I let people into my home who hate me, I don't care if they hate me or not.  Therefore I'm better than God.  

"God exists before time and makes His preexistence illogical for He's the source of all energy, time,space and matter.

- I think this is interesting, and internally consistent, and unprovable either way.  Preexistence means "before existence" in time.  It does throw up the question though, how did God come into being?  But that's like asking, how did the multiverse come into being?  OK my brain just fell over. 

Thanks very much. Much appreciated. It will help a lot along with others here :)
Cheers for taking the time to do this.

Ask him if he really believes that he can talk with his god, the Creator of the Universe. Ask he if he really believes that he will become an immortal.

Do not debate Science with him. Keep it to matters of Belief.

To begin you will need to adjust your approach to his belief in a god.

'God' is not a 'magical fairy tale', recent research has clearly indicated that 'god-like concepts' are artefacts of processes that were necessary for our evolution (Paul Bloom, Yale University). In fact, they were necessary enough that the predisposition to believe in 'god-like concepts' is still hard-wired into our brains. This should not be seen as evidence that 'god is hard-wired into our brains' but that the predisposition to believe in god-like concepts has arisen out of evolving neural constructs. Put simply, with a little research you can establish the position that his belief in god is scientifically plausible, but you can go further than that, his unswerving belief in a 'god-like concept' is proof of evolution. The more he asserts his faith the more he confirms your argument.

Neat, isn't it.

Put simply, with a little research you can establish the position that his belief in god is scientifically plausible, but you can go further than that

I think you need to reword this. If I did understand it...then youean there is empirical evidence which shows primitive man must generate fantastical world views and live by them.

While its true primitive man engaged in question answering for questions that need not be answered (nor even have an answer) as a byproduct of man adapting quickly to their new enviroment through instinctive learning and limited reason becoming more and more disposed to a way of life where unanswered questions are unbearable. In a field of ignorance or inability to answer these questions...random or creative answers emerged and man was doomed to become enslaved by these narratives (becoming an essebtial part of their person/culture). That doesn't mean that we can't call the end product of this a fairytale. True man has only recently (on a notable scale) climbed out of the "explain everything by any means possible...especially the fantastical and spookey" and that those left behind are still stuck in an inevitable cycle of untruth, misinformation and lies. Their narrative is no less a fairy tale than Sir Arthur and the round table or Socrates's apology and suicide. The only difference is the degree to which they are taken seriously/literally, how strongly they control people's world view and the amount of people submerged in fantasy and lies. The fact that is comes from a religion makes no difference (than if it was simple literature or folk tales). What matters is How well these fairy tales are transmitted to those with different narratives and how well the narratives can be used for non-question answering means (power, control, sex, having more stuff). The same things can result from fairy tales that were originally and clearly fiction which creep into a secular world view (even a rational one). A fairytale is a fairytale whether it emerges slowly through natural narrative creation or the pen of a writer.

Agreed, Davis.

Showing all this research indicating that we will tend to want to believe in god, does not, itself, mean that that belief in god is plausible, only that it's likely we will hold it.

The evolution of 'god-like concepts' is intrinsically linked to the evolution of causal reasoning, which was necessary to make the leap from Domain Specific Strategies to Domain General Strategies (or Flexible Strategies). The ability to conceptualise 'what an enemy might be thinking' necessarily requires us to create a construct in our internal virtualisation that represents a sentient entity. This is not a random or spurious act, it is a deliberate act that leaves us with the memory of unseen sentient entities that may (or may not) be responsible for observable physical phenomenon.

Inherent in that process is the creation of a proto 'god-like concept'. The way to understand this is to strip any modern 'god' of the dogma and historical association we bring to the table with it, because that would not have existed in proto god-like concepts. It's the same process that leads modern children to create imaginary friends, the man in the moon, monsters in the wardrobe, bogyman at the window, etc., that is to say it is a primitive process still active and observable in our developmental psychology today.

This is an entirely different psychological process to story telling, they come from different areas of the brain.

I'm happy my wording accurately represents what I intended to say.

P.S. I'd also point you in the direction of Jill Pruetz's recent research, she has observed proto-ritualistic behaviours in Chimpanzees (the 'fire dance') - this strongly suggests ritualistic behaviour evolves before language. This is consistent with my position. 

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service