Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The existence of God argued rationally

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'll just pop in with a "bravo" for TheMadKat's response.

I have to point out in fairness that "intelligent manipulator" creating life is not necessarily "God" but could be space aliens--it wouldn't have to be a supernatural force, like a creator of the universe (i.e., of all of existence) would have to be. Of course, it forces the next question: where did the aliens come from? Who created them?

Looking at lethalmiko's long ramble, I can't figure out what the point of half of it was, even as "evidence" for whatever he was trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is rather interesting how a lot of you in this forum seem to have have an affinity for claiming ignorance on my part without understanding fully what I am saying nor showing where the ignorance lies. In any case, there is nothing wrong with ignorance which is why we even have these discussions in the first place.

You are throwing a lot of junk out here at once, my friend. The truth is that a "god of the gaps" is no God at all, and I'm not exactly sure why you seem to have this psychological need to believe in an intelligent creator. I'm sorry to say but your ignorance is showing here.

Your initial response to the "fish to elephants issue" is a classic case of focussing on the example rather than the essence of the argument. I clearly stated "Which is why I talked about fish (or if you wish, some other water based ancestor) turning into elephants." Did you actually read the part in the brackets? Sea based creatures, in whatever form, came first according to evolution. Does that sound like ignorance to you or am I misrepresenting the Evolution theory? If Evolution is correct, there should be at the very least fossil evidence showing a transition between those water based ancestors and terrestrial animals. I even earlier gave the example of a giraffe. Have you ever read about a fossil of a water based creature that is very similar in structure to an antelope? Is there any set of fossils showing the transition between mammals and birds? You are so confident about Evolution as if it is an establised set of irrefutable laws when the truth is that there are so many variations of it and so many arguments about it. While certain components of it may be fact, the part about transition from one species to other completely different ones is still a theory with no clear proof.

You ignore the important facts I mentioned about Entropy, the precision of DNA plus the repair capability it (DNA) has. Can you just try to imagine the kind of changes required to be made to DNA for a species to move from the sea to land, never mind the air? All these changes are being opposed by Entropy and the other two factors. Does a million years make any difference to entropy? You then make the astonishing statement that "There is no connection between mammals and birds" and you use this to claim I am ignorant. How do you know this for a FACT? If evolution works the way you say it does, what would stop mammals changing to birds? Don't you know that for example penguins have more in common with mammals than with reptiles? You further say "Birds arose directly from reptiles, most likely from raptor-type dinosaurs. In fact, many scientists now theorize that feathers were a feature of certain dinosaurs." Does this sound very definitive to you? Sorry to say but I don't find it very rational for you to claim I am ignorant based on conjectures, which is the best way I would describe your presentation of Evolution.

It is impossible for something which does not exist to cause anything.

So do you therefore believe the universe had no beginning and no cause?

And you don't know how life began either. But rather than admit that, you consign it all over to God - a supernatural (i.e. outside of nature, outside of reality) being. Your answer is egregious not because some people disagree with you. It's offensive because it negates Man's ability to have any knowledge about anything.

That is a false characterisation of my position. I believe in thinking and man is very capable of finding answers. All I am saying is that God MIGHT be one of those answers. The nature of God, his origins, etc is another debate altogether.

-------

P/S - I shall be back tomorrow to answer the other points raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Evolution is correct, there should be at the very least fossil evidence showing a transition between those water based ancestors and terrestrial animals.

That's not true. Fossils are very rare. Just because we can't find any, doesn't mean that a) they don't exist, nor b ) that evolution is invalid.

So do you therefore believe the universe had no beginning and no cause?

That's a ridiculous question. The concepts "to begin," and "cause," have no meaning without the Universe. As has been pointed out several times, these concepts only exist within the Universe. You're asking me to step outside the Universe and use concepts which would then have no meaning and attribute them to something which does not exist. It's like asking someone, "Jjsljfkd alskdj fjkiel slkgja?" It's not exactly like that, because even that random juxtaposition of letters, even the very concepts of "letters" and "questions" exist in the Universe.

That is a false characterisation of my position. I believe in thinking and man is very capable of finding answers. All I am saying is that God MIGHT be one of those answers. The nature of God, his origins, etc is another debate altogether.

No, God (the Judeo/Christian god, since you capitalized the word) is an impossibility. Every god, so defined, is an impossibility. Since the concept is an impossibility, or, rather its referent in reality is an impossibility, it can't be the answer to anything.

The nature of God has already been defined and there is no room for debate. If you want to talk about some other concept, other than a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility, then you really should begin by naming it and giving us a definition. The concept god, and its variants (God, Allah, Jaweh, etc.), precludes Man's capability to find answers.

This has been tried, but I don't recall you answering it: You aren't capable of finding answers because there is an invisible, undetectable, unmeasureable, alien, who does not exist in reality, but exists in super-reality, who does all your thinking for you. Do you agree this is a valid theory that deserves expending time, treasure and talent to prove?

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever read about a fossil of a water based creature that is very similar in structure to an antelope? Is there any set of fossils showing the transition between mammals and birds?

There are fossils of lungfish-like animals with appendages that served as both fins and legs. That's a transitional species adapting from water to land. Of course it looks nothing like an antelope, which evolved millions of years alter from species already adapted to land. Mammals did not evolve from birds.

You are so confident about Evolution as if it is an establised set of irrefutable laws when the truth is that there are so many variations of it and so many arguments about it. While certain components of it may be fact, the part about transition from one species to other completely different ones is still a theory with no clear proof.

You're flat wrong. There are, literally, tons of evidence for evolution. The exact aspects of the mechanism by which evolution works are in dispute, not evolution itself. The details of the evolution of any given species may be unkown, but we can still determine, through evidence, that it did evolve from something else.

But even if all we know about evolution is wrong, that still provides not one microscopic fraction of an iota of evidence about God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, there is nothing wrong with ignorance which is why we even have these discussions in the first place.

I'm not so sure that you're ignorant anymore. Now I think you're evading. Reasons for this are to follow.

If Evolution is correct, there should be at the very least fossil evidence showing a transition between those water based ancestors and terrestrial animals.

You chose to ignore the examples which I already gave you in my prior post, of the lobe-finned fishes as well as the very much alive lungfish which you could go look at yourself in central Africa if you were so inclined.

I even earlier gave the example of a giraffe. Have you ever read about a fossil of a water based creature that is very similar in structure to an antelope?

What possible reason would we have to think something like that would exist? When's the last time you saw an underwater antelope??? Animals have structure that reflects the environment in which they live and helps them to survive. What you are asking for makes no sense on any level. Remember that every "transitional form", so to speak, was its own unique organism with its own life history and circumstances while it existed. Transitional form is only a relative term between one thing and another. A transitional form is NOT some freak-show Frankenstein animal that you made up in your head and then said "Well why doesn't this exist?" Why do you THINK it doesn't exist? Because an animal like that would never survive. And no evolutionary scientists would even expect to find something like that in nature.

You are so confident about Evolution as if it is an establised set of irrefutable laws when the truth is that there are so many variations of it and so many arguments about it. While certain components of it may be fact, the part about transition from one species to other completely different ones is still a theory with no clear proof.

There are established sets of laws regarding evolution. We can observe them now. Natural selection is a fact. It's easy to find and easy to demonstrate. Variation is a fact. Anyone can look around and see that even the same kinds of animals are different from each other. And that variation is heritable.

Variation + Heritability + Natural Selection = evolution. It really is that simple. Now, there is a great deal of nuance and controversy around that nuance, and we have a lot of dispute regarding which of the mechanisms of evolution are more or less important and what broader patterns, if any, emerge over the history of life. But that evolution occurs is an indisputable fact and I won't let you weasel out of that one. As for your "transition" question I have been trying to explain to you why the question as you ask it is a nonsensical question. Living things change. When they change enough we call it a different species. There are good reasons to pick certain criteria as distinguishing one species from another but ultimately it is a concept we create and attempt to use to describe nature as best we can. Do you think living things only change up to a point and then stop? What makes you think this?

You ignore the important facts I mentioned about Entropy, the precision of DNA plus the repair capability it (DNA) has. Can you just try to imagine the kind of changes required to be made to DNA for a species to move from the sea to land, never mind the air? All these changes are being opposed by Entropy and the other two factors. Does a million years make any difference to entropy?

Firstly I told you I was responding to the evolution part of your post and nothing else. Secondly, if I "ignore" entropy it is only because entropy is irrelevant to evolution. Look up at the sky and there you will find this amazing thing called THE SUN. THE SUN is a constant energy input to the earth and all life depends upon it (except for deep-sea geotherms etc. etc. you get my point). THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM SO ENTROPY IS IRRELEVANT. And yes I can conceive of what changes DNA can undergo, in fact I have a very good idea of it from courses in genetics. You're wrong about entropy being a barrier to change in DNA sequences. In fact, if anything entropy would INCREASE change in DNA sequences and cause them not to be replicated faithfully, but that would be random change rather than directed change. The truth is we see both random and directed change in DNA, the former as a result of genetic drift or other kinds of neutral/accidental forces and the latter as a result of natural selection. Both are important in evolution, though scientists argue over which is more important. Falling into the "adaptationist" camp I will of course opt for the latter but I digress.

You then make the astonishing statement that "There is no connection between mammals and birds" and you use this to claim I am ignorant. How do you know this for a FACT?

It's not an astonishing claim at all. I don't understand why you think it is. I know it because it's true. Mammals "branched off" of the reptile lineage first, and birds much later. The last common ancestor of birds and mammals was a tiny little lizard-looking thing in the Triassic, resembling nothing you would think of as a bird or mammal today. We traced the lineages through time with those fossils you claim don't exist. There is also DNA sequencing from living things that helps determine relatedness too. Ever hear of a molecular clock?

If evolution works the way you say it does, what would stop mammals changing to birds? Don't you know that for example penguins have more in common with mammals than with reptiles?

Nothing per se STOPS mammals from changing into birds, but that's not what happened. Life "could have" evolved in any number of ways but there is only one way it actually DID evolve and that's what we try to figure out. At this point, I'd say it'd be nigh impossible for a mammal to "change into" a bird, whatever you mean by that, but a mammal could always develop birdlike qualities to a certain degree. Ever hear of this crazy thing called a bat? I don't know why you bring up penguins having more in common with mammals than reptiles. First of all I'd like to know in what ways you think they are similar, and why you think those ways are important to figuring out lineage. Secondly, even if they are, there's this pesky thing called "convergent evolution" where animals may develop similar traits despite being on different "branches" of the tree, because they live in similar ways. A bird wing and a bat wing are both wings and they're both used for flying but that doesn't make birds and bats related. To put it another way, if my distant kin in Mongolia or wherever that I haven't been related to for 5000 years started getting taller because it helped them, and my family started getting taller too because it helps us, that doesn't magically make us ancestor/descendant again.

You further say "Birds arose directly from reptiles, most likely from raptor-type dinosaurs. In fact, many scientists now theorize that feathers were a feature of certain dinosaurs." Does this sound very definitive to you? Sorry to say but I don't find it very rational for you to claim I am ignorant based on conjectures, which is the best way I would describe your presentation of Evolution.

Well it sure seems that way when you ignore the concrete examples I gave you of WHY scientists think this. Scientists arrive at the conclusions they do for a reason (even when they're ultimately wrong somehow). You cherry-picked my argument to find the logic but ignored the examples and did not respond to them in any way to make it look like I was just inventing things. All of these ideas we have about evolution have EVIDENCE to back them up, evidence which I have described to you and you consistently choose to ignore. This is why I said you were evading. You won't acknowledge the observations about reality that lead us to conclude what we do about how life evolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNA

This is an extreeeeeeeemely complex molecule made up of elements such as Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, etc. in exact sequences of atoms (hence the term "genetic sequencing"). DNA polymers contain millions of molecules and according to Wikipedia, "the human genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged into 46 chromosomes". No scientist has successfuly synthesized DNA in a lab and created life. And all this with extremely carefully controlled conditions of temparature, pressure, quantity of base elements, etc. (as opposed to the more chaotic natural conditions). All life comes ONLY from existing life.

THE ARGUMENT

I would like to invite any of you to explain or theorise how life could have started without some kind of "intelligent manipulation" of natural base elements. Please explain how something as enormously complex and precise as DNA can be created in the earth from any natural processes you care to name. Bear in mind that even the simplest one-celled organisms have enormously complex and very precisely sequenced genetic structures.

I have no interest in getting into debating complexity argument. It has been done. You can google for longer answer. (in short for those interested - this argument creates a self contradiction (and thus is logically false). Since God must have at least as much complexity as anything he is supposed to have designed. If you assume that complexity requires a designer, then God’s own complexity implies that he also had a designer. So, either one is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design). So that covers it philosophically.

But that is not why I decided to respond. Your presented facts are incorrect.

DNA is a VERY SIMPLE molecule in design. It carries a lot of information in a very simple manner: through a combination of 4 simple molecules. Lab synthesized DNA is no different in structure at all. The fact that there is no synthetic life (I think - I have not been following this closely but I think bacteria is available or soon will be - maybe someone can answer) has nothing to do with structure of DNA. It has to do with our lack of knowledge at this point regarding the minimum "machinery" if you will that is required for life. When we answer that question - actually making it physically is the easy part.

A good way of explaining this is: we know the alphabet and can easily write but we need to know what to write.

Aside from that regarding creating life: it has been shown in the 60s I believe or even earlier (it is a classic experiment that you learn about in every introductory molecular biology class) that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic ones under certain conditions (conditions present on earth before life begun - like in the absence of oxigen ect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE?

The question is, how could some kind of "intelligence" that is composed of nothing but "empty space" exist in the first place, before matter or energy or life existed (according to you, a couple paragraphs down ... does that mean you're saying that god exists but isn't alive?)? ....we do know unequivocally that it does exist, and that's basically what you are denying by arguing that the existence of every single known existent in the existing universe is contingent on the existence of some completely unknown and theoretical third party.

Is it impossible for you to imagine an entity (God) existing in some dimension in "empty space"? I do not have any DIRECT evidence for the existence of God but there seems to be INDIRECT evidence like the DNA and Entropy arguments which you are yet to answer. There are many things in life that have no direct evidence (e.g. black holes) but we still can argue for their existence using indirect evidence. If God created the universe, it does NOT follow logically that this means there is no existence. Maybe God was existence until the universe was created as an extension of his existence. Of course his origins is the next question and one theory is that he has no beginning (which raise more questions than answers). If this is true then he either must have within him an infinite source of energy or he exists in a dimension where space, time, matter and energy are of no consequence but can be created at will in the physical dimension. And God is not necessarily unknown or unknowable.

It is impossible for something which does not exist to cause anything.

This statement assumes that God does not exist and therefore cannot cause life or the universe. If you claim life began using natural processes, you should mention them. Processes that produce "intelligent order" out of chaos are already known. They are originated by rational intelligent beings. Refer to the "DNA argument" mentioned earlier.

THE SUPERNATURAL

"God is supernatural by definition. Since the supernatural is that beyond nature, i.e. beyond reality no thing said to be supernatural can exist. Therefore either a "God" is not supernatural and thus not a God or God does not exist. If God did exist, violating this fundamental law of reality, all basis for reality and reason would be rendered useless. Since that makes our existence impossible God does not exist and the belief in a supernatural God undermines our ability to live when that belief's nature is understood." - fountainhead777

I already raised a question on this which no one has responded to. What is "nature" or "natural"? Is "nature" exactly equal to "reality" or "existence" or is existence a combination of nature and other things? If nature is anything that is physical (matter and energy) to the exclusion of everything else, then I agree that it is nonsensical to believe in God. However, if nature encompasses non-physical entities (that may not be directly tangible or observable), then God could rationally be part of existence under that definition. I have already mentioned things that point to a world beyond atoms and heat (such as the paranormal) but there are other examples. Thoughts, imagination and dreams are part of reality but are they physical? Scientists have found evidence for "dark matter" and "dark energy". They cannot directly observe them but they deduce their existence from other observations. In the same way, it can be argued that there are indirect proofs of God's existence.

MORE ON EVOLUTION

themadkat, whichever way you explain the transitions in species, at every point in the long chain, animals died and their fossils are preserved. Therefore, what constitutes proof of evolution would be a reasonable fossil record showing most if not all the specific intermediate points in between. For example, if I wanted to prove evolution from reptiles to mammals, I would need to find fossils showing reptiles that have mammal-like features at various stages such as longer more upright legs, shorter mouths, teeth that are closer to mammals, etc. Do these fossils exist and could you point me to the literature on this? Finding a skull of an ape and naming it "Australopithecus" does not prove that the ape is an ancestor of modern man. It could just as well have existed as an ape parallel to fully formed homosapiens. Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird but I will read up more on it and other similar creatures.

As a related matter, if man came from apes due to natural selection, why do apes still exist since they are presumably "inferior" animals to man and should therefore have died out? Why do amoeba still exist at all considering how "primitive" they are?

PARANORMAL

Either no psychic in the world has any interest in making money from their "talent", or it's total bullshit.

I will read the link you posted and respond. You have not answered the points I raised about magic and you seem to claim that all magicians use camera tricks on TV. Have you never attended a live magic show in your entire life? If David Blaine uses mere camera tricks, why has he not been discredited by now? Have you not read about the "impossible" stuff he has done? I shall do some more research about people that have made money from their "paranormal talents".

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Why, why, why??

Do you realize that you are effectively saying that we should not bother finding answers to many things in life? The details of the origins of life and the universe is part of Metaphysics and science. Why does Metaphysics even exist, even though some things in it are not necessarily relevant to everyday life? Does everything that you think about, discuss with others or investigate in your own life necessarily lead to some "concrete action"? It is not your place to appoint yourself a judge over my questions. If you think I am talking out of my bottom, you can simply demonstrate that so that I am wiser, rather than being condescendingly dismissive, which detracts from the debate. Part of the reason I even joined this forum was to discuss and get answers to some of these complex questions we are debating. It has nothing to do with me trying to believe any particular explanation by protracted "harping on". For you to be essentially telling me to not bring this discussion on this forum is not exactly good debate etiquette.

The trouble with you atheists is that you always tie belief in God with service to God which does not follow logically. BTW I do necessarily believe in God. I am just open to the possibility of God. I am an Agnostic if you like. As for your question "If those questions were answered next week..., how would your life be any different?", I can ask you the same question concerning things you have investigated that appear to be of no consequence to your life. You are not omniscient to know that the knowledge of the origins of the universe is useless knowledge.

Another huge problem I have with your line of argument is that you are effectively saying "We have no direct evidence to prove God exists. Therefore God is a fairytale that unthinking people bring up to explain the unexplainable". I already answered this before. The fact that something has not been proven at this point in time does not mean it will never be proven. I am amazed at how super confident you are about theories in science that are not yet proven but which you to take for fact and use in your arguments.

Again, no one has made this claim.

Did you not read what nanite1018 said? He said "If you read all those and still think that intelligent design is a valuable theory, or that science is inept at explaining the origin of the universe, then there is nothing I (or anyone I think) can do."

Whatever the answer is to life, the universe, and everything, if it's going to be found then it's more likely to be by scientific means than by regular people just racking their brains without regard to the context of what life and the universe actually are.

I agree but in your arguments, you are implicitly assuming God does not exist which is what this debate is all about in the first place. You then construct arguments against the existence of God using that premise which is circular logic. Science and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Religion and Science are. But God is not the same thing as religion, because religion can be belief in worshipping the sun for example, which is not the concept of God.

I have to point out in fairness that "intelligent manipulator" creating life is not necessarily "God" but could be space aliens--it wouldn't have to be a supernatural force, like a creator of the universe (i.e., of all of existence) would have to be. Of course, it forces the next question: where did the aliens come from? Who created them?

If it can be proved by logical argument and scientific laws that life is so complex that it must have come from some "greater being" who engaged in "intelligent manipulation" of nature, would you have a problem with that? If it makes you feel better to call God a "space alien" that's fine. The label you put on this entity is not relevant. The essence of this whole debate is whether the universe and life was originated by some super smart being whom for the purposes of this debate I call God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify my actual position on God before I carefully read the new posts. I am at the moment neutral (Agnostic). If the arguments against God are irrefutable, I shall be the first to acknowledge that god does not exist. I am not trying to convince anyone about this, only debating it with people who are on one side of the issue. I have also debated against religious people by the way.

I shall research more on the evolution and other issues and respond as I have been accused of evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it can be proved by logical argument and scientific laws that life is so complex that it must have come from some "greater being" who engaged in "intelligent manipulation" of nature,...?
Way before Objectivism was around, this argument was shot down as being invalid because of the problem of infinite regress. The notion that something complex requires a more complex being behind it will take you on a trip to infinity. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If David Blaine uses mere camera tricks, why has he not been discredited by now? Have you not read about the "impossible" stuff he has done?

lethalmiko, I'm going to take you at your word and assume you truly are looking for answers. To that end, I highly recommend you begin by getting a firm grasp on epistemology. The statement I quoted above indicates to me that you are sorely lacking an understanding of how you know anything. I recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition as a starting place. You should then move on to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Until you understand the proper method for learning, answers to your questions will continue to be elusive. In fact, it's a waste of your time to continue asking them, since the answers, even if you agree with them, will not add to your own knowledge. I, and others, have pointed out your epistemological errors several times, but I don't thing you're "getting it" because you simply don't know how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a related matter, if man came from apes due to natural selection, why do apes still exist since they are presumably "inferior" animals to man and should therefore have died out?

You really should read up on natural selection and on the laws of anture as a whole. Natural laws make no judgemenets such as whether a species is "inferior" or "superior" to any other.

Anyway, both apes and man are descended from a common ancestor. That's why there are apes and men. Apes persist because they can survive and reproduce in their environemnt.

Why do amoeba still exist at all considering how "primitive" they are?

Because they're well-adapted parasites and have plenty of opportunity to reproduce.

I will read the link you posted and respond. You have not answered the points I raised about magic and you seem to claim that all magicians use camera tricks on TV.

Not all of them. But an illusionist should use all means at his disposal. On TV he may use camera tricks if they can aid in achieving a desired effect. Penn and Teller use camera tricks on live shows. It all depends on what they're trying to do.

Have you never attended a live magic show in your entire life?

Several, if you count birthday party magicians. I like them very much.

If David Blaine uses mere camera tricks, why has he not been discredited by now?

Because he's a professional entertainer and it's understood he performs tricks. also because magiicans don't normally reveal their tricks. Some do, like Penn & Teller, but they reveal only their own tricks, not someone else's.

When con artists like Uri Geller pretend to have paranormal powers, though, magicians and illusionists like James Randi and others take it upon themselves to expose them as frauds and con-men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes.

Is it impossible for you to imagine an entity (God) existing in some dimension in "empty space"?

First of all, I can imagine a lot of things that are impossible. Second, you're the one who set up the conditions of "infinite empty space" where god then created "matter and energy and life". So you yourself said that god is not alive, not made up of anything, and is not anywhere (since empty space is space that doesn't have anything in it). In other words, god is nothing. So no, I definitely cannot imagine a being that is both something and nothing. I can use the words, but I can't imagine that being. Can you? And some "different dimension" is not an explanation; it would still have to be made of something and exist by some means.

This statement assumes that God does not exist and therefore cannot cause life or the universe.

Again, using your own description, he doesn't.

If you claim life began using natural processes, you should mention them. Processes that produce "intelligent order" out of chaos are already known. They are originated by rational intelligent beings. Refer to the "DNA argument" mentioned earlier.

But you're not positing order created out of chaos. You're positing something created out of nothing. Do you have an example of that happening?

I already raised a question on this which no one has responded to. What is "nature" or "natural"?

I have answered that, in detail. See my earlier replies to you.

I will read the link you posted and respond. You have not answered the points I raised about magic and you seem to claim that all magicians use camera tricks on TV. Have you never attended a live magic show in your entire life? If David Blaine uses mere camera tricks, why has he not been discredited by now? Have you not read about the "impossible" stuff he has done? I shall do some more research about people that have made money from their "paranormal talents".

My god man, are you serious? Yes, 100% of the professional magicians out there use "tricks", illusions, to make you think they are doing magic, and some of them make money by telling gullible people that it's real. Did you think that quarter really came out of your ear?? Are you 10??

Do you realize that you are effectively saying that we should not bother finding answers to many things in life?

No, I'm saying that if you're interested in the answers to scientific questions, you should GO FIND THEM. Thinking hard is not going to tell you how the universe originated. A few more years of good hard scientific investigation might.

As for your question "If those questions were answered next week..., how would your life be any different?", I can ask you the same question concerning things you have investigated that appear to be of no consequence to your life. You are not omniscient to know that the knowledge of the origins of the universe is useless knowledge.

If I put the time in to investigate something, then it's because I do have an intended use for that information. I clearly do not think that knowledge of the origins of the universe is useless knowledge, since I have repeatedly advised you to go collect that knowledge if you want it. The fact that you are here thinking you're going to find that information, tells me you wouldn't know how to use the knowledge if you had it. The scientific details of the origins of the universe are not part of the philosophical branch of metaphysics. You are talking out of your bottom on a good many points and I and others are doing our best to demonstrate that to you, since we are kindly assuming that you don't already know.

Another huge problem I have with your line of argument is that you are effectively saying "We have no direct evidence to prove God exists. Therefore God is a fairytale that unthinking people bring up to explain the unexplainable".

Actually it's more like this: We have tons of direct and historical evidence to prove that God is a story that unknowing thinkers made up to explain the unexplainable. That in itself is plenty of evidence that god does not exist. Think "Santa Claus".

Did you not read what nanite1018 said? He said "If you read all those and still think that intelligent design is a valuable theory, or that science is inept at explaining the origin of the universe, then there is nothing I (or anyone I think) can do."

Ok, read that carefully again. Is he claiming that science can currently explain the origin of the universe?

If it can be proved by logical argument and scientific laws that life is so complex that it must have come from some "greater being" who engaged in "intelligent manipulation" of nature, would you have a problem with that? If it makes you feel better to call God a "space alien" that's fine. The label you put on this entity is not relevant. The essence of this whole debate is whether the universe and life was originated by some super smart being whom for the purposes of this debate I call God.

Think about what you're saying here. Is it possible that we're so complex that something even more complex must exist that made us? Obviously we could not ever come to that conclusion based simply on complexity. It would also not answer anything. Also, any conclusion about the origin of life could not be discovered or proved through "logical argument". It's a scientific question, requiring scientific evidence.

I'm going to second what JeffS and D'kian have recommended, that you do some more studying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way before Objectivism was around, this argument was shot down as being invalid because of the problem of infinite regress. The notion that something complex requires a more complex being behind it will take you on a trip to infinity.

While we're on the subject of reasons "God" cannot exist, I'd like to make a tiny adjustment to SN's excellent response and say that such a notion will take you on a trip towards infinity. (Unless the irony was intended...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Having spent the last two years further studying this issue, I have come back to give an update on my conclusions so far.

1. Every paranormal activity can be rationally explained without recourse to the supernatural. The magician James Randi was instrumental in helping me finally realize this.

2. Whether God exists or not is probably impossible to answer because of the fundamental problem of defining who or what exactly God is. Every religion has a different definition and every faction within every religion has its own ideas what or who God is. For example, The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity which is foundational to Evangelical Christians.

3. There is an uncanny resemblance of modern day faiths with ancient mythology. Indeed, many books in the Old Testament freely borrow from Sumerian mythology. eg the Biblical Noah's Flood story appears to have been taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh. The account of creation also seems to draw from the Enuma Elish. All other religious texts such as the Koran or Book of Mormon likewise are full of invented stories.

4. I am not sure whether science will ever fully explain how life or the universe began. It seems the more we know, the more we realize just how little we know. Just in the last 50 years, we have discovered dozens of new sub atomic particles and produced so many new theories on Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory, M Theory, Infinite Parallel Universes Theory, Big Bang Inflation Theory, etc. and every answer produces a hundred new questions. However, science and philosophy are certainly on the right track.

I wish to heartily thank everyone who participated in this important discussion and gave me some serious food for thought that helped clarify things that were hitherto very muddy.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent the last two years further studying this issue, I have come back to give an update on my conclusions so far.
Thanks for the update.

While participating in forum discussions, it is easy to slip into thinking that an opponent is just not getting one's point, and that participation is futile. However, anecdotal evidence shows that discussion does work, even if it works later -- in the background -- when the opponents have disengaged and are thinking about what was said, etc.even though they're no longer discussing it. So, thanks for coming back to say that the discussion on the forum gave you something more to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...