[Debate] Is God real? [Religion] (445)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-01 19:02 ID:4LYwyQQi

To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?

RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.

-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).

-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.

STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).

177 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 03:42 ID:Heaven

> You see the problem with such a position is that you cannot account for the science that you have faith in.

I account for it with my own senses.

All science is based on facts; all facts can be verified with the senses. And if you cast doubt upon our own senses, demanding that they need accountability, then we have no business debating the nature of reality at all (also, we are probably Buddhists.)

If there's one thing we must be certain of for science to work, it is that we exist, we percieve, and we percieve correctly.

178 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 09:42 ID:lA/laNI8

>>177

Science could not be done, if nature were not predictable. You would never put someone in a rocket and send them to space unless you were able to predict exactly what would happen when you lit the rockets. It's not a matter of "Let's push this button and see what happens this time." Science would be able to tell you nothing, or predict nothing without FIRST assuming that nature is uniform. You have no basis for such an assumption.

Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?

179 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 10:57 ID:Heaven

>>178

Is there any knowledge that isn't gained through either taste, smell, sight, hearing or touch?

You have been proved wrong several times already and you keep pretending it didn't happen. Please leave now!.

180 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 14:35 ID:9djxdq4d

> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform

And you have zero basis for believing in your god. What else is new?

181 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 15:37 ID:Heaven

>>178

> You would never put someone in a rocket and send them to space unless you were able to predict exactly what would happen when you lit the rockets.

I think you misunderstand science. Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure. Those who sent a man to space were taking a risk - a risk well calculated and considered extremely minute, but for all they knew Ahura Mazda might have been waiting invisibly above the stratosphere with his hammer of smiting for the first human foolish enough to try and escape his domain. They literally did choose to brave the unknown, and thanks to them, now we have definite facts about space instead of inductions which we're pretty confident about but that might, somehow, be in error.

> You have no basis for such an assumption.

I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption. Theories with no known exceptions to them are called laws or principles; this one is the 'principle of uniformity.' They are no more rock-solid then the rest of science, but when we observe something that seems to violate a law, we start to examine the anomaly very closely rather then immediately cast our suspicions on the law.

> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?

Sounds like more semantic games.
Well, I would say that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge not gained through the senses, thus it has no business in science.

182 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 21:32 ID:lA/laNI8

>>179

How about you just answer the question.

183 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 21:34 ID:lA/laNI8

>>180

We'll talk about my basis later, but let me get this straight, are you admitting that you have zero basis for believing in the uniformity of nature?

184 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 21:34 ID:Heaven

>>182

Then the answer is yes. Now you answer mine.

185 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 21:48 ID:lA/laNI8

>>181

Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure.

Not without FIRST assuming that nature is uniform. If nature is not FIRST assumed to be uniform ALL bets are off.

I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption.

You mean HAS BEEN in line with such an assumption (ignoring the God-like claim that you know what 'every other' scientist has observed). Saying that the future is like the past, because it has always been like that in the past is 'BEGGING THE QUESTION.' Sure you can say that if the law is violated, you will examine the 'anomaly,' but don't you see that calling it an 'anomally' exposes your presupposition that nature IS uniform?

Let me put this in simpler terms...Is the past a guide to the future?

186 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 21:51 ID:lA/laNI8

>>184
Then the answer is yes.

So, you believe that all knowledge is gained through the senses eh? Maybe you could tell me by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses (That should answer your own question too).

187 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 21:56 ID:Heaven

> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?

No, sometimes we have hallucinations of a 900-foot tall Jesus that picks up an office building and then brags about it.

188 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 22:07 ID:Heaven

>>186

> Maybe you could tell me by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses

Well, it wasn't from an oral tradition invented by tribesmen that stoned people for believing in the wrong god and thought the world was ending at every solar eclipse.

189 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 22:16 ID:lA/laNI8

>>188

Not asking what it wasn't, asking by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses. Isn't the question clear enough?

190 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 22:47 ID:Heaven

>>189

> asking by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses.

Irrelevant.
Senses are our means of gathering information about the world. The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.
Whether through textbooks or tomes, the words of a preacher or the words of a teacher, everything we learn comes through our senses.
You have the same senses I do. Whatever conclusions we come to both use the same imperfect senses.

If you have any other mysticism you'd like to share... please don't.

191 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 23:07 ID:lA/laNI8

>>190

Hmmm, so NOT ALL knowledge is gained through the senses. Aside form that flip-flop, perhaps you can tell me by what sense you came to know that 'everything we learn comes through our senses.' Did you see, smell, hear, touch or taste it?

192 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-02 23:35 ID:Heaven

>>191

> Aside form that flip-flop

I'm not the poster you think I am, so there was no "flip-flop" since I am not that poster.
Either way, demanding an immediate answer then balking when clarification is presented is not a "flip-flop", and does not reveal a weakness in any argument or capacity for reason.

As for the substance of this loaded political implication (that the ability to change ones mind is a weakness of character), it couldn't be further from the truth.

193 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 23:46 ID:lA/laNI8

>>192

But it sure shows the inconsistency of the non-theistic position, coupled with the fact that my questions go unanswered.

194 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-02 23:48 ID:lA/laNI8

>>192
Not to mention the fact that 'changing one's mind' flies in the face of any evolutionary model.

195 Name: Not >>190 : 2007-10-03 00:56 ID:Heaven

>>185

> The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.

I question this statement. I assume you are referring to animal instinct, but can reactions programmed into our mind on an unconscious level really be described as 'knowledge'?

I suppose we should ask proofthatgodexists.org to define 'knowledge' to his satisfaction.

196 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-03 00:59 ID:Heaven

Whoops, somehow I became terminally confused while writing that reply. Ignore the mixed-up post references.

197 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-03 02:06 ID:lA/laNI8

>>195

Knowledge - justified, true belief.

198 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-03 05:47 ID:Heaven

>>197

Now will you answer what knowledge isn't acquired through senses?

199 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-03 07:20 ID:Heaven

>>198
I am pretty sure the answer is going to be along the lines of spiritual knowledge.

If so, I'll save us a post and inquire in advance how he is able to verify the truthfulness of such. Or perhaps more importantly, how others are able to verify the truthfulness of such.

Truth is sort of a nebulous concept, but I think the best benchmark we've got for it - so far as it pertains to the nature of reality - is near-unanimous opinion. The chief reason we place our trust in our senses and the natural world it reveals is that everyone (barring physical weakness or disability) perceives it in the same way, whereas it is blatantly obvious that the six billion of us on this planet perceive God, Allah, Buddha or whatever name you prefer to call him/her/it in some very different ways.

200 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-03 11:47 ID:9djxdq4d

> We'll talk about my basis later

No, we won't. You'll just drag out that old chestnut about how your god somehow "accounts for" something else, and you'll dodge the question, never admitting that your belief is entirely irrational and on much shakier ground that anybody else's.

201 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-04 00:09 ID:Heaven

>>194

> Not to mention the fact that 'changing one's mind' flies in the face of any evolutionary model.

Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.

202 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-07 12:23 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>201

Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.

Which is exactly why the evolutionary model fails, as it does not account for 'changing one's mind.' You see, according to any evolutionary model, our thoughts are just the by-product of the electro-chemical processes in our brains. As Doug Wilson puts it, the difference between your thoughts and my thoughts could be likened to the difference between shaking 2 cans of pop and opening them, You happen to 'fizz' atheism, and I happen to 'fizz' Christianity, arguing which is right, or suggesting that anyone could 'change their fizz' is irrational. Heck, rationality is irrationl under that model.

203 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-07 16:40 ID:Heaven

>>202

Man, you're so incredibly confused about different philosophies here, it's not even funny. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. You're just grouping together everything you disagree with under one label. All you manage to do is look incredibly ignorant.

Hey, look, man. If you want to argue against something, how about you first go out and learn what the hell it is.

204 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-07 20:38 ID:Heaven

> You happen to 'fizz' atheism

No, I don't. I 'fizz' ignorance. From ignorance I can 'fizz' anything I want.

Doug Wilson? Are you referring to the hockey player, the interior designer or the Christian Theologian?

205 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-07 20:47 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>203

Interesting how your post does not include any refutation. Tell me how free choice comports with any evolutionary model?

206 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-07 20:55 ID:Heaven

>>205
Interesting that you think I'd bother discussing anything with one such as yourself.

207 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-07 22:30 ID:Heaven

>>205

Go and finish high school so I can explain it to you and you'll understand it.

208 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-07 22:36 ID:Heaven

>>205

On a side note, wasn't christianity the responsible for burning Galileo for defending heliocentrism? Tell me, has your retarded religion changed its mind already or are you so retarded that still believe the world is flat and square and the middle of everything?

Please leave and stop making an ass of yourself, do it for your kids: it must be shameful for them to have you as a parent.

209 Name: 203 : 2007-10-07 23:41 ID:Heaven

>>205

The correct description of your statement is "not even wrong". It is so non-sensical, it cannot be refuted. It's like trying to refute a statement like "an apple is five".

210 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-08 04:55 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>209

Seems pretty simple to me, no one here can tell me how one gets 'the ability to choose' from evolution.

211 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-08 05:47 ID:Heaven

>>210
Because it was a reproductive advantage.

212 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-08 05:48 ID:Heaven

> no one here can tell me

How Insightful

213 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-08 13:21 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>211

You are missing the point. Explain how biochemistry = choice.

214 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-08 17:22 ID:Heaven

>>213
Evolution itself does not purport to explain how biological traits function, it merely describes the process by which they became more commonplace in a given population.

However, choice seems pretty easy to account for. Many types of insects and other simple organisms are unable to interrupt preprogrammed patterns of behavior in response to rapidly changing environments; for instance, a digger wasp that is eating its prey and is then caught by a predator will not flee, but will continue to eat until it is itself eaten. The ability to interrupt instinctive behaviors in response to emergencies would obviously be a survival advantage in this case, thus it was selected for in more complex forms of life. "Choice" is a far more refined version of this ability to adapt mental processes to the situation at hand.

We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice, but it's thought to take place primarily in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain.

215 Name: proofthatgodexists.org would say... : 2007-10-08 17:51 ID:Heaven

> We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice

So you don't really know ANYTHING AT ALL? Nice Flip-Flop.
[Insert mystic escapism to defend lack of valid response and failure to address post >>1]

216 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-08 21:50 ID:G9i970BS

proofthatgodexists.org = unable to learn.

217 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-08 23:32 ID:Heaven

>>210

Please, make the tiniest effort to understand that what you're asking is like asking how economics can explain the taste of oranges. Evolution has never pretended to have anything to do with the question of choice. It makes no statements about it. That's the domain of philosophy.

218 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-09 00:59 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>217
Um, evolution IS philosophy.

>>214
So, 1. If 'interpretation of instinctive behaviour,' is itself not an instinct, what is it then?
2. If the processes in the 'orbitofrontal cortex of the brain' are also biochemial, are the outcome of these processes predetermined by the laws of chemistry and physics?

219 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-09 01:43 ID:Heaven

>>218

  1. Beats me. I'm not in the mood for semantic games. But by its nature, it contradicts the dictionary definition of an instinct: "a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason."
  2. If you're trying to get us to espouse determinism and then claim that determinism is a fallacy, let's just get to the point:

http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_5/ts205f.html

220 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-09 02:58 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>219

1. Indeed, beats you.
2. Why don't you just tell me what you believe.

221 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-09 03:10 ID:Heaven

>>220

The evidence for evolution goes beyond the scope of philosophy (and beyond your comprehension as well).

222 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-09 04:06 ID:Heaven

>>220

  1. So because I don't care to specify a term for something unrelated to the primary matter at hand, a term which you will undoubtedly go off on a tangent about because your understanding of it differs from mine, I lose?
  2. The article in >>219 states my beliefs more eloquently then I could. That is why I linked it.

(FYI, >>221 ain't the same Anonymous Scientist as me. I'm not sure why he/she directed that post to >>220 instead of >>218.)

223 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-09 11:58 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>221

So the evidence for evolution is that there can be no evidence? (sounds familliar actually - same as with 'punctuated equilibrium.' - how convenient).

>>222

1. Nope, was just agreeing with you.
2. I guess I'll have to read it then.

224 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-09 12:29 ID:Heaven

> Um, evolution IS philosophy.

This is why people keep telling you to go back to school before trying to make an argument. This is a ridiculous statement, and just shows that you are either a) a complete fool or b) blindly parroting fundamentalist dogma with no basis in reality.

Possibly "and" instead of "or".

225 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-09 17:11 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>224

Well maybe you should just list the scientific proofs (or how about just one) for macro evolution. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

226 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-09 19:05 ID:Heaven

>>225

I typed "proof of macroevolution" into Google, and the first hit was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. You know how to use Google, don't you? You could have done it yourself, if you had actually wanted to learn anything.

Somehow, I'm thinking you're not really interested in learning.

227 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-10 03:56 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>226

Rather than link to a site that you undoubtedly have blind faith in, why don't you attempt to answer my question and state one, just one, proof for macro evolution. I will be pleased to refute it.

Cheers

228 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-10 04:30 ID:Heaven

>>224
c) a troll

229 Name: Not 226 : 2007-10-10 04:54 ID:Heaven

Here's a summary of a proof stated by Ian Johnston at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

1) All living things come from living parents. (Evidence: Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. Apart from that, lack of opposing evidence or alternate theories.)
2) There are many species alive today that are very different from each other. (Self-evident, I would hope.)
3) Very long ago, fewer and simpler organisms existed than exist now. (Evidence: Fossil record.)

Conclusion: Unless God is constantly creating new species out of nothing, "macroevolution" has to have occurred. Darwin's theory is the best naturalistic explanation of how that has happened.

Addendum in Ian Johnson's words: "To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation."

230 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2007-10-10 05:12 ID:Bdiw1dN3

>>229

1) A bold assumption that one could have knowledge about ALL living things, but I will even grant you #1. (We'll talk about how you can KNOW anything at all, another time).

2) Agree

3) Fossil record shows that simpler organism existed, timeline is spurious. "Very long ago" is invoking the god of atheism - time.

4) Unless God IS constantly creating new species??? Which new species are you talking about? If you are saying "unless God created species, macroevolution has to have occurred," I'm sure you can see the difficulty with your 'proof.'



This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.