Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My problem with Evangelical Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Panacea View Post

    If that were true, the laws of physics would not work.
    Hence miracles.

    People walking on water, water turning to wine, Resurrection, etc...
    Last edited by SkullKing; 12-28-2011, 07:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      The former does NOT, though, exclude the possibility that there are points where, *for a purpose* (and not "just fuck[ing] with us for no reason") an exception might be made: an effect without a natural cause, but nonetheless one of the same type as those produced by natural causes.
      This is a universe of cause and effect, you cannot create an effect without a cause. Because such a thing would create a visible and lasting omission in the evidence trail between cause and effect that we would notice. As well as set off a chain reaction of effects that would ripple out from the point of interference. The paper trail would eventually draw back to a blank.

      Which is why a claim of a miracle is so dismiss able. Unless you can prove a hole in the paper trail, you cannot prove a miracle occurred. Seeing as we have not yet seen any holes in the paper trail outside of claims from witness accounts in books thousands of years old that have been proven time and time again to be fallible and manipulated by human hands. -.-


      Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      First, that's not so. The laws of nature cover explaining everything we see, given certain prior conditions; that does not mean that everything we see is *in fact* the result of only those laws.
      It is though. This is my point. We are no longer monkeys marveling at the fire we just built. We can see these laws. We can see the process by which they created the universe and eventually us. We can see the trail of evidence as well as the experiment in all of its stages repeating to infinity around us in the universe. We are not guessing. We have an essentially infinite number of examples demonstrating the process at every single possible stage stretching back to the very beginning of the universe.

      The universe does not require direct interference to do anything and direct interference, by its nature, would display evidence or a lack of evidence if it was intentionally being concealed from us.



      Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      But that's the point! If you witnessed the change, you know. But it's impossible to prove that the wine was not produced by ordinary means… and therefore, it's impossible, just by witnessing how wine normally comes about, to declare that *none* has ever been done by supernatural intervention.
      Its quite possible. Because no wine has ever been proven to be from supernatural intervention let alone anything else. Even if you "witnessed the change" that still does not mean its supernatural in nature as trickery can still be involved. Thus the probability of such an event is effectively zero. If you're going to attempt to use the logic that it could be a miracle because it can't be proven it wasn't then the burden of proof is on you as probability overwhelming says it wasn't.

      Besides, to argue for the existence of miracles is to argue that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong. Since miracles are largely a fixture of Christianity and to a lesser extent the Abrahamic religions. Since no miracles have occurred since that particular time period you're suggesting that God only gave a damn about one small group of people in one part of the world? That everyone else on the planet is wrong? Even the other Christians, since he's obviously not doing anything lately, despite how far they've wandered off what was his original miracle granting path. He should at least be smiting us left right and center. -.-


      Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      First, that's not so. The laws of nature cover explaining everything we see, given certain prior conditions; that does not mean that everything we see is *in fact* the result of only those laws.
      Again, you're making the mistake of putting forth a claim and taking the burden of evidence onto yourself. Science and probability definitively say no. If you're going to say yes, prove it. Once again, I don't think you grasp our level of knowledge in the modern world. This is not feeble guess work. We're all sitting around a warm campfire and you're the one arguing its warm because God is intervening. When the rest of us know it to be combustion and temperature.



      Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      The difference is not in the effect, but in, for a special purpose, getting the effect without the usual immediate causes.
      Except there is no proof anywhere that an effect was gained without a cause, and gaining an effect without a cause is unbalancing the laws of the universe for no other reason then to prove a point to God's favourite people seeing as according to you he likewise hides his handiwork from view. Thus again arriving at I'm Right, You're All Wrong. Because God.

      Which is not a can of worms I suggest you open here. >.>


      Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
      Only that we have not eliminated anywhere near so much as you claim, nor are likely ever to do so.
      I sincerely suggest you pick up a couple of Hawkins books. You might be surprised at how much we have in fact ruled out.



      Originally posted by Duelist925
      This is really the only part of your arguement I disagree with, because your assuming that an omnicient/omnipotent/blahblah you know the rest entity would operate on the same logic as us--thats fundamentally wrong.
      Why? No seriously, why? I'm tired of this argument. Explain why such a being would be 100% totally completely unknowable and utterly alien too us yet create an entire universe using logic we can understand while claiming we should uphold the qualities it approves of and supposedly making us in its image? That's completely cart before horse.


      Originally posted by Duelist925
      You've admitted that physics on the quantum level simply don't seem to make much, if any, logical sense.
      Quantum physics has its own brand of peculiar logic as a result of what it is. The possibilities this logic demonstrates are amazing ( Basically, that it's operating on a multi-dimensional level ). The ? part is why would a quantum particle just blink into and out of existence. We don't know that yet. It could be hopping dimensions, it could be being manipulated, it could be willfully created. We don't know yet, but we will eventually.

      Also, that was not an "admission", you just reiterated my point for me. Which was, originally, that if a creator is out there, he is at a quantum level. Not a natural one. So thanks? -.-


      Originally posted by Andara Bledin
      "How would a 2-dimensional being be able to recognize a 3-dimensional being? If a sphere were to appear in a 2-dimensional world, it would seem at first to be just a point, then a growing circle, before it stabilized, then diminished, ending again, in a point.
      However, we would still share two dimensions with it and thus we be partially like it and able to recognize those two dimensions. As you just stated. We would not recognize it as three dimensional, but it would not be 100% alien to us either with no qualities in common. As is being suggested. -.-

      If a creator exists, we must share some qualities with it, otherwise there is no logical or emotional point in our own existence and you must concede that said creator created us for a purpose that is much less warm and fuzzy then is put forth by religion. To claim we cannot understand it because it is so powerful and so alien, also negates it having any feeling or obligation towards us aside from its incomprehensible alien logic and/or madness.

      So which is it? Is it a loving, understanding creator? A cold intellect running a curious experiment? A madman?

      Do you see the problem? If you declare it totally unknowable, you invalidate the point to all its supposedly told us to do. As it is no longer for the reasons put forth by it. Which is a scenario even I find rather depressing. As I'd rather it be loving and understanding if its out there, instead of an inscrutable alien overlord running a grand experiment.
      Last edited by Gravekeeper; 12-28-2011, 10:34 PM.

      Comment


      • Its quite possible. Because no wine has ever been proven to be from supernatural intervention let alone anything else.
        Are you *deliberately* confusing "we cannot prove this has ever happened" with "this is proven never to have happened," or are you doing it by accident?

        I am NOT arguing, in this conversation at least, that any miracle has ever occurred, much less that God performs them. But you claimed that it was proven that they are impossible, and such proof is *itself* impossible without (reasonable in most instances, but *unprovable* (thereby making the result also unproven)) assumptions.
        Last edited by HYHYBT; 12-29-2011, 01:13 AM.
        "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
          Why? No seriously, why? I'm tired of this argument. Explain why such a being would be 100% totally completely unknowable and utterly alien too us yet create an entire universe using logic we can understand while claiming we should uphold the qualities it approves of and supposedly making us in its image? That's completely cart before horse.
          I'm not saying it's totally unknowable. I'm saying it has a logic we do not have, because it has information we do not have. I'm not saying its completely alien t to us, I'm saying it operates on a level we simply cannot, because it has the kind of info we wish we had.

          I'm not arguing that he'/she/it is some sort uberalien intelligence--simply that it operates on a different scale than we do, and thus, what it might deem logical, we might deem illogical or silly.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
            But you claimed that it was proven that they are impossible, and such proof is *itself* impossible without (reasonable in most instances, but *unprovable* (thereby making the result also unproven)) assumptions.
            I claimed there is no demonstrable evidence or record of them ever occurring. If you are going to pit "Prove they happened" vs "Prove they didn't happen", you're going to be horribly outmatched. Even if water had been turned into wine once, the event is so statistically insignificant as to still effectively be impossible and actually raises yet more questions about a possible creator intelligence.

            You're debating yourself into a corner that's bringing you straight back to "Well you just have to have faith" which is an unassailable position that can hand wave away all challenges under its guise. Faith is fine and I won't begrudge anyone their faith, but don't try to challenge science with faith. It ends up sounding silly.

            Personally, I've always sought to reconcile the two and I sincerely wish more people would. As I think the two are going to meet at some point and many people are going to have to face what may ultimately be an unpleasant truth for them.


            Originally posted by Duelist925
            I'm not arguing that he'/she/it is some sort uberalien intelligence--simply that it operates on a different scale than we do, and thus, what it might deem logical, we might deem illogical or silly.
            But again, the problem here is that if it exists and it created the universe, why would it create the universe illogically from its own perspective? Then specifically create life that is illogical. That again, would indicate that the being itself is off its gourd.

            There is no reason for it to invent us, the universe and the logic that we and the universe operate by if that logic is completely illogical to it. Unless the reason is that its malicious or insane. There must be some overlap in our logic and its logic, else nothing said about God can be true. There must be a point where our highest understanding overlaps its lowest understand. It cannot be a loving parent that made us in its image if it intentionally created us to be illogical in a playpen that is illogical then sealed us off from itself based off of inscrutable alien reasoning.

            Unless your suggesting God has crippling social anxiety and did all this specifically to hide from us after screwing with us for a couple hundred years? -.-

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post


              But again, the problem here is that if it exists and it created the universe, why would it create the universe illogically from its own perspective? Then specifically create life that is illogical. That again, would indicate that the being itself is off its gourd.

              There is no reason for it to invent us, the universe and the logic that we and the universe operate by if that logic is completely illogical to it. Unless the reason is that its malicious or insane. There must be some overlap in our logic and its logic, else nothing said about God can be true. There must be a point where our highest understanding overlaps its lowest understand. It cannot be a loving parent that made us in its image if it intentionally created us to be illogical in a playpen that is illogical then sealed us off from itself based off of inscrutable alien reasoning.

              Unless your suggesting God has crippling social anxiety and did all this specifically to hide from us after screwing with us for a couple hundred years? -.-
              I'm not saying that the universe is illogical from its own perspective--the universe would be perfectly logical from its perspective. How did you get that from what I said?

              I said that it's logic might not necessarily make logical sense to US because it has information and resources, and sees the universe, in ways we simply cant!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Duelist925 View Post
                I'm not saying that the universe is illogical from its own perspective--the universe would be perfectly logical from its perspective. How did you get that from what I said?

                I said that it's logic might not necessarily make logical sense to US because it has information and resources, and sees the universe, in ways we simply cant!
                Because you're saying we cannot comprehend the logic of God despite witnessing that logic first hand all around us every day. You're stating that God's logic is a matter of scale, but missing the fact that if its a matter of scale, it means that we are on that scale too and we can comprehend that we are on that scale. Thus we are understanding a level of God's logic even if it is a rudimentary level.

                The very fact you're saying God's logic may not make sense because it operates on a grander scale is in fact, partially understanding God's logic. See the problem? Again, as I said, there must be a point where our highest understanding overlaps God's lowest understanding. Because if he exists, we effectively live according to, inside of and because of his logic. Declaring we can't possible ever understand that logic is a fallacy.

                Especially when, in every single text or belief system in the world that has any sort of deity, that deity is always humanized and always operates in emotional or logical ways we can understand. Sometimes even on a level of maturity that is frankly below us if not outright childish in nature.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
                  Especially when, in every single text or belief system in the world that has any sort of deity, that deity is always humanized and always operates in emotional or logical ways we can understand. Sometimes even on a level of maturity that is frankly below us if not outright childish in nature.
                  Of course they are. They're written from humanity's perspective, often as a way to deal with the unknown and make it somehow less scary.

                  Another example. A parent tells a child not to do something, and when the child asks why, the parent answers "because I said so" because the parent knows that the child is not yet mature enough to understand the reason why an action is forbidden. At that point in the child's development, the parent appears to be an unreasonable dictator, forbidding actions for no good reason. But when the child matures and grows into an adult, they realize that the parent was not an arbitrary dictator but had valid reasons for making those rules.

                  Perception makes a massive difference, despite the rules not changing. To assume that we are the same people, collectively, as we were 2000 years ago is a mistake, and to think that we will not have grown that much further in the next 2000 years is just as laughable.

                  ^-.-^
                  Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
                    Of course they are. They're written from humanity's perspective, often as a way to deal with the unknown and make it somehow less scary.
                    But then its humanity attributing God to an event that otherwise does not involve God. Abrahamic God was very direct about why he did things and always told someone why if not yelled it at them about it. To assume God responsible for an event without any communication from God is merely ignorance of the event. Such as blaming an earthquake on God.

                    So you are correct on the unknown part, but not it being unknown divinity.



                    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
                    Another example. A parent tells a child not to do something, and when the child asks why, the parent answers "because I said so" because the parent knows that the child is not yet mature enough to understand the reason why an action is forbidden.
                    No, because in this example the parent is talking directly too the child and they are communicating in the same language. They are on the same page. The same scale. The point attempting to be made is that God is unknowable on any level simply because he is God. A God who talked to us as a parent would not only be knowable but would really sort a lot of this crap out for us. ;p



                    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
                    To assume that we are the same people, collectively, as we were 2000 years ago is a mistake, and to think that we will not have grown that much further in the next 2000 years is just as laughable.
                    I am quite definately not the one in this debate making the assumption that we are as we were 2000 years ago and will be 2000 years from now. >.>

                    Comment


                    • this is just my opinion, but i still don't get the apperant need to get so worked up over the logical or illogical nature of god or any other diety.
                      whether we are here as a mechanism that was left to its own device or as an ongoing testchamber under a microscope or just here to be dicked around with like crule toys.... wont change the fact that we are here.
                      we still have to get up and go to work and pay the bills.
                      people, in both theism and athiesm, seem to waste so much time worrying about whether they are right or wrong that it takes energy away from just living life.
                      All uses of You, You're, and etc are generic unless specified otherwise.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SkullKing View Post
                        Hence miracles.

                        People walking on water, water turning to wine, Resurrection, etc...
                        I actually don't take the Bible literally. I accept these things happened as an article of the faith but don't seek proof or to prove them.

                        But originally I was responding to a Creator making rules and changing them later. That doesn't happen because there are no random recordings of where the laws of physical fail; ie no people floating off into space for no reason.

                        Miracles, by definition, happen deliberately. They are not a changing of the rules so much as a one time suspension of them. I say that because they happen under very specific circumstances, and not at random, or by anyone.

                        Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
                        this is just my opinion, but i still don't get the apperant need to get so worked up over the logical or illogical nature of god or any other diety.
                        whether we are here as a mechanism that was left to its own device or as an ongoing testchamber under a microscope or just here to be dicked around with like crule toys.... wont change the fact that we are here.
                        we still have to get up and go to work and pay the bills.
                        people, in both theism and athiesm, seem to waste so much time worrying about whether they are right or wrong that it takes energy away from just living life.
                        Well, it actually does matter, for a number of reasons.

                        1. There are some people whose belief in those systems is so strong, it gives them a sense of entitlement to push their beliefs on others. Therefore society has needed to develop rules (in the case of the US, the 1st Amendment) to control the asshats of the world.
                        2. There are some people who genuinely struggle with things they were taught from childhood. They question the tenets of the religion they were raised in. Answering those questions is important to their mental and spiritual well being.
                        3. There are some folks who have strong faith and want to celebrate that faith, but live in a part of the world where that faith is in the minority and very unpopular. Examples include Catholics in Northern Ireland, Jews in the Deep South, Muslims anywhere in the US, and Christians in Egypt, the Middle East, and Central Asia. To those folks, being open about their faith is an invitation to an ass whupping.

                        Discussing the issue of the divine allows people of divergent views to look at and learn to understand one another. With understanding comes tolerance.
                        Good news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.

                        Comment


                        • @ Panacea
                          i still think it shouldnt matter. each example you gave could be solved by people simply not caring what those around them belive in. if the entitled people didnt care who belives what they wouldnt be pushing their faith on others. the questioner wouldnt have an organized religion to question because it would instead just be gatherings of like minded people instead of an attempt to teach or convert others to their "true" faith. people wouldnt get their asses beaten for beliving something diffrent because the people around them wouldnt care what they worshipped.
                          rather than be asked a million questions as to why i belive what i belive, i find it much more tolerant for someone to instead say "ok, cool. whatever floats your boat" and leave it at that.
                          Last edited by siead_lietrathua; 12-29-2011, 03:57 PM.
                          All uses of You, You're, and etc are generic unless specified otherwise.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
                            Because you're saying we cannot comprehend the logic of God despite witnessing that logic first hand all around us every day. You're stating that God's logic is a matter of scale, but missing the fact that if its a matter of scale, it means that we are on that scale too and we can comprehend that we are on that scale. Thus we are understanding a level of God's logic even if it is a rudimentary level.

                            The very fact you're saying God's logic may not make sense because it operates on a grander scale is in fact, partially understanding God's logic. See the problem? Again, as I said, there must be a point where our highest understanding overlaps God's lowest understanding. Because if he exists, we effectively live according to, inside of and because of his logic. Declaring we can't possible ever understand that logic is a fallacy.
                            Dude, I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. There is no problem. It also doesn't change my point, that if god is all knowing all power blah blah etc etc it would do things we might not understand, simply because it can see things we cant.

                            I am not claiming that god is inherently unknowable. Thats a possibility, but it's one I highly doubt, mostly for reasons you yourself have stated. I'm claiming that god has resources we don't. It sees things in ways we simply can't. (And I'm talking about the kind of stuff we can't see yet--how time works. Seeing time in a non linear fashion. How the universal constants work. How nudging one little butterfly can make a hurricane.) So it would operate in ways that we might deem strange.


                            To expand on Andaras Parental example:

                            A child wants to eat candy and mcdonalds every day. I know I did--hell, I'd have been as happy as a pig if we ate fast food and junkfood every day when I was a kid. But the parent knows better, thanks to, say, knowledge about nutrition--something the kid can't even grasp at. The child knows nothing of trans fats, or calories, or blah blah. He knows mcdonalds tastes good, and broccolli tastes bad. But the parents say Mcdonalds is Bad for you, and Broccolli is good! Which to the kid makes no sense, because he is not in possession of all of the facts, and can't even really understand the facts. He might grow up and learn, and then understand, but until he does, he just eats broccolli because his parents say so. Because his parents see things in a way he doesn't, and can't, until he gains the ability to process that information.

                            Especially when, in every single text or belief system in the world that has any sort of deity, that deity is always humanized and always operates in emotional or logical ways we can understand. Sometimes even on a level of maturity that is frankly below us if not outright childish in nature.
                            Like Andara said, thats because MAN wrote the stories we base those on. We tend to humanize things. Hell, I talk to inanimate objects despite knowing full well that the toaster isnt going to stop burning my toast if I curse at it. It's a human conceit to make that which isnt us, more like us in our heads.

                            Comment


                            • Sorry, Gravekeeper. You've made me do something I almost never do: back up and read one of these long threads over again. I was intending to quote part of what you said today alongside your saying the opposite a while back... and found you hadn't! I've been arguing against something you didn't say for most of a week now, and I apologize.

                              I still say, though, that the *point* of a miracle is that it is "impossible". That is, impossible without briefly setting aside the rules... and that there can be good reasons for doing so. Namely, demonstrating that the one you're dealing with is He Who Set The Rules In The First Place. Naturally, this would be rare enough to qualify statistically as impossible.
                              "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siead_lietrathua View Post
                                this is just my opinion, but i still don't get the apperant need to get so worked up over the logical or illogical nature of god or any other diety.
                                Panacea answered this pretty well. We are, as a species, incapable of just leaving each other the hell alone a lot of the time >.>


                                Originally posted by Duelist925
                                Dude, I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. There is no problem. It also doesn't change my point, that if god is all knowing all power blah blah etc etc it would do things we might not understand, simply because it can see things we cant.
                                I don't disagree that such a being if out there would have access to vastly more information than us and do things we may not understand on the surface. My point is that we must understand at least some of that being's logic because the universe exists by it. And while we may not comprehend its reasoning on the surface, we can comprehend that its reasoning may be based on vastly more factors than we could understand. Which is, in a way, actually understanding.

                                However, parental examples do not work as we do not have that sort of relationship with a Creator regardless of wishful thinking on our end. It is not guiding us nor telling us what to do. It is not interfering in any way as to ensure we are safe or healthy in times when we do not understand that we are undermining our own health or safety. If it is out there, then its letting us learn entirely by trial and error.



                                Originally posted by HYHYBT
                                I've been arguing against something you didn't say for most of a week now, and I apologize.
                                Heh, well, that alleviates a bit of the confusion I was feeling ;p



                                Originally posted by HYHYBT
                                I still say, though, that the *point* of a miracle is that it is "impossible". That is, impossible without briefly setting aside the rules... and that there can be good reasons for doing so. Namely, demonstrating that the one you're dealing with is He Who Set The Rules In The First Place. Naturally, this would be rare enough to qualify statistically as impossible.
                                And I still say that the problem with this is twofold:

                                Breaking the laws of nature momentarily is still breaking the laws. The repercussions of such a thing would ripple out from that point. Throwing everything out of alignment. As is blatantly obvious by the effect even a story of a miracle occurring has had on our direction as a species. It would be direct and irreparable interference that could snowball into disastrous results. Which is actually a very unsettling thought as it means a Creator is intentionally shifting the course of human history to the benefit of people he likes.

                                Which brings me to my second problem: Miracles are favouritism. To accept miracles is to accept one of two scenarios: God is flawed or God is unfairly playing favourites and thus again, flawed. If God is directly interfering he is doing one of two things: Changing the direction of history on a micro or macro scale which means that the universe was not operating perfectly and he had to step in to make a correction. Thus he is flawed and not omnipotent. Or the universe was operating perfectly but he's introducing a flaw by playing favourites. In which case again, he is flawed, as things are not going according to plan and he feels the need to step in.

                                Secondly, the favourtism angle. Which is the most disturbing one. Miracles are largely the realm of Abrahamic religions. Which would suggest that God is indeed playing favourites and doing so in the most unfair way possible. In the time that the majority of miracles are said to have occurred, God was essentially playing favourites with a very small portion of the world's population which he apparently picked at random to be his team in a time period where technology severely limited the spread of the message. Meaning the rest of the world at the time was SOL. Something God would obviously know.

                                Which leaves you with one of two stances: Your religion is right and everyone else is wrong because God loves you best which is both unfair and arrogant or God must have repeated the same scenarios across the world and history using different names and methods to inspire every religion on the planet but every other race on the planet isn't as good at documentation as Christianity is ( and Christianity sucks at it >.> ). In which case you must accept that every religion is 100% right and you are not special nor any closer to Him than the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Sikhs, etc.

                                But again, with both scenarios, God is still flawed as it means he has less social networking capability than Twitter, his work isn't perfect and he likes to play favsies for the heck of it. Thus is the dilemma. -.-
                                Last edited by Gravekeeper; 12-30-2011, 04:38 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X