ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[DrewPaul]

If you see a pothole in the road filled to the brim with water, would you reduce that the pothole must have been intentionally designed with that exact shape and depth to hold that exact amount of water?

Or would you deduce that the water conformed to the conditions of the pothole?

Really. Of a list of about 10 atheist sound bites this has got to be one of the more silly ones. Of course I would deduce that because its the properties of water.

 

[DrewPaul]

That is fairly typical in these types of arguments - at least it is in my experience. The creator is singularly special, and cannot be held to any of the other arguments that follow any particular logic or rationale. 'Everyone has a beginning' except the creator. You just have to take that on faith, I guess.

I never said that. I make no claims about how a Creator came about. My claim is regarding how the universe and human life came about...stay focused on the topic.

 

[watsup]

I never said that. I make no claims about how a Creator came about. My claim is regarding how the universe and human life came about...stay focused on the topic.

Typical chat cowardice in being afraid to discuss the total improbability of the childish fantasy of a “Creator”.

 

[watsup]

I'll let the triers of fact (the peanut gallery) decide if its makes makes my claim more probable

It doesn’t. A whole lot of chatters have told you that over many months.

 

[Questerr]

Because the consensus among scientists say the laws of physics and time itself break down at the time of the big bang.

Which does not mean the universe came into existence then, it means we have no idea what happened before that point.

 

[phoenix2020]

Jesus' entire origin story requires believing that god is a rapist.

My main issue with
@tosca1’s God was how he forced incest upon Noah’s family. That’s just sick.

That’s one dark, sick God who probably was imprisoned by the other better Gods like Brahma and Buddha.

 

[Questerr]

Really. Of a list of about 10 atheist sound bites this has got to be one of the more silly ones. Of course I would deduce that because its the properties of water.

So why do you think that the universe must have been designed with the specific intention of creating life, rather than life conforming to the conditions of the universe?

Your entire assumption that the intention of the universe is to create life is a logical fallacy.

 

[gboisjo]

Which does not mean the universe came into existence then, it means we have no idea what happened before that point.

Exactly, yet we have arrogant loud mouths who pretend to know.

 

[BabaVoss]

I never said that. I make no claims about how a Creator came about. My claim is regarding how the universe and human life came about...stay focused on the topic.

I didn’t accuse you. That post was a reply to someone else. But you have certainly implied a creator with special properties. And this is very much on topic, as far as I am concerned.

 

[gboisjo]

So why do you think that the universe must have been designed with the specific intention of creating life, rather than life conforming to the conditions of the universe?

Gods are born out of human frailty, weakness, afraid as they ponder mortality and plead for more meaning in life.

The origin of the universe is unknown.

 

[gboisjo]

Anthropologists estimate that at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects have been worshiped by humans since our species first appeared.

 

[gboisjo]

Why do humans invent gods to worship?

Why Do Humans Keep Inventing Gods to Worship?

A recent study points to the role of a specific brain region.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[DrewPaul]

So why do you think that the universe must have been designed with the specific intention of creating life, rather than life conforming to the conditions of the universe?

I don't insist the universe must have been designed. Unlike most of my opponents in here I don't deny there is evidence that supports the opinion our existence is the result of unintended natural process. I'm open minded and I consider facts, arguments and reasoning that a Creator wasn't necessary and the conditions could have arisen by chance. However they invariably fail to make a compelling case.

We only know of one place where life occurred and we aren't really sure how that happened. The conditions for the only life we know of are enormous. Even on a planet where life is presumed to have started scientists have done everything to simulate the conditions for life to occur to no avail. If life could conform to any set of circumstances Mars should be teeming with life like Earth is. So should Venus. Sure we could never live on Venus or they on Earth because each would conform to the prevailing conditions. From what we can observe life does require conditions to occur. Even more conditions to evolve and flourish. At the very least life requires a planet and a star. That means a universe with laws of physics that allow for the existence of both. Life also needs second generation stars that have material needed for life. Thanks to the laws of physics and just the right amount of gravity the material for life is created in a supernova.

Your entire assumption that the intention of the universe is to create life is a logical fallacy.

Yeah? How so? Its not an assumption, its an opinion derived from the available, albeit incomplete evidence.

 

[DrewPaul]

I didn’t accuse you. That post was a reply to someone else.

I took it on as if it was directed to me. No you didn't accuse me.

But you have certainly implied a creator with special properties. And this is very much on topic, as far as I am concerned.

Definitely. I reject the natural vs supernatural delineation. Instead anything that can possibly happen is natural. For example in the world of quantum mechanics one of the strangest aspects is quantum entanglement. If anyone suggested before the discovery of quantum entanglement that if you observe a particle in one place, another particle—even one light-years away—will instantly change its properties, as if the two are connected by a mysterious communication channel, that would be labeled a supernatural feat. Until it was discovered it does happen and now its labeled natural. Scientists have caused a virtual universe to exist no one ascribes that to a supernatural feat. If an intelligent agent intentionally caused the actual universe to exist...it would be natural of course.

 

[BabaVoss]

I reject the natural vs supernatural delineation.

You need to rethink that. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural, by definition.

Instead anything that can possibly happen is natural. For example in the world of quantum mechanics one of the strangest aspects is quantum entanglement. If anyone suggested before the discovery of quantum entanglement that if you observe a particle in one place, another particle—even one light-years away—will instantly change its properties, as if the two are connected by a mysterious communication channel, that would be labeled a supernatural feat.

No. Einstein labeled it "spooky action at a distance'. An apt description, but hardly supernatural. Again, leaping to the supernatural when you can't explain something otherwise is not rational. That how we had sun worshipers.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Why do humans invent gods to worship?

Why Do Humans Keep Inventing Gods to Worship?

A recent study points to the role of a specific brain region.

www.psychologytoday.com

I invented AssHolos, God Supreme of the Internet to explain why the internet is a cesspool. It's a lot easier than actually figuring out why.

 

[DrewPaul]

You need to rethink that. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural, by definition.

Because anything that happens is natural. What else could anything that happens be? Some scientists believe future scientists will be able to cause a universe to exist. Would that universe be the result of natural causes? Or would scientists be elevated to the supernatural?

No. Einstein labeled it "spooky action at a distance'. An apt description, but hardly supernatural. Again, leaping to the supernatural when you can't explain something otherwise is not rational. That how we had sun worshipers.

What does natural mean than? If something like particles instantly communicating in some fashion over great distances faster than the speed of light is natural what are the limits then? It means whatever does happen regardless of how unexpected or inexplicable it is...is natural.

 

[watsup]

If an intelligent agent intentionally caused the actual universe to exist...it would be natural of course.

An attempt to redefine words is a sign of desperation. You call yourself a “philosophical THEIST”. The definition of theist is “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe”. And “a god or gods” is clearly a SUPERNATURAL phenomenon, by normal use. Your attempt to redefine your claims is a FAIL.

 

[watsup]

Because anything that happens is natural. What else could anything that happens be? Some scientists believe future scientists will be able to cause a universe to exist. Would that universe be the result of natural causes? Or would scientists be elevated to the supernatural?


What does natural mean than? If something like particles instantly communicating in some fashion over great distances faster than the speed of light is natural what are the limits then? It means whatever does happen regardless of how unexpected or inexplicable it is...is natural.

See post #243. You have clearly painted yourself into a hole, and now you are trying to get out of it with a desperate attempt to redefine the normal usage of words. Sorry, but it won’t work. We’ve seen it before, many times, from other fantasy fans when their claims fall apart. It won’t work.
Same with quantum physics. It’s often used as the escape mechanism when the “believers” find themselves lacking in their defense of their God fantasies. This is nothing new with just you.

 

[watsup]

I don't insist the universe must have been designed. Unlike most of my opponents in here I don't deny there is evidence that supports the opinion our existence is the result of unintended natural process. I'm open minded and I consider facts, arguments and reasoning that a Creator wasn't necessary and the conditions could have arisen by chance. However they invariably fail to make a compelling case.

We only know of one place where life occurred and we aren't really sure how that happened. The conditions for the only life we know of are enormous. Even on a planet where life is presumed to have started scientists have done everything to simulate the conditions for life to occur to no avail. If life could conform to any set of circumstances Mars should be teeming with life like Earth is. So should Venus. Sure we could never live on Venus or they on Earth because each would conform to the prevailing conditions. From what we can observe life does require conditions to occur. Even more conditions to evolve and flourish. At the very least life requires a planet and a star. That means a universe with laws of physics that allow for the existence of both. Life also needs second generation stars that have material needed for life. Thanks to the laws of physics and just the right amount of gravity the material for life is created in a supernova.


Yeah? How so? Its not an assumption, its an opinion derived from the available, albeit incomplete evidence.

You do love to Gish Gallop your answers, don’t you, as if posting more words somehow makes your Creator fantasies more realistic. It doesn’t.

 

[watsup]

The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused. Barring some better theory why not?

This is what is called a “loaded” statement because it uses phraseology o try to make its case instead of reasoned input. “Loaded” means trying to put the chat opponent on defense instead of trying to gain honest discussion. As such, it is quite dishonest.

The loaded phrase:

the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life

Using the phrase “the universe is fine tuned” is nothing more than the tired old “watchmaker” argument, attempting to claim that only an entity of some sort could have done the “fine tuning”, and that it was PURPOSEFUL for the primary reason of gaining life. And it’s not really a “theory”, it’s more properly termed a “belief”.
The only SCIENTIFIC theories have to do with abiogenesis. Although we don’t know the exact answer of how life first emerged on this planet, we continue the quest to find out instead of just throwing up our hands and saying “Creator!” That’s no “theory”, that’s fantasy.

 

[BabaVoss]

Because anything that happens is natural.

No. We can create things that don't exist in nature. Fabrics, materials, etc. for example.

What else could anything that happens be?

Artificial.

Some scientists believe future scientists will be able to cause a universe to exist. Would that universe be the result of natural causes? Or would scientists be elevated to the supernatural?

??? Neither. It would be an artificially constructed thing. "Supernatural" means something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. There are a great many things science has yet to explain, but there is still no actual evidence that supports the idea of the supernatural.

What does natural mean than? If something like particles instantly communicating in some fashion over great distances faster than the speed of light is natural what are the limits then? It means whatever does happen regardless of how unexpected or inexplicable it is...is natural.

Nope. I explained natural already. Quantum entanglement is a fascinating thing for sure - and we cannot explain it today. Again, no reason to leap to a supernatural explanation. But I think you know you are off on a tangent here. None of this helps support your case for a creator anyway.

 

[Loulit01]

No. We can create things that don't exist in nature. Fabrics, materials, etc. for example.

Since we were created by nature anything we create is a product of nature. Honey doesn't exist in nature until bees create it. Porsche 911s don't exist in nature until humans create them.

Nothing that happens on this planet is "unnatural." We humans with our big brains and atom bombs are just as much a part of nature as spiders and their lovely webs. There may be exotic creatures and rare behaviors, but all of it is part of nature. Serial killers are as natural as your pet cat. Rarer, but equally natural.

Artificial.


??? Neither. It would be an artificially constructed thing. "Supernatural" means something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. There are a great many things science has yet to explain, but there is still no actual evidence that supports the idea of the supernatural.


Nope. I explained natural already. Quantum entanglement is a fascinating thing for sure - and we cannot explain it today. Again, no reason to leap to a supernatural explanation. But I think you know you are off on a tangent here. None of this helps support your case for a creator anyway.

 

[watsup]

Since we were created by nature anything we create is a product of nature. Honey doesn't exist in nature until bees create it. Porsche 911s don't exist in nature until humans create them.

Nothing that happens on this planet is "unnatural." We humans with our big brains and atom bombs are just as much a part of nature as spiders and their lovely webs. There may be exotic creatures and rare behaviors, but all of it is part of nature. Serial killers are as natural as your pet cat. Rarer, but equally natural.

A total misrepresentations of the word “nature”. Find a dictionary.

 

[BabaVoss]

Since we were created by nature anything we create is a product of nature. Honey doesn't exist in nature until bees create it. Porsche 911s don't exist in nature until humans create them.

Nothing that happens on this planet is "unnatural." We humans with our big brains and atom bombs are just as much a part of nature as spiders and their lovely webs. There may be exotic creatures and rare behaviors, but all of it is part of nature. Serial killers are as natural as your pet cat. Rarer, but equally natural.

No, sorry. That's not how most people understand the word. Honey is natural because bees produce it without interference. A 911 is manufactured by humans using an array of materials - some of which are artificial. I suspect you get the difference. Semantics aside, what is the point?