God probably exists ii

[Big Eye]

Here you are doing a misunderstanding. What the 'laws of nature' , as used by scientists (Laws by the way is an obsolete term that has grandfathered principles in it, but is not used anymore) is descriptive, not prohibitive. It describes what happens. (doesn't even say WHY it happens that way).

I know what the laws of nature are, but maybe science has it wrong and the Laws of Nature impose will onto that which is within the program. Science just assumes that the laws of nature reflect a truth about what comes from within nature, whereas it could be that those laws are imposed on nature.So my argument also explains WHY it happens.

 

[watsup]

You accept that nature appears to follow laws...well maybe it's those laws that are making changes to species.You can call it evolution if you like ,but there is no proof that it is caused by the species themselves...the cause may lie outside of them.

You keep adding the extraneous and unneeded for whatever reason. I suppose it’s a nice hobby to engage in imagination, but it means nothing in regards to the scientific understanding of the world.

 

[Big Eye]

And how is that a model? Be more precise. It sounds a vauge idea that has not meaning besides musing. Show how that works. Define how that happens, propose a test that is proven true, falsifies that concept. That's not a model, that is a poor word game.

I've tried multiple times with you and you do not understand it.

A simple test to prove me wrong would be to show that mind independent stuff definitely exists...and you can't, so then it becomes an argument about which idea best explains what we see in the simplest manner...and mine wins.

 

[Dragonfly]

Well the only "civilisations" that acted against religions were murdering cesspits...so it would probably go that way if history tells us anything.

Having a rational conversation with you is impossible.

Believe whatever you wish.
How's that Loch Ness Monster of yours over there? Any babies yet?

 

[watsup]

The "model" is simple correlation that is caused by the programmer. so , for instance, if you were playing a driving simulation and the car you were "driving" crashed into a tree ...that crash would be a correlation caused by the program....the tree and the car wouldn't cause the crash, the program would. That's not a perfect example but goes a little way to explain how correlation could look like causation.

And the “model” is exraneous and unneeded and has no more merit than Aesop’s fables.

 

[watsup]

Well the only "civilisations" that acted against religions were murdering cesspits...so it would probably go that way if history tells us anything.

And exactly how does that generalize to all atheists? Are you of the opinion that the atheists in this forum are murderers? How silly.

 

[Big Eye]

Having a rational conversation with you is impossible.

Believe whatever you wish.
How's that Loch Ness Monster of yours over there? Any babies yet?

You can call me a lot of things but never, ever imply that I'm Scottish.

You do not understand reason... one clear bit of reason is that atheism must lead to moral relativism...but you don't get it.:roll:

 

[watsup]

Atheism has no demands regarding the universe.

It's unbelievable (pun intended) that you keep arguing this way.

There is no evidence of “intention” in the universe and so the logical conclusion is that there wasn’t any. Yes, it all could have “just happened” within the “laws” of nature.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's interesting to see how Watsup's post are going largely ignored, wonder why...

 

[watsup]

There is no evidence of “intention” in the universe and so the logical conclusion is that there wasn’t any. Yes, it all could have “just happened” within the “laws” of nature.

Oops...that was meant for Big Eye.

 

[watsup]

It's interesting to see how Watsup's post are going largely ignored, wonder why...

Actually, Big Eye has been responding to my posts just as he has to the others. Please pay better attention.

 

[Big Eye]

And exactly how does that generalize to all atheists? Are you of the opinion that the atheists in this forum are murderers? How silly.

You can't generalise to all theists either...but atheists quite often do. Communist regimes from Cambodia to the Soviet Union and China have murdered millions, they were anti-religion atheistic powers.

Individual atheists may be fine, but there is no cohesive morality for them to believe in ...so societies based on atheism become murdering cesspits...every time.

 

[watsup]

You can call me a lot of things but never, ever imply that I'm Scottish.

You do not understand reason... one clear bit of reason is that atheism must lead to moral relativism...but you don't get it.:roll:

So what if atheism leads to moral relativism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with moral relativism. It is indeed practiced by every religion in the world.

 

[watsup]

You can't generalise to all theists either...but atheists quite often do. Communist regimes from Cambodia to the Soviet Union and China have murdered millions, they were anti-religion atheistic powers.

Individual atheists may be fine, but there is no cohesive morality for them to believe in ...so societies based on atheism become murdering cesspits...every time.

Actually, there is a cohesive ethics system and it is called Humanism. In fact, Humanism was the foundation for all of the world’s religions in that primitive people’s did indeed develop societal rules (Humanism) prior to the onset of formal religion .

 

[RAMOSS]

I've tried multiple times with you and you do not understand it.

A simple test to prove me wrong would be to show that mind independent stuff definitely exists...and you can't, so then it becomes an argument about which idea best explains what we see in the simplest manner...and mine wins.

There seems to be a problem with the way you express yourself then, because vague references is not a model.

 

[Big Eye]

Oops...that was meant for Big Eye.

The evidence is that intention is required to make systems that are far less predictable and complex than the Universe ...therefore it is reasonable to assume that intention has a role in the creation of the Universe. It is not proof, it is evidence. There is no evidence that the Universe just caused itself...in fact that complicates matters because we have no proof that complex predictable systems can just make themselves.

You'd need to demonstrate that a complex balanced system can just emerge...but you can't use the Universe as an example because you have no proof that your theory applies to it.

 

[ataraxia]

I've already said that the programmer is an inevitable reality of there not possibly being nothing (nothingness can not exist). The simplest thing I could think of (in terms of thought) is will...ie, God.

That’s not really a simple thing. Because then we’re left having to wonder where that will came from. Any kind of thing which can will an entire complex universe can’t be that simple. In fact, you are positing an even more complex thing to explain an already complex thing.

You still seem to assume that mind independence exists, which is fair enough, but there is no evidence of such a thing...all we have is proof that reality is not dependent on our minds.

As for various religions, there is good and bad in them sure...but I know of no great civilisation without religion.

I can’t think of any great civilization historically without slavery either. After all,

“It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.".
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate states of America


It doesn’t mean such a civilization can’t exist.

 

[watsup]

It's interesting to see how Watsup's post are going largely ignored, wonder why...

BTW, you need to peek over at the Where’s The Beef thread. Not a single person has found your demand that atheists prejudge by telling you what evidence they would accept to be a credible manner of objective debate. Not one. That speaks volumes.

 

[Big Eye]

There seems to be a problem with the way you express yourself then, because vague references is not a model.

You can't build an accurate model of the materialist theory without relying on belief. I'm not Einstein , so let's keep it simple...some on here can't even follow this lol.

 

[zyzygy]

Oh please...

What morals are NOT subjective human constructs?

He has such simple and wrong arguments.

 

[Big Eye]

BTW, you need to peek over at the Where’s The Beef thread. Not a single person has found your demand that atheists prejudge by telling you what evidence they would accept to be a credible manner of objective debate. Not one. That speaks volumes.

He's right though, there is good evidence that intention is required and that this is like a program but atheists will not accept that because they want to deny the existence of God above all else...I don't know why though...maybe they just don't like objectivity with regard to morals and aesthetics...

 

[ataraxia]

I've already said that the programmer is an inevitable reality of there not possibly being nothing (nothingness can not exist). The simplest thing I could think of (in terms of thought) is will...ie, God.

You still seem to assume that mind independence exists, which is fair enough, but there is no evidence of such a thing...all we have is proof that reality is not dependent on our minds.

If a five-year-old comes and tells you that the boogy-man exists until you can provide definitive proof that that funny sound he hears under his bed at night or that funny tapping noise outside his bed is something else, what would you say? After all, he will argue, that’s the simplest explanation, right?

 

[zyzygy]

BTW, you need to peek over at the Where’s The Beef thread. Not a single person has found your demand that atheists prejudge by telling you what evidence they would accept to be a credible manner of objective debate. Not one. That speaks volumes.

His posts do get attention because they are so unintentionally funny.

 

[watsup]

The evidence is that intention is required to make systems that are far less predictable and complex than the Universe ...therefore it is reasonable to assume that intention has a role in the creation of the Universe. It is not proof, it is evidence. There is no evidence that the Universe just caused itself...in fact that complicates matters because we have no proof that complex predictable systems can just make themselves.

You'd need to demonstrate that a complex balanced system can just emerge...but you can't use the Universe as an example because you have no proof that your theory applies to it.

It is simply not true that adding a computer programmer if some sort is “simpler”. Let’s take your example of the watchmaker. If it is given that the watch is a complex instrument, then it obviously takes a MUCH MORE COMPLEX human to construct that watch. That is exactly what you are doing, You are I effect claiming that the watchmaker is less complex than the watch itself. That is obviously not true.

 

[ataraxia]

He's right though, there is good evidence that intention is required and that this is like a program but atheists will not accept that because they want to deny the existence of God above all else...I don't know why though...maybe they just don't like objectivity with regard to morals and aesthetics...

Objective morality is that women need to protect their modesty and chastity by covering their face and a hijab. Those who don’t need to be beaten until they learn. Is that clear and objective enough, or do you wish to question the clear guidance of God?