Atheism and Religion

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
? Are you sure you read that right? Or are you of the opinion that God willing the universe into existence is the non-magical means of creation? 'Cos that's just crazy talk. Personally I've long been a non-believer in magic, including but not limited to unicorns, leprechauns, faeries, dragons and Gods of all kinds. Note! This does not mean I beli ...[text shortened]... hem to be not real, just that I don't believe them to be real. Important distinction there.

Using your parameters, you've destroyed your own argument on two fronts.

According to you, the universe appeared as a result of a non-causal event--- pure happenstance--- out of nothing. Life eventually came from the resultant soup, evolving into the complexity we see before us today.

Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing like this (more complexity arising out of lesser complexity) and accept the premise at face value. Instead of arguing on the topic of something we already know to be false, let us assume that it is true. What are the odds associated with such a premise? Meaning, do the odds support the premise, or are they so set against it as to make the proposition absurd?

For the first aspect (an uncaused appearance of the universe), we run straight into a roadblock: you can't place odds on an event that has nothing upon which to base them. Strike one.

Set that failure aside for the moment and pretend we were able to overcome the obstacle, moving us to the ascension of life from the soup which appeared out of nothing. What are the odds that just the right combination occurred in order for life to be initiated (we'll get to sustaining odds in the next part)? Here, at least, we have some numbers to go on. However, the odds are so incredibly infinitesimal as to make the likelihood of life appearing out of the chaos of chemicals absurd.

Compounding these absurd odds against even the spark of life, we have the odds against the sustaining of the same. These odds are then multiplied exponentially for every layer of required development in the ever-increasing need for complexity in order to achieve the levels we see today. In short, the odds make hitting the lottery look like a normal event... for every single person on the planet, every single day.

Next, consider the contents of the Bible. We know the Jews were not an ethnic group before a certain point in time. Before the first five books of the Bible were written, they had already formed as group. However, this group of people accepted the first five books of the Bible as though the topics covered in them were true, factual events. The same holds true for the rest of the Jewish scriptures.

Either there was mass brainwashing or the events actually occurred. The point is this: you cannot explain the Bible, Old or New Testament. Either the events described in the Bible are based on fact, or the Bible appeared magically.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Using your parameters, you've destroyed your own argument on two fronts.

According to you, the universe appeared as a result of a non-causal event--- pure happenstance--- out of nothing. Life eventually came from the resultant soup, evolving into the complexity we see before us today.

Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing ...[text shortened]... Either the events described in the Bible are based on fact, or the Bible appeared magically.

Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing like this (more complexity arising out of lesser complexity)
Ergo humans are less complicated than the sperm/egg and raw materials (like food) from whence they were constructed.

Your argument is full of holes. I might return to this later (tis a tad lengthy)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Using your parameters, you've destroyed your own argument on two fronts.

According to you, the universe appeared as a result of a non-causal event--- pure happenstance--- out of nothing. Life eventually came from the resultant soup, evolving into the complexity we see before us today.

Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing ...[text shortened]... Either the events described in the Bible are based on fact, or the Bible appeared magically.

With respect, you are talking nonsense. Firstly, check out chaos theory - it is entirely natural and happens a lot for order to spontaneously arise from chaos. It's the nature of reality. And even if it didn't, and even if the development of life as a coincidence was as vanishingly unlikely as your specious calculation of odds suggests, that is still more likely than some magical super-being willing the whole kaboodle into existence on a whim. That involves infinities, and that's what I call absurd. And you can place odds on an event that has happened. The universe exists, so it did happen. That means it's a stone cold certainty (hey, it's as good as your argument!). As for the bible... where shall I start? Your argument has so many holes it's really more of a net than a fabric! Let's go for... this one; you don't know what the writers had in mind when they wrote those books. You don't know when those books were written. You don't know if they were written by Jews or by people who later became Jews or by tribe-less nomads whose writings were later adopted by Jews or... I could go on and on and on. As for "Either there was mass brainwashing or the events actually occurred", I have rarely seen such disingenuous hogwash proposed as argument! Here's a third possibility: some guy wrote some stories for some reason, and later some other guys embellished them, then later some other guys edited them, then later some other guys translated them, then later some other guys selected some and rejected others, then later some other guys thought "hey, we could make a lot of money out of this" or maybe "hey, this might stop 'em going nuts when we can't feed 'em" or something else... Well, I'm boring myself now, but please, credit me with a brain, friend.

For a very interesting and far more convincing take on the old testament, check out Oedipus Judaicus by Sir William Drummond. Or not.

You of course disbelieve any argument which questions your position, that is the nature of faith. You will believe come what may, and good for you, I'm sure it's very comforting. You should resist the temptation to argue under the aegis of logic, however, because a faith position is ill-suited to such an argument, as I'm sure you are aware.

I, on the other hand, remain unconvinced either way. Maybe there is a God, I dunno, but I'm happy to bet my 'immortal soul' that if there is he's got naff all to do with the bible, or any other texts, ancient or modern.

I'd just like to take one final para to laugh at your final sentence - "either the events described in the bible are based on fact, or the bible appeared magically". Ha. Aha ha ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! NO. neither.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is right we are all creatures of faith, we believe X and it colors our
world views about everything that touches X. You have said that if God
setup the world we live it He was being misleading, I think you used words
that were a little stronger than that too.

I've never stated that some views are not stronger than others based upon
evidence, I h mine, you have no excuse for being wrong, no
matter what or how it was put together.
Kelly

Yes, our personal interpretations of the evidence are colored by many factors and antecedents. That is surely correct. I am not criticizing you for this: that would just be hypocritical of me. Rather, I realize that this is something that applies to all of us.

So, let me try to be clear on where I think you are being irresponsible. It is NOT in the mere fact that we have different interpretations of the evidence; it is NOT in the mere fact that we disagree; it is NOT in the mere fact that I find your view outrageously implausible either. It is that you debate (if we can call it debate) these topics in an irresponsible manner. As I have tried to make clear to you, there are reasonable expectations that apply here. I think it is reasonable to expect that one will engage in the practices of justification and will offer reasons for/against views. You just simply never do this. Anytime someone offers some evidence they think bears in a countervailing manner on your view, you just simply parrot the same old crap: that it's all just faith, that somehow you are not bound to really respond at all to their case because, well, it's just their opinion, and you don't see any need to back up your view because, well, it's just your opinion. If you do happen to address their offerings, it is only to assume a stance of radical skepticism toward them. Well, that's fine if you feel that way. However, I recommend you steer clear of debates on the topic, then, since you obviously have nothing meaningful to offer such discussions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Using your parameters, you've destroyed your own argument on two fronts.

According to you, the universe appeared as a result of a non-causal event--- pure happenstance--- out of nothing. Life eventually came from the resultant soup, evolving into the complexity we see before us today.

Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing ...[text shortened]... Either the events described in the Bible are based on fact, or the Bible appeared magically.

Goo.

Originally posted by Agerg
Let us set aside for the time being that we have observed nothing like this (more complexity arising out of lesser complexity)
Ergo humans are less complicated than the sperm/egg and raw materials (like food) from whence they were constructed.

Your argument is full of holes. I might return to this later (tis a tad lengthy)[/b]

Ergo humans are less complicated than the sperm/egg and raw materials (like food) from whence they were constructed.
Golly, I thought the chromosomes mapped the entire thing out. My blunder.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Goo.

Brilliant!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
With respect, you are talking nonsense. Firstly, check out chaos theory - it is entirely natural and happens a lot for order to spontaneously arise from chaos. It's the nature of reality. And even if it didn't, and even if the development of life as a coincidence was as vanishingly unlikely as your specious calculation of odds suggests, that is sti ...[text shortened]... magically". Ha. Aha ha ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! NO. neither.

... and even if the development of life as a coincidence was as vanishingly unlikely as your specious calculation of odds suggests...
"Specious?" Either you've never been exposed to the numbers involved, or your grasp of the word specious needs some tightening.

... that is still more likely than some magical super-being willing the whole kaboodle into existence on a whim. That involves infinities, and that's what I call absurd.
Really? Based upon what data, exactly?

The universe exists, so it did happen.
Well, at least we agree on one thing: the universe exists. Now. How did it happen?

As for the bible... where shall I start? [Blah, blah, blah]you don't know what the writers had in mind when they wrote those books.
Gee, avalanchethecat, I have no idea what you have in mind.

You don't know when those books were written.
Sure I do: they're all date/time stamped in the bottom right-hand corner of each page (except for those which were posted first on the internet--- the dating methods for those are a little more tricky).

You don't know if they were written by Jews or by people who later became Jews or by tribe-less nomads whose writings were later adopted by Jews or... I could go on and on and on.
Well, of course you could! There's all manner of fantasy you could entertain, but then, there's that irksome little peskiness known as history.

Well, I'm boring myself now, but please, credit me with a brain, friend.
Credit granted. Unfortunately, you currently seem content in using yours as a doorstop. Do you seriously think that the Bible is little more than a massive game of 'Alligator?' If so, we've nothing more to discuss.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, our personal interpretations of the evidence are colored by many factors and antecedents. That is surely correct. I am not criticizing you for this: that would just be hypocritical of me. Rather, I realize that this is something that applies to all of us.

So, let me try to be clear on where I think you are being irresponsible. It is NOT in the ...[text shortened]... on the topic, then, since you obviously have nothing meaningful to offer such discussions.

A bit harsh but I agree based on my own experience. However, maybe we have a duty to keep presenting the arguments because alternatively it seems to me that the forum - and many others - are dominated by the same people and they are never confronted. It's good that they are here and available to debate:- however frustrating it can be for us, I suspect they are no less frustrated. After a lot of frustration maybe we will just confirm our own prejudices or maybe, by debating, we at least will learn. Something. I pick up good stuff sometimes.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, our personal interpretations of the evidence are colored by many factors and antecedents. That is surely correct. I am not criticizing you for this: that would just be hypocritical of me. Rather, I realize that this is something that applies to all of us.

So, let me try to be clear on where I think you are being irresponsible. It is NOT in the ...[text shortened]... on the topic, then, since you obviously have nothing meaningful to offer such discussions.

When you come up with the "outrageously implausible" do you take into
account God?
Kelly

Originally posted by finnegan
A bit harsh but I agree based on my own experience. However, maybe we have a duty to keep presenting the arguments because alternatively it seems to me that the forum - and many others - are dominated by the same people and they are never confronted. It's good that they are here and available to debate:- however frustrating it can be for us, I suspect th ...[text shortened]... dices or maybe, by debating, we at least will learn. Something. I pick up good stuff sometimes.

What am I saying? It is so frustrating that I eventually return to playing the game (chess - remember?). These people live huddled in their superstitious little wigwams on the great plains of nonsense and hope that loud roar is the wind, not a herd of buffalo heading straight their way, while sending up little repetitive puffs of wispy smoke into the enormity of space and hope to move the stars. If I do not find the meaning of life in the French Defence soon, I am seriously considering the Caro Kann as an alternative. Now that is blasphemy. Does it not make you shudder?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... and even if the development of life as a coincidence was as vanishingly unlikely as your specious calculation of odds suggests...
"Specious?" Either you've never been exposed to the numbers involved, or your grasp of the word specious needs some tightening.

... that is still more likely than some magical super-being willing the whole ka ...[text shortened]... le more than a massive game of 'Alligator?' If so, we've nothing more to discuss.

Now normally my dear fellow, I would consider such a discussion closed once the opponent had no option but to resort to specious (adj. Superficially plausible but actually false) reasoning or plain insult, but since you’re clearly playing to the pit I suppose I’ll go another round.

“Either you've never been exposed to the numbers involved, or...” Of course the truth here is that neither of us have the faintest idea of the numbers involved. You suggest that they are “incredibly infinitesimal as to ...[be] ...absurd”, whereas in fact, as far as you and I know, it might well be inevitable given the circumstances (the nature of which, again, you and I are both ignorant, despite your pretensions to the contrary).

You go on to claim that the odds against the sustainment of life and further evolution thereof according to principles independently observed in the real world achieve odds comparable with “hitting the lottery [jackpot]... for every single person on the planet, every single day” as though (a) you knew what these odds were. That is, in anybody’s book, specious reasoning. Superficially plausible, but actually false. Unless you are privy to so far unreleased information – in which case I eagerly await your soon-to-be-published ground-breaking paper in whatever scientific journal you choose to publish it in (they’ll all be lining up for it, I’m sure!).

Really? Based upon what data, exactly?. I assume, based on your championing of the bible, that you believe in the Christian version of ‘god’, yes? Would you like to claim that this god is not infinite in any way? I doubt that you would. So, natural processes of unknown but finite likelihood over billions of years, or infinite superbeing? Q.E.D.

You don't know when those books were written.
Sure I do: they're all date/time stamped in the bottom right-hand corner of each page (except for those which were posted first on the internet--- the dating methods for those are a little more tricky). I assume you’re having a laugh here.

Well, of course you could! There's all manner of fantasy you could entertain, but then, there's that irksome little peskiness known as history. Actually, no, there isn’t. There are no reliable historical sources covering these periods, just the bible. No reputable historian would take scripture as reliable history, although many believers choose to do so despite this.

Finally, I’m not aware of the game ‘Alligator’, but I agree, it’s likely we’ve nothing more to discuss. Should you choose to respond, however, please do try to avoid recourse to insult as it reveals a certain insecurity in your position.

Originally posted by KellyJay
When you come up with the "outrageously implausible" do you take into
account God?
Kelly

Not quite sure what you mean. When I consider your view in terms of plausibility, I of course take into account everything that I think is relevant to your view as I understand it. I understand that your view invokes God in a material way, and I preserve that. I would say, with or without God, any view that entails that the earth/universe are only several thousands of years old is to that extent quite implausible given our evidence.

I think I understand the salient points of your general defense. For instance, you say, look, suppose God were to create directly an adult human (e.g., as you claim He did with Adam or Eve); and then suppose some unwitting person were to see this typical looking adult human; it would be natural for this observer to reason that the human has been in existence for as long as the human's outwardly apparent age; but, the observer would actually be mistaken if he concluded to this because God only recently created the human but in an already mature form. Something similar could be the case for the earth/universe. Even if the ostensible evidence for an old earth/universe were extremely strong, it would still be possible, for example, that God created them only recently but in a mature looking form. Yes, I definitely agree with you on that. Such scenarios would surely be epistemically possible for us (in at least some broad sense) even if our evidence for an old earth/universe were extremely strong. Here's the thing though: so what? These kinds of considerations deserve to be ignored in this type of discussion. And the inference from the fact that such scenarios are epistemically possible for us to the idea that everything just reduces to a "matter of faith" for us is very sloppy indeed.

Suppose I tell you that I think the evidence strongly suggests that the earth/universe are very old. In reply, you only say to me, well, it's still possible that God created them very recently but in a mature looking form. Granted, but unless I have some additional reasons to think it plausible that God created the earth/universe only recently, it would be quite arbitrary of me to think that your objection carries much weight. I, of course, obviously don't have such reasons on average because I just got done telling you that I think the evidence strongly suggests that the earth/universe are very old.

Furthermore, I think you deserve to be ignored in any scientific discussion/debate on the age of the earth/universe because your explanation that God created the earth/universe only recently is really not subject to falsification. Exactly what set of conditions would you accept as disconfirmation conditions for your idea that God created the earth/universe relatively recently? If I submit as disconfirming evidence considerations that I think show the earth/universe are actually very old, you will simply deny that they constitute disconfirmation conditions because you can just say, well, perhaps God created the earth/universe only recently but in an apparently mature form, thus giving you such appearances of old age. Thus, you will always simply deny disconfirmation because your explanation is so plastic that you can bend it to be compatible with any set of observations. You seem to think that because you can infuse the discussion with such explanations that are not subject to falsification, everything reduces to faith on the part of all players. No, that's not the way it works: rather, you just get justifiably ignored because such explanations do not constitute acceptable hypotheses for investigation.

There is a parable I like about the subject of falsification. It is one I read from Antony Flew -- I believe further based on some work by John Wisdom:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's "Invisible Man" could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

So, KJ, if your assertions about some creator of a young earth/universe are going to be compatible with any set of observations I could even in principle make, how am I to really distinguish your creator from an imaginary creator or no creator at all? How am I to distinguish your young earth/universe from an old earth/universe? I really cannot. That does not mean that all I have is "faith" to go and somehow I cannot hold any knowledge on the topic. (Good thing, too, because presumably we could go around infusing any discussion about virtually any matter with structurally similar explanations not subject to falsification. If such infusion meant that we could not hold knowledge on whatever topic at hand, then I guess we wouldn't be able to hold knowlege on much of anything.)

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Now normally my dear fellow, I would consider such a discussion closed once the opponent had no option but to resort to specious (adj. Superficially plausible but actually false) reasoning or plain insult, but since you’re clearly playing to the pit I suppose I’ll go another round.

“Either you've never been exposed to the numbers involve ase do try to avoid recourse to insult as it reveals a certain insecurity in your position.

Now normally my dear fellow, I would consider such a discussion closed once the opponent had no option but to resort to specious (adj. Superficially plausible but actually false) reasoning or plain insult, but since you’re clearly playing to the pit I suppose I’ll go another round.
How quaint. Do try to stay on topic, won't you? It's a tad disingenuous to lecture someone on the evils of insulting others while engaged in the same activity, don't you think?

Of course the truth here is that neither of us have the faintest idea of the numbers involved. You suggest that they are “incredibly infinitesimal as to ...[be] ...absurd”, whereas in fact, as far as you and I know, it might well be inevitable given the circumstances (the nature of which, again, you and I are both ignorant, despite your pretensions to the contrary).
Well of course neither of us know the numbers, but rather approximations of the same: estimates of the estimates, as it were. Thanks to this neat-o invention of Al Gore's known as the internet, anyone can surf for information either in support or in opposition of nearly every position of nearly every topic conceivable. Most of that information is little more than garbage, while some of it is actually quite useful, quite accurate.

Here's what I found. Both sides of the argument (statistical probability of evolution) quote numbers that are dauntingly against likelihood. Obviously for the creationist, the spectrum is skewed completely to one side--- the side closest to 'no where near possible.' Conversely, for the evolutionist, the datum is seen in the most favorable light, crowding as far away as possible from the creationists' conclusion. Ironically, however, even among the staunchest supporters of evolution, the numbers they quote in support of their argument do nothing to clothe their conclusion: it remains shivering outside the bounds of likelihood.

The 'well, it's here, isn't it?' argument does nothing more than talk about the obvious without supporting a theory.

So, natural processes of unknown but finite likelihood over billions of years, or infinite superbeing? Q.E.D.
Apparently you concede that neither of the possibilities can be demonstrated. However, you are failing to include the fact that the former scenario begins with nothing, i.e., something emanating from nothing, whereas the latter scenario begins with someone and results in something.

Actually, no, there isn’t. There are no reliable historical sources covering these periods, just the bible. No reputable historian would take scripture as reliable history, although many believers choose to do so despite this.
What a crock of crap.

Finally, I’m not aware of the game ‘Alligator’,
Played by young children sitting in a circle, it begins with one person whispering a word or sentence into the ear of the child next to him... who in turn whispers what he heard into the ear of the next child, and so on and so forth. The very last child sitting on the opposite side of the child who started the chain says out loud what he heard. The humor is found in how far removed the final message inevitably becomes from the original utterance.

Essentially, this is what you are suggesting occurred with the Bible--- a position that is wholly at odds with the histrocity of the formation of the canon, as well as the plethora of support the biblical account finds from multiple disciplines.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Now normally my dear fellow, I would consider such a discussion closed once the opponent had no option but to resort to specious (adj. Superficially plausible but actually false) reasoning or plain insult, but since you’re clearly playing to the pit I suppose I’ll go another round.
How quaint. Do try to stay on topic, won't you? It's a tad ...[text shortened]... ell as the plethora of support the biblical account finds from multiple disciplines.[/b]

Did I insult you? I just read my posts again and I don't see any insults, but hey, sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent.

And actually, on further consideration, I accept that continuation of this discussion is a pretty pointless exercise anyway, since whatever you read you're gonna either agree, if it accords with your credo, or disagree if it doesn't. I remain baffled by your apparent blind adherence to such bizarre and outlandish beliefs despite your obvious mental acuity and the benefits of modern science and technology, but then, having studied history rather extensively, I really shouldn't be surprised.