There is no God...???

Cú Giobach · 13-09-2010 12:03PM

deise go deo wrote: »

I was invited here by the op to discuss this topic because we were draging another topic off thread in politics to discuss it.

And a genuine Thanks for accepting.

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 12:15PM

deise go deo wrote: »

You claim to have evidence. So where is it. I have asked several times and the best I have gotten so far is Adam and eve dident exist.:rolleyes:

A part of the tons of evidence we have on the imaginary character side is every religion and superstition that has ever existed except yours. Now how is yours any different to the thousands that we all agree are imaginary?

deise go deo · 13-09-2010 12:24PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A part of the tons of evidence we have on the imaginary character side is every religion and superstition that has ever existed except yours. Now how is yours any different to the thousands that we all agree are imaginary?

For that to be valid I would have to beleive that every point of view other than my own is wrong.

I dont think every other deity that has been tought of is imaginary.
I think that god goes far beyond what we as humans can ever even come close to comprehending. I'm not so set im my beliefs that I think my particular view point is anywhere near accurate but that just means I accept the falibility of my own mind.

In short you may all Agree but I dont. Anything else?

MagicMarker · 13-09-2010 12:35PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Anything else?

Yeah, can you answer my question?

Dades · 13-09-2010 12:37PM

deise go deo wrote: »

I accept the falibility of my own mind.

There's something we agree on.

tro81 · 13-09-2010 12:42PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

No I mustn't.

either life was design or it wasnt. there is no in between. if it wasnt design then it came about by itself which is chance.

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 12:49PM

deise go deo wrote: »

For that to be valid I would have to beleive that every point of view other than my own is wrong.

I dont think every other deity that has been tought of is imaginary.
I think that god goes far beyond what we as humans can ever even come close to comprehending. I'm not so set im my beliefs that I think my particular view point is anywhere near accurate but that just means I accept the falibility of my own mind.

In short you may all Agree but I dont. Anything else?

And this is what I said at the start of this thread. The god concept is so ill defined, variable and wishy washy that it's impossible to say there is no god. And it's also impossible to say there is a god. It's impossible to say anything about something until it's actually defined beyond a vague notion of "something beyond us". There might well be "something beyond us that humans can never come close to comprehending" but if that is the case I don't see why we should be bothered about it. Why concern yourself with something that you believe we can never comprehend? Why does its existence matter?

edit: and I think it's a bit unreasonable to demand that people produce evidence against something that has not been defined beyond such a vague notion and when you openly admit you have no idea if what you believe is in any way accurate. As the god concept becomes less and less defined it becomes harder to disprove but it also becomes irrelevant. For the god concept to actually matter it has to be defined but as it gets more and more defined it becomes harder to logically support and requires the assertion that other definitions are wrong. You're very far into the undefined area so your god is unfalsifiable but completely irrelevant.

Cú Giobach · 13-09-2010 12:50PM

tro81 wrote: »

either life was design or it wasnt. there is no in between. if it wasnt design then it came about by itself which is chance.

The "chances" of which are very high indeed. As has been shown to you earlier.

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 12:50PM

tro81 wrote: »

either life was design or it wasnt. there is no in between. if it wasnt design then it came about by itself which is chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Have a read there mate. Evolution =/= chance

MagicMarker · 13-09-2010 12:52PM

If life was designed then the designer sucks ass at his job.

Linoge · 13-09-2010 12:54PM

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont think every other deity that has been tought of is imaginary.

I love your sense of irony. Underneath all this I think you actually are an atheist trying to get out!

deise go deo wrote: »

I think that god goes far beyond what we as humans can ever even come close to comprehending.

Nah, not really. God is a guy, big white beard, lives in the clouds. His son is white, also has a beard and long hair, he is also in human form, always has a peaceful expression on his face. We can make god happy, sad, angry, vengeful etc. If you piss god off he wont let you live with him when you die, a bit like a bouncer on a nightclub door. All in all, very human like behaviour.... hmmmm

God was created by man so we could comprehend what we didnt understand (god of the gaps). Now its done a 180 and its the other way around! :eek:

Zillah · 13-09-2010 01:53PM

I wonder if deise go deo realises that his/her argument is basically saying that everything anyone believes is as valid as anything else anyone believes. Everyone gets evidence that is real to them, and things are true for them.

There is one kind of evidence dear, the kind that exists. If yours is not that kind then you're talking total shite and your beliefs are made up nonsense. If you ever have to resort to saying that something is "true for you" then I'm sorry to tell you that something is either true or not, and if you have to resort to that sort of argument then once again, you're talking shite, your beliefs are gibberish with no bearing on reality.

You might petulantly demand that your beliefs be "respected", that your imaginings are evidence, your assuptions logic, your position sensible. But it's not. You can be as offended as you like, you can be as indignant as you like, but someone's beliefs are either true or false. Yours are false. You can make a thousand posts trying to stretch the definition of evidence and logic to fit your position, you can indulge in a thesis of solipsism and intellectual relativism, but at the end of the day you're still just wrong.

tro81 · 13-09-2010 02:01PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Just to use your own statements and (arbitrary?) figures. If there are 150000000000 individual entities and the chances are 150000000000/1 that one will spontaneously spring into life, then the chances that one will spring into life without need of a creator are very big indeed.

eg if the chances of developing a certain cancer are 10,000/1 then out of 10,000 people you would expect 1 case.

ok your logic is very good. much like everyweek someone wins the lottery which is 14000000:1 because there is another people playing some one is bound to win. but what if 1 person played one set of numbers. being the same set of numbers every week and won 2 weeks in a row. well whats the chance of that. ANYONE? as far as i can remember from my maths days with chance you have to multiply each chance by the other chance to get the new probabilty. So thats 14000000 X 14000000 = 196000000000000:1 or 196power 12( 196followed by 12 zero)

this is what i was on about earlier. the chance of one thing coming about by its selve is hugh but when you start adding all those up it goes well in the realms of mathematical impossible

eg in order to form a bacic cell you need proteins. which are very complex molecules. inturn you need amino acids to make up proteins. there are over 100 amino acids of which only 20 are needed to make up the proteins needed for life.
so let go with the idea of the organic soup where these protien form by chance. . so what the chance of just one simple protein forming in the soup. About 1:10power 113 (1follow by 113zero) now maths say 10power 50 is mathimaticle impossible. OKOKOK so what the chance of 2000 proteins forming needed as enzymes for a cell to function. 10 power 40,000 (10 followed by 40,000 zero) IMPOSSIBLE.
I havent even mention then combing the chance of DNA forming at the same time so that these ezymes could be used properly. it goes on and on and on making the odds higher and higher.

now some say but there are billion of galaxy with billion of planets. TRUE
but science say that a planet to be found in the galaxy that would have the right condition for our type of life is very rare. So your number of planets have been seriusly reduced. YOu just dont have enough players.

MagicMarker · 13-09-2010 02:12PM

tro81 wrote: »

ok your logic is very good. much like everyweek someone wins the lottery which is 14000000:1 because there is another people playing some one is bound to win. but what if 1 person played one set of numbers. being the same set of numbers every week and won 2 weeks in a row. well whats the chance of that. ANYONE? as far as i can remember from my maths days with chance you have to multiply each chance by the other chance to get the new probabilty. So thats 14000000 X 14000000 = 196000000000000:1 or 196power 12( 196followed by 12 zero)

this is what i was on about earlier. the chance of one thing coming about by its selve is hugh but when you start adding all those up it goes well in the realms of mathematical impossible

eg in order to form a bacic cell you need proteins. which are very complex molecules. inturn you need amino acids to make up proteins. there are over 100 amino acids of which only 20 are needed to make up the proteins needed for life.
so let go with the idea of the organic soup where these protien form by chance. . so what the chance of just one simple protein forming in the soup. About 1:10power 113 (1follow by 113zero) now maths say 10power 50 is mathimaticle impossible. OKOKOK so what the chance of 2000 proteins forming needed as enzymes for a cell to function. 10 power 40,000 (10 followed by 40,000 zero) IMPOSSIBLE.
I havent even mention then combing the chance of DNA forming at the same time so that these ezymes could be used properly. it goes on and on and on making the odds higher and higher.

now some say but there are billion of galaxy with billion of planets. TRUE
but science say that a planet to be found in the galaxy that would have the right condition for our type of life is very rare. So your number of planets have been seriusly reduced. YOu just dont have enough players.

So from this I assume you don't believe in evolution and in fact believe Adam & Eve were real and created, along with the rest of the universe, within the past 10,000 years?

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 02:14PM

tro81 wrote: »

so what the chance of just one simple protein forming in the soup. About 1:10power 113 (1follow by 113zero) now maths say 10power 50 is mathimaticle impossible.

Oh dear, that's a creationist figure if I recall correctly. Tell me, what are the chances of one protein forming in the soup when it can form over the course of a thousand tiny steps and when the pre-protein organisms are reproducing a million times a day?

Think of it this way: Jumping from Dublin to Galway is impossible but jumping from Dublin to Galway in a million tiny steps with breathers in the middle is not

Pushtrak · 13-09-2010 02:19PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Your critical eye is no more qualiied to pass judgment than mine.

In general, maybe, maybe not. On religious matters, I don't know, haven't followed your posts. I do have to admit I am dubious of one having a critical eye in some respects when it comes to believing in a personal god. That has no impact on how one goes about the rest of their life.

Some of Historys greatest thinkers were religious men. ''The book says so''? Well if you want to ignore centuarys of philosophy, be my guest.

You look back at some great thinkers who were oblivious to the big bang. To a time before even evolution was well known. Being religious in the absensce of such knowledge is perfectly understandable. Afterwards? No excuse.

Can I see your figures for this?

I must have seen it on a documentary or something. Tried to find the stats, but no luck. Feel free to discard the point if you want even if you don't find anything to illustrate the opposite. I made the claim, so you can reject it. See how that works?

Wow is that really as much tought you have given to it?
Creationism not being fact means every religion ever is wrong?
Logic at its best.

This was intended as literal truth on its inception. It became different at the point the viewpoint was untenable. What of those who lived believing it as literal truth? They were living under a lie told from god? Is that what you believe? And only in recent times have we understood that it was heavy with metaphor.

I see you didn't refute the point. No apple in the garden of eden, no talking snake. What you posted there was not a refutation.

There is the point. Your beliefs are not based on anything other than your perception of the world around you, There is nothing wrong with that. But dont misrepresent yourself as right when you are no more qualified than anyone else to judge things.

At least I'm working off more than blind faith. Emphasis on the blind.
Edit: Figured this'd make a good addition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQ66EzEuk8

Nemi · 13-09-2010 02:26PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As the god concept becomes less and less defined it becomes harder to disprove but it also becomes irrelevant. For the god concept to actually matter it has to be defined but as it gets more and more defined it becomes harder to logically support and requires the assertion that other definitions are wrong.

I've a recollection of Richard Dawkins at some point identifying a similar frustration. He noticed that theists might start from a 'hard' position, say announcing themselves to be Catholics.

As discussion continues, they tend to the retreat to the vaguer god concept when the specifics of Catholicism are exposed to scrutiny, which is (as we know) next to impossible to discuss with any sense. Then, shortely after the discussion finished, the original Catholic mindset seems to reappear. He compared it to one of those rubber toys that you can bend into any shape, but will always reassume its original features.

Nemi · 13-09-2010 02:28PM

Zillah wrote: »

I wonder if deise go deo realises that his/her argument is basically saying that everything anyone believes is as valid as anything else anyone believes. Everyone gets evidence that is real to them, and things are true for them.

Up to a point (but only up to a point) that's actually pretty much how it is.

Dades · 13-09-2010 02:33PM

Zillah wrote: »

...

Zillah, your frustration has seeped through to the point of abusiveness - reign it in, if you would.

Cú Giobach · 13-09-2010 02:37PM

tro81 wrote: »

now some say but there are billion of galaxy with billion of planets. TRUE
but science say that a planet to be found in the galaxy that would have the right condition for our type of life is very rare. So your number of planets have been seriusly reduced. YOu just dont have enough players.

there is one planet in this solar system that fulfills these criteria now, Mars probabally did, and a number of moons, that more than likely do also. eg Europa, Enceladus....... etc
The places where we think "our kind" of life can evolve is increasing constantly.

Your statistical figures are too arbitrary to even comment on.

Shenshen · 13-09-2010 02:38PM

tro81 wrote: »

ok your logic is very good. much like everyweek someone wins the lottery which is 14000000:1 because there is another people playing some one is bound to win. but what if 1 person played one set of numbers. being the same set of numbers every week and won 2 weeks in a row. well whats the chance of that. ANYONE? as far as i can remember from my maths days with chance you have to multiply each chance by the other chance to get the new probabilty. So thats 14000000 X 14000000 = 196000000000000:1 or 196power 12( 196followed by 12 zero)

this is what i was on about earlier. the chance of one thing coming about by its selve is hugh but when you start adding all those up it goes well in the realms of mathematical impossible

eg in order to form a bacic cell you need proteins. which are very complex molecules. inturn you need amino acids to make up proteins. there are over 100 amino acids of which only 20 are needed to make up the proteins needed for life.
so let go with the idea of the organic soup where these protien form by chance. . so what the chance of just one simple protein forming in the soup. About 1:10power 113 (1follow by 113zero) now maths say 10power 50 is mathimaticle impossible. OKOKOK so what the chance of 2000 proteins forming needed as enzymes for a cell to function. 10 power 40,000 (10 followed by 40,000 zero) IMPOSSIBLE.
I havent even mention then combing the chance of DNA forming at the same time so that these ezymes could be used properly. it goes on and on and on making the odds higher and higher.

now some say but there are billion of galaxy with billion of planets. TRUE
but science say that a planet to be found in the galaxy that would have the right condition for our type of life is very rare. So your number of planets have been seriusly reduced. YOu just dont have enough players.

You're approaching this from the wrong end. You look at the result and marvel at the staggering improbability of it being there.
Think about the following : human beings are fragile. In the past, let's just assume that only 1 in 10 humans born made it to sexual maturity. Factoring in the number of people who would remain celibate, the number of people who weren't capable of reproducing, let's just assume that 1 in 20 had children. To make it a nice round number.
1 in 20 in every single generation. 19 out of 20 would fail to reproduce and pass their genes on.
Even if you were to assume that the world is only 6000 years old, that still makes 200 generations.

Now you yourself have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents....
If you go back 200 generations, the number of people involved in creating you is 1.60693804 × 10^60

What do you think were the odds of every single one of your ancestors surviving and reproducing, in order so that you may one day be born?

See the flaw in that argument?

Linoge · 13-09-2010 02:41PM

tro81 wrote: »

OKOKOK so what the chance of 2000 proteins forming needed as enzymes for a cell to function. 10 power 40,000 (10 followed by 40,000 zero) IMPOSSIBLE.

You need to look up the definition of impossible dude.

tro81 wrote: »

now some say but there are billion of galaxy with billion of planets. TRUE
but science say that a planet to be found in the galaxy that would have the right condition for our type of life is very rare. So your number of planets have been seriusly reduced. YOu just dont have enough players.

You really need to stop contradiciting yourself... or at least wait until your next paragraph.

To add, I dont see infinity factored into any of your "equations". I dont know if this is something you have overlooked, or purposefully omitted to make your maths fit your theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Turtwig · 13-09-2010 02:43PM

tro81 wrote: »

this is what i was on about earlier. the chance of one thing coming about by its selve is hugh but when you start adding all those up it goes well in the realms of mathematical impossible

eg in order to form a bacic cell you need proteins. which are very complex molecules. inturn you need amino acids to make up proteins. there are over 100 amino acids of which only 20 are needed to make up the proteins needed for life.
so let go with the idea of the organic soup where these protien form by chance. . so what the chance of just one simple protein forming in the soup. About 1:10power 113 (1follow by 113zero) now maths say 10power 50 is mathimaticle impossible. OKOKOK so what the chance of 2000 proteins forming needed as enzymes for a cell to function. 10 power 40,000 (10 followed by 40,000 zero) IMPOSSIBLE.
I havent even mention then combing the chance of DNA forming at the same time so that these ezymes could be used properly. it goes on and on and on making the odds higher and higher.

Well I've dealt with this one again and again. So I'll just quote myself (again!).

Malty_T wrote: »

This ridiculous proposition of astronomically high odds was proposed by Michael Behe* who is both a creationist and ID advocate. (ID == Creationism, anyway but ID proponents love to try to disguise that fact). Behe argument has been thoroughly debunked because it breaks the rules of mathematics. Unless the initial conditions are known precisely you cannot even consider applying probability to an event - what are the chances of you wriggling your big toe at 7hrs:31mins:32seconds on December 23rd 2012? The problem's meaningless. Secondly, the scientific understanding of abiogenesis is completely ignored (see diagram).

*Behe was not the first to propose this particular argument (don't know who it was), he is however the person Craig references when making it.

tro81 · 13-09-2010 03:00PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

So from this I assume you don't believe in evolution and in fact believe Adam & Eve were real and created, along with the rest of the universe, within the past 10,000 years?

No i personal do not believe in evolution as i have found no satisfing answers only theory's based on evidence that could easyly been used for a designer. (WOW that'll open a can of worms). But that is my view and others are welcome to have theirs. At the same time i do not support may of the views of creationist as when you examine the bible carefully they do not support many of thier view. Eg "in the begining GOD created the heavens and the earth" allows for a hugh amount of time. The creative days mention in gen when under examination of ancient hebrew are not litural 24 hour days but periods of time. Eg "in my father's day". So no i dont believe that the universe etc was created 10,000 years ago. I base my belief on FACTS and careful research. And finally the idea that we came from an oringinal pair of human when you look at resent genic studies is very likly. So yes i have faith that adam and eve existed.

At the end of the day if you beleive in evolution or a creator both require Faith. I put my faith in creation because i believe it fits more closly to the scientic Facts.

deise go deo · 13-09-2010 03:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And this is what I said at the start of this thread. The god concept is so ill defined, variable and wishy washy that it's impossible to say there is no god. And it's also impossible to say there is a god. It's impossible to say anything about something until it's actually defined beyond a vague notion of "something beyond us". There might well be "something beyond us that humans can never come close to comprehending" but if that is the case I don't see why we should be bothered about it. Why concern yourself with something that you believe we can never comprehend? Why does its existence matter?

You're very far into the undefined area so your god is unfalsifiable but completely irrelevant.

In the case that a being not only started but also shaped the universe and laid out the design on which every thing in it was formed, that being is irrelevent because we cant comphrehend it?

This was intended as literal truth on its inception. It became different at the point the viewpoint was untenable. What of those who lived believing it as literal truth? They were living under a lie told from god? Is that what you believe? And only in recent times have we understood that it was heavy with metaphor.

I see you didn't refute the point. No apple in the garden of eden, no talking snake. What you posted there was not a refutation.

I know, I dont think the garden of eden is literal fact, Why would I refute you saying it?

My point is that the garden of eden not being fact has no bearing on the existence of god.

Unless the initial conditions are known precisely you cannot even consider applying probability to an event - what are the chances of you wriggling your big toe at 7hrs:31mins:32seconds on December 23rd 2012? The problem's meaningless.

Dose the same not apply when atheists claim that the probability of god is so low as to be insignificent?

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 03:04PM

tro81 wrote: »

At the end of the day if you beleive in evolution or a creator both require Faith. I put my faith in creation because i believe it fits more closly to the scientic Facts.

Sigh. "Believing" in evolution requires as much "faith" as believing in gravity. It's a demonstrable fact. There is the fact of evolution and the theory which explains the mountains and mountains of facts, all of which point towards evolution. I don't mean this to sound arrogant but evolution is the central theory underpinning modern biology so your statement that creation fits with the scientific facts more than evolution is quite simply wrong.

tro81 · 13-09-2010 03:05PM

Linoge wrote: »

You need to look up the definition of impossible dude.

You really need to stop contradiciting yourself... or at least wait until your next paragraph.

To add, I dont see infinity factored into any of your "equations". I dont know if this is something you have overlooked, or purposefully omitted to make your maths fit your theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

if you read i was talking about mathimathical impossible.

also please explain how i contradicted myself

MagicMarker · 13-09-2010 03:06PM

tro81 wrote: »

No i personal do not believe in evolution as i have found no satisfing answers only theory's based on evidence that could easyly been used for a designer. (WOW that'll open a can of worms). But that is my view and others are welcome to have theirs. At the same time i do not support may of the views of creationist as when you examine the bible carefully they do not support many of thier view. Eg "in the begining GOD created the heavens and the earth" allows for a hugh amount of time. The creative days mention in gen when under examination of ancient hebrew are not litural 24 hour days but periods of time. Eg "in my father's day". So no i dont believe that the universe etc was created 10,000 years ago. I base my belief on FACTS and careful research. And finally the idea that we came from an oringinal pair of human when you look at resent genic studies is very likly. So yes i have faith that adam and eve existed.

At the end of the day if you beleive in evolution or a creator both require Faith. I put my faith in creation because i believe it fits more closly to the scientic Facts.

Erm, evolution is a fact.

If you don't believe in evolution, and you don't tend to agree with 'creationists', then when exactly did we, and in fact all living (and extinct) organisms come into existence? And how does your answer fit in to scientific facts?

Pushtrak · 13-09-2010 03:07PM

deise go deo wrote: »

I know, I dont think the garden of eden is literal fact, Why would I refute you saying it?

Everyone is their own arbiter on what is metaphor and literal. If the whole book is metaphor, of what use is it? I've seen heaven and hell discarded by believers who take the metaphor route. I find it funny this unspoken attitude people have: "No, what god meant to say was..."

Dose the same not apply when atheists claim that the probability of god is so low as to be insignificent?

Probability is not evidence. If something is probable it means it could happen. If it is remotely possible, it could happen. Lotto winners can testify to that.

Edit: tro81, rather than going on about something you clearly need to put some research, go to the link in my sig.

Sam Vimes · 13-09-2010 03:15PM

deise go deo wrote: »

In the case that a being not only started but also shaped the universe and laid out the design on which every thing in it was formed, that being is irrelevent because we cant comphrehend it?

you see now you've gone from the definition of "something beyond us that we can never comprehend" to "started and shaped the universe and laid out the design on which every thing in it was formed" and those are very different definitions. And I can tell you that the theory of evolution means that there is absolutely no need to imagine a designer to explain the complexity of life so the very first attribute you assigned other than "something beyond us" has been demonstrated to be unnecessary by science. You can still say that god designed life if you really want but it's like saying that the pistons in the engine of my car are actually being pushed by invisible pixies rather than exploding fuel. If you said that there's no way I could prove it false but there is no reason to think that it's actually the case since the exploding fuel explanation works just fine.

Now we can see both parts of the problem, irrelevance and unjustifiability of claims: your first definition described something that is irrelevant because we can never comprehend it and then you added something that this apparently incomprehensible thing is supposed to have done and you immediately ran into problems because for the past 150 years science has been able to explain quite nicely something that you claim was done by god.

deise go deo wrote: »

My point is that the garden of eden not being fact has no bearing on the existence of god.

It has a bearing on the existence of the god of people who believe in the garden of Eden just as evolution has a bearing on the existence of a god who is supposed to have designed life

There is no God...???

Comments