Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't think many people are outright stating god doesn't exist. Rather, we're pointing out there is bugger all evidence for the existence of said god.

If he doesn't exist and there are logical and rational reasons as to why he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist and visa versa. Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria, Similarly god while you may say that no evidence supports god logic and rational though supports his existence.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Asking such question doesn't make sense as it's like asking "what is the cause of the first cause", the logic it self can get you all the way to god but once you try to go past god the premises of the argument falls apart as you have reached the uncreated creator asking who created something that's uncreated does not make any rational sense.

See, if I try to trace stuff back I can go. Why did E happen. I can look and see that it was caused by D. Then i ask why did D happen. And I go back to C. I can keep going back but when I get to a point where I don't know the answer I don't go "well God must exist". I just think there's something there I don't know. Planting in God is what is called in philosophy a skyhook". It's when you build up an argument to a point where you reach a point where there's nothing there holding it up so you create this imaginary hook out of the sky and use it to hold up the argument. That's what God is. Something that wasn't in the argument until it runs out of answers and so it's used to validate the argument.

In this case the regression goes back to a certain point where it runs out and people say God. When we say what's before God, the cop out is the there's nothing before God. So the whole logic that was used to create the regression back to God is suddenly abandoned when we get to God. We go back that far because logically there HAS to be an efficient cause, but at some point it's decided that logically there doesn't have to be. And the only reason is because it support the argument for the belief in God.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Denying the existence of Moses means that your telling the Jews they have been an imaginary ghost for the past millennia, Moses lived more then 3000 years ago it's very difficult to trace the origin of a single man to prove whether he existed or no after such a long period but the legacy and the religion attributed to him proves that long ago a man by the name of Moses existed.

So what? Are you saying that Moses had to exist because otherwise the Jews ware wrong? using that logic I have to accept that Xenu exists because otherwise scientologists are wrong. I have to accept that the muslims are right when they believe in Mohammed and I have to believe that Christians are right when they believe in Jesus. I have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination and the catholic doctrine of self determination. I have to accept that the world is flat (because many people believed it for thousands of years) and that the world is round. I'd have to believe that Tom Cruise as a high level thetan can levitate himself and that he's deluded. All at the same time. Are you saying it's all true?
I'm not going to believe something because people have believed it.
And the simple fact that just because Moses is mentioned in the bible doesn't mean that he actually existed. The same way I don't think Cu Chulain existed or Robin Hood. There were stories which were passed down so that folklore became legend. Every single culture has them except with jewish culture a lot of people believe they're real.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that someone like Jesus who is celebrated to this day and age had a mental disorder otherwise the people of his time would of no

mental disorders come in all shapes and sizes. There are many people who lead very fulling lives with mental disorders. And even for those that don't it's not obvious. Firstly it's not like you can identify someone like that on sight. Secondly people back then didn't know about most of them. In Palestine at the time they believed that illnesses were caused by spirit possession. Is it too much to expect that they would assume a charismatic individual was possessed by God?

Outside of the bible there's very little verification for Jesus. Josephus wrote about him so we know he probably existed but there's next to no evidence besides that. And like I said already, if I had to accept as truth everything that a lot of people believed, my belief wouldn't make sense

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.

If you say I have to accept that moses and jesus existed and did what they are purported to do because it's in the bible and a lot of people believed in it, then I have to accept that God likes bald men and hates children. I have to believe that anything a lot of people believe in is true because no matter how illogical it is, it must be because so many people believe it.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence?
Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence?
Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.

However you can see that as an atheist you really have no good reason not to believe in a good other then trying to exercise your person choice and freedom not to believe in one.

That isn't blind faith. It's the exact opposite. I chose not to have blind faith. By not having any faith I'm an atheist.

My atheism arose because I asked a lot of questions. I eventually went back to college where I got degrees in philosophy and maths (hence the references to Aquinas and Aristotle). It was a religious college which focused heavily on the philosophy of religion.

Even if we remove the bible from the equation and look at arguments for the existence of a God then we're left with only a few decent ones. One is the cosmological argument. that's the one you mentioned. As i stated the logic is flawed. the logic involves looking for an efficient cause and then abandoning that logic to suit the argument. Also as I stated, it's possible for an infinite regression to occur.
A nice one is the ontological argument. There's one by Descartes (Done earlier by a Muslim philosopher) and another by Anslem. You should look them up. There's problems with them though. Once again their logic goes awry. But nevertheless as religious philosophical arguments go, they're nice.

Even Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) who was a Christian philosopher stated that you could not have faith unless there was a suspension of both ethics and logic.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

People don't tend to go around looking for logical arguments as to why things don't exist. If I went around looking up evidence for every absurd claim made throughout history, I'd do nothing else until the day I die and would only scratch the surface.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore you are the one who should be backing it up with evidence. I may not have direct evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is endless evidence suggesting that he doesn't have to; which is all we can really claim without resorting to circular logic and other flawed debating tactics.

Actually 0 evidence exist to proving no god is around however you said "endless evidence" which is no where near the truth only few theories have suggest that we don't need a god but not needing a god does not mean in anyway that he does not exist.

Grayson wrote: »

Even if we remove the bible from the equation and look at arguments for the existence of a God then we're left with only a few decent ones. One is the cosmological argument. that's the one you mentioned. As i stated the logic is flawed. the logic involves looking for an efficient cause and then abandoning that logic to suit the argument. Also as I stated, it's possible for an infinite regression to occur.
A nice one is the ontological argument. There's one by Descartes (Done earlier by a Muslim philosopher) and another by Anslem. You should look them up. There's problems with them though. Once again their logic goes awry. But nevertheless as religious philosophical arguments go, they're nice.

Even Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) who was a Christian philosopher stated that you could not have faith unless there was a suspension of both ethics and logic.

Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written such books and corrupted them and a case can be made by each group whether their book have been corrupted or no but that does not mean that god does not exist
Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as,
where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?

What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief

I had to take some time to research some of information before I presented them in my replay sorry for double quoting.

Grayson wrote: »

See, if I try to trace stuff back I can go. Why did E happen. I can look and see that it was caused by D. Then i ask why did D happen. And I go back to C. I can keep going back but when I get to a point where I don't know the answer I don't go "well God must exist". I just think there's something there I don't know. Planting in God is what is called in philosophy a skyhook". It's when you build up an argument to a point where you reach a point where there's nothing there holding it up so you create this imaginary hook out of the sky and use it to hold up the argument. That's what God is. Something that wasn't in the argument until it runs out of answers and so it's used to validate the argument.In this case the regression goes back to a certain point where it runs out and people say God. When we say what's before God, the cop out is the there's nothing before God. So the whole logic that was used to create the regression back to God is suddenly abandoned when we get to God. We go back that far because logically there HAS to be an efficient cause, but at some point it's decided that logically there doesn't have to be. And the only reason is because it support the argument for the belief in God

How does that invalidate the argument though?
Using your very own argument; once we reached C we would go further to B before finally reaching A after which you cannot go any further, since we all agree that A is the last letter in the English alphabet.
Similarly with god once you reach him you cannot go any further then that, because he's by definition the uncreated creator of everything in existence, and hence the argument does not stop because it supports the belief in god but because it would be illogical to ask the question once you have reached the final point, in this case God. that's a very logical and rational argument if you ask me
Just like asking the question what is the letter before A? the question is invalid and does not make sense.
I looked around for the concept of skyhook but I couldn't find anything related to it so maybe you used a more layman term for the actual word?

Grayson wrote: »

So what? Are you saying that Moses had to exist because otherwise the Jews ware wrong? using that logic I have to accept that Xenu exists because otherwise scientologists are wrong. I have to accept that the muslims are right when they believe in Mohammed and I have to believe that Christians are right when they believe in Jesus. I have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination and the catholic doctrine of self determination. I have to accept that the world is flat (because many people believed it for thousands of years) and that the world is round. I'd have to believe that Tom Cruise as a high level thetan can levitate himself and that he's deluded. All at the same time. Are you saying it's all true?
I'm not going to believe something because people have believed it.
And the simple fact that just because Moses is mentioned in the bible doesn't mean that he actually existed. The same way I don't think Cu Chulain existed or Robin Hood. There were stories which were passed down so that folklore became legend. Every single culture has them except with jewish culture a lot of people believe they're real.

Were do you think Judaism came from as a religion if you deny the existence of Moses? Christianity, who started it? and your not making sense by saying that you have to accept Muslims were right because you believe in Mohammed or that you have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination, what does acknowledging god have to do with any of this?
Which religion is the correct religion and which is corrupted is something that should not concern you as an atheist, and what does that have to do with whether Moses existed or not? you started this by denying the existence of Moses and digged a hole for your self which you now seem unable to leave.

Grayson wrote: »

mental disorders come in all shapes and sizes. There are many people who lead very fulling lives with mental disorders. And even for those that don't it's not obvious. Firstly it's not like you can identify someone like that on sight. Secondly people back then didn't know about most of them. In Palestine at the time they believed that illnesses were caused by spirit possession. Is it too much to expect that they would assume a charismatic individual was possessed by God?

That's a very ignorant statement your saying that the followers of Jesus and those of Moses or in fact of any prophet throughout history were unable to judge whether a person is sane or not? based on what? because you my friend said so? what makes you the mentally fit individual to judge that such individuals who had more influence in this world then any scientist or philosopher ever had were mentally retarded?
That's a very lazy way to escape the argument that such men were sincere and did receive orders and revelation from god that were corrupted over time.

Grayson wrote: »

That isn't blind faith. It's the exact opposite. I chose not to have blind faith. By not having any faith I'm an atheist.

your an atheist yet you are unable to come up with any logical and rational reason as to why god does not exist that's pretty much blind belief in a nutshell. Pascal's Wager who you should be familiar with having studied philosophy said:
"Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss"

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written such books and corrupted them and a case can be made by each group whether their book have been corrupted or no but that does not mean that god does not exist
Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as,
where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?

What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief

Morality evolved with human society. I'm almost a relativist. I'm not about to say that murder or child abuse could be acceptable because some society accepts it. But i will say that some things are relative.

Regarding the core ethics like murder etc... we all empathise with our fellow humans. When we empathise we don't want to things we find unpleasant happen to them that we don't want happening to us. I don't want to be murdered therefore i can feel that it's wrong to murder others.
people with a lack of empathy are sometimes called psychopaths. they do not feel sorry for hurting others so the natural block that you and i have doesn't stop them from hurting/manipulating them.

Likewise if we say you hate homosexuals (not saying you do, just for argument) then you would probably think "If i were a homosexual i would hope someone would stop me". That would make it ok in your head to stop them. You would think you were doing good because you would want to be treated the same way.

The fine tuning of the universe etc is called intelligent design (which I expect you've heard of). It's been so abused from what it way. It was originally called the teleological argument or the watchmaker analogy

The basic premise is that the world works so perfectly it might have well been designed. the simple fact is that the universe could exist in any way at all, but it would still exist.

the second part of the argument generally goes, but it exists so well for us. as in, isn't it odd that the world is designed for life.

Evolution works the other way. the idea is not that the world is designed for the life in it, but rather that live evolved and adapted to fit the world. For example if the earth had a sulphur based atmosphere any life that evolved would be able to breath sulphur dioxide. You might even have intelligent sulphur based organisms saying "isn't it amazing how this sulphur based world was designed for us".

The catholic church has long accepted that evolution occurred. they accept that the world was here first and that life evolved but they say that it evolved with gods guiding hand.

this neither proves or disproves the existence of God. It simply another way of thinking about things. The catholic church use it as a way to reconcile science with religion.

Grayson wrote: »

The first reason is referred to as the cosmological argument. It's most common form is the one supplied by Thomas Aquinas. It's basic premise is that each effect can be related to a previous cause. And that cause has a previous cause etc and we can regress back to the original cause. Aquinas referred to God as the Unmoved Mover. That which created the universe but was not created himself.
There's two problems with this. lets first of all say that we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from? the logic which supports this argument says that something can't come from nothing, there has to be an ultimate cause. God solves that, but then using the same logic we have to ask where did god come from? Religious people can't supply an answer there. they use logic to get to that point and then abandon it.

A transcendent ultimate cause is a logical conclusion from the chain of cause and effect that we observe.

Grayson wrote: »

The second problem is that there can be an infinite regress. mathematically it's been proven that an infinite regress can exist. That means there doesn't have to be what Aristotle would refer to as an efficient cause.

All effects have an equivalent or greater cause ... so even an infinite regress will still end up with a cause equivalent in power to the entire Universe ... and I call that God.

Grayson wrote: »

Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.

Evil people behaving badly ... not God.

Grayson wrote: »

This is the maddest bit.
Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.yep.
God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.

... God didn't do this ... Elisha called down a curse on them ... another example of a person behaving badly ... not God.

Grayson wrote: »

But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong. It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.

The veracity of the Bible is indicated by its 'warts and all' approach ... it doesn't spare anybody's blushes and tells it like it was ... not some sanitized (untrue) version of events.

Grayson wrote: »

I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that i may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)

The Ultimate Cause, the requirement for an omnipotent transcendent creator and the requirement for the intelligent design of the CFSI in life all point towards a God of effectively omnipotent power.
The use of an orbiting teapot is a trivial analogy that doesn't bear comparison with the substantial reasons for believing that God exists.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

By plain reading you mean you decide the bits you like are literal and the rest is metaphoric? :pac:

I take a plain reading ... reading historical accounts as accounts of historical events, poetry as poetry, Human law as law, prophecy as prophecy, people behaving badly as people behaving badly and parables as parables.

You guys seem to take everything literally.:)
... because it suits your purpose to attribute the evils that people did, as recorded in the Bible ... to God.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.

I encounter people all the time claiming this insight or that revelation.
I listen respectfully to them and I weigh up the evidence and decide whether they have a valid point or not.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...

There is only One God who says that He will Save us ... so Paschal's Wager can only logically apply to Him.:)