Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 11:26AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

There was no first human! If you take any example from the fossil record of any species all you are observing for example a single frame from a movie that is very very very long in duration, a snapshot of evolution in motion. It was a progression of these frames that made up the evolution of our species! No species was catapulted to earth from "Gods" hands!

I keep hearing repeated assertions that there was no first human. But so far no-one has offered a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion.

Saying that the process was gradual and slow is no argument at all - it's just a piece of debating sleight of hand and evasion.

If you choose a set of criteria for what it means to be human, then it doesn't matter how slowly or how quickly the process took, by definition there was a humanoid who finally became the first to meet those criteria.

To use an example. Let's say that you have decided to define 'daybreak' as being the point where the light, as measured by a light meter, reaches a certain point (say, 1000 lux). It matters not whether day breaks suddenly, or whether it slowly transitions through twilight. There is a definite point where the light meter first measures 1000 lux.

Of course you can get round this problem by positing, as silverharp appears to be doing, that 5000 humanoids all reached the 'human' criteria at exactly the same time. It seems to me that such an occurrence would be so statistically improbable as to necessitate some kind of intelligent force behind it - a 'god', if you will.

19-03-2015 11:31AM

silverharp wrote: »

You don't seem to grasp the nature of evolution , it wasn't like the movie the rise of the planet of the apes. If you sent cameras back in time at no particular point could one say "there, that one". Human DNA contains DNA from neanderthals for instance. And the process was very slow . as I understand the human gene pool can be traced back to a number of about 5000 , I'll look it up this evening if you wish.

In picture form

Can you pinpoint where 'Orange' starts in this?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 11:31AM

silverharp wrote: »

You don't seem to grasp the nature of evolution , it wasn't like the movie the rise of the planet of the apes. If you sent cameras back in time at no particular point could one say "there, that one". Human DNA contains DNA from neanderthals for instance. And the process was very slow . as I understand the human gene pool can be traced back to a number of about 5000 , I'll look it up this evening if you wish.

The slowness of a transition from A to B is in no way evidence that there was not a definitive point where non-B became B.

Unless, of course, that you are deliberately defining 'human' in such a vague way as to rob it of any meaning. If so, then just admit it and we can junk the whole debate as meaningless assertions anyway.

So what, if human DNA contains DNA from Neanderthals? That doesn't alter the fact that, however you define human, someone reached that point first. So, let's say you set a percentage of certain DNA as the criteria, it is a logical certainty that someone was the first to possess that percentage of rthe required DNA.

19-03-2015 11:32AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I keep hearing repeated assertions that there was no first human. But so far no-one has offered a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion.

Saying that the process was gradual and slow is no argument at all - it's just a piece of debating sleight of hand and evasion.

If you choose a set of criteria for what it means to be human, then it doesn't matter how slowly or how quickly the process took, by definition there was a humanoid who finally became the first to meet those criteria.

To use an example. Let's say that you have decided to define 'daybreak' as being the point where the light, as measured by a light meter, reaches a certain point (say, 1000 lux). It matters not whether day breaks suddenly, or whether it slowly transitions through twilight. There is a definite point where the light meter first measures 1000 lux.

Of course you can get round this problem by positing, as silverharp appears to be doing, that 5000 humanoids all reached the 'human' criteria at exactly the same time. It seems to me that such an occurrence would be so statistically improbable as to necessitate some kind of intelligent force behind it - a 'god', if you will.

Can you define this please?

MaxWig · 19-03-2015 11:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

In picture form

Can you pinpoint where 'Orange' starts in this?

Where the red ends!

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 11:43AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you define this please?

No, I am not a scientist, so it is not up to me to define what it means to be human. Nevertheless, whatever criteria you use, and people may use different definitions, there will always be a point where, for the first time, someone or something meets those criteria.

Take your colour spectrum between red and yellow. Those involved in optics define certain criteria which a colour must meet to be classed as 'orange'.

If, for example, orange is defined as light that has a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz, then there will be a specific point on your colour spectrum where 'orange' begins. It matters not if that point is reached suddenly or gradually. There is a specific point where the colour is deemed to pass from non-orange (not having a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz) to orange (a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz).

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 11:50AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I keep hearing repeated assertions that there was no first human. But so far no-one has offered a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion.

Saying that the process was gradual and slow is no argument at all - it's just a piece of debating sleight of hand and evasion.

If you choose a set of criteria for what it means to be human, then it doesn't matter how slowly or how quickly the process took, by definition there was a humanoid who finally became the first to meet those criteria.

To use an example. Let's say that you have decided to define 'daybreak' as being the point where the light, as measured by a light meter, reaches a certain point (say, 1000 lux). It matters not whether day breaks suddenly, or whether it slowly transitions through twilight. There is a definite point where the light meter first measures 1000 lux.

Of course you can get round this problem by positing, as silverharp appears to be doing, that 5000 humanoids all reached the 'human' criteria at exactly the same time. It seems to me that such an occurrence would be so statistically improbable as to necessitate some kind of intelligent force behind it - a 'god', if you will.

There is an fossil record that shows evolution in humans going back to Homo Erectus, this evidence is available online and in physically in museums! Their is absolutely no eviednce that shows Homo Sapiens appearing unannounced on earth and certainly not in the fossil record.

At what stage did a Dog become a Dog since evolving from Wolves? There is no single event just a long process of evolution! Maybe a hybrid Homo Sapien type creature best matches what you seek.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 11:54AM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I am not a scientist, so it is not up to me to define what it means to be human. .

As a believer that a God created Humans it is up to them to provide evidence that he did, not for unbelievers to prove he did not!

19-03-2015 12:07PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I am not a scientist, so it is not up to me to define what it means to be human. Nevertheless, whatever criteria you use, and people may use different definitions, there will always be a point where, for the first time, someone or something meets those criteria.

Take your colour spectrum between red and yellow. Those involved in optics define certain criteria which a colour must meet to be classed as 'orange'.

If, for example, orange is defined as light that has a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz, then there will be a specific point on your colour spectrum where 'orange' begins. It matters not if that point is reached suddenly or gradually. There is a specific point where the colour is deemed to pass from non-orange (not having a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz) to orange (a wavelength of 590-620nm and a frequency of 505-480 THz).

There are ranges here. 'Specific point' doesn't exist by these definitions.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:24PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

As a believer that a God created Humans it is up to them to provide evidence that he did, not for unbelievers to prove he did not!

No, that would be the onus on someone who presented an argument on here that God created humans.

I have presented no such argument here. I have simply asked silverharp to back up his argument, one, since it was presented on this thread, that he presumably feels is an argument against the existence of God.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are ranges here. 'Specific point' doesn't exist by these definitions.

And do these ranges have specific limits? Yes or no? Or do you define them however you feel like it?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:27PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

There is an fossil record that shows evolution in humans going back to Homo Erectus, this evidence is available online and in physically in museums! Their is absolutely no eviednce that shows Homo Sapiens appearing unannounced on earth and certainly not in the fossil record.

At what stage did a Dog become a Dog since evolving from Wolves? There is no single event just a long process of evolution! Maybe a hybrid Homo Sapien type creature best matches what you seek.

So what you are arguing is that here are no specific criteria by which we can measure whether an organism is human or non-human, correct?

19-03-2015 12:28PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And do these ranges have specific limits? Yes or no? Or do you define them however you feel like it?

I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument. The fact that there are ranges and not "absolute values" means there is no specific point where Orange 'begins'.

Which, was my original point.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument. The fact that there are ranges and not "absolute values" means there is no specific point where Orange 'begins'.

Which, was my original point.

Please answer the question, do these ranges have specific limits or not? Or is 'orange' an entirely subjective definition whereby, if I choose, I can call green 'orange'?

Dodging the question does not expose any flaw in my argument.

19-03-2015 12:32PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Please answer the question, do these ranges have specific limits or not? Or is 'orange' an entirely subjective definition whereby, if I choose, I can call green 'orange'?

Dodging the question does not expose any flaw in my argument.

Yes, the ranges have specific limits. Of course they do, and I've never said otherwise. That really has very little bearing on the point being made?

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 12:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So what you are arguing is that here are no specific criteria by which we can measure whether an organism is human or non-human, correct?

No

MaxWig · 19-03-2015 12:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the ranges have specific limits. Of course they do, and I've never said otherwise. That really has very little bearing on the point being made?

So at the first instance something falls within the range (a specific point) it becomes orange

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 12:36PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that would be the onus on someone who presented an argument on here that God created humans.

I have presented no such argument here. I have simply asked silverharp to back up his argument, one, since it was presented on this thread, that he presumably feels is an argument against the existence of God.

Do you believe in a creator God? It does not seem fair unless you state whether you do or do not believe God created humans!

silverharp · 19-03-2015 12:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that would be the onus on someone who presented an argument on here that God created humans.

I have presented no such argument here. I have simply asked silverharp to back up his argument, one, since it was presented on this thread, that he presumably feels is an argument against the existence of God.

You keep saying argument against god? I thought we were talking about original sin and the fall.?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the ranges have specific limits. Of course they do, and I've never said otherwise. That really has very little bearing on the point being made?

So where someone was using those terms as a layman, say an internal decorator in discussion with a client, would it be reasonable for them to say that a colour that lay outside those ranges is not orange? Would it also be reasonable for the internal decorator to say that a colour within those ranges is orange?

Would any reasonable person attack that internal decorator as expressing views that were in conflict with the science of optics?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:41PM

silverharp wrote: »

You keep saying argument against god? I thought we were talking about original sin and the fall.?

So are you saying that you chose to post an argument about the doctrine of the Fall in the Atheism/Existence of God thread, but that you actually don't think your argument has anything to do with the topic of the thread?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 12:45PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Do you believe in a creator God? It does not seem fair unless you state whether you do or do not believe God created humans!

Nonsense. I am perfectly at liberty to address an argument that another poster advances in the thread.

Remember that the Charter tells us to address the post, not to attack the poster. I am not at liberty to demand that everyone whom I think to be an atheist must provide evidence for everything they believe. That would be attacking the poster.

I am addressing the points that other posters have presented as arguments. I do understand why some atheists would like to be able to make arguments against Christianity and that no-one should be allowed to question or challenge those arguments, but that isn't going to fly here.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 12:54PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. I am perfectly at liberty to address an argument that another poster advances in the thread.

Remember that the Charter tells us to address the post, not to attack the poster. I am not at liberty to demand that everyone whom I think to be an atheist must provide evidence for everything they believe. That would be attacking the poster.

I am addressing the points that other posters have presented as arguments. I do understand why some atheists would like to be able to make arguments against Christianity and that no-one should be allowed to question or challenge those arguments, but that isn't going to fly here.

I don't believe I attacked you in my post! I just asked did you believe in a Creator God so I and others could better understand from what position you are debating (Atheism/Existence of God) from. No one has demanded evidence from you regarding your beliefs. I am happy to state I am debating from an Atheist platform!
I don't think anyone has stop you challenging arguments here although there has been been very viable counter arguments made.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 01:16PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So are you saying that you chose to post an argument about the doctrine of the Fall in the Atheism/Existence of God thread, but that you actually don't think your argument has anything to do with the topic of the thread?

It falls into the bucket of argument that would discredit christian doctrines . Also the more the Jewish religion can be shown to be made up by man it would undermine Jesus as he didnt claim that the jewish religion was man made and he should know have known either way.

Liberalbrehon · 19-03-2015 01:33PM

The problem debating non-theism v Christians/Catholics is that just about every Christian/Catholic has a different view of their faith. It's like trying to hit a moving target. I have to attempt to gauge what their believes are so I can debate with them. Do you believe in x,y,z will get various answers even from priests. What parts of the bible do they believe in? Have they read the bible? Do they understand how it was created? The dichotomy of Judaism/Christianity. Most are ignorant of basic tenets of their faith, what it actually means, where it came from etc. The very basic ground zero level I've come across is "I just believe in God". Even that simple statement has a spectrum of answers and questions. In the end I don't care once they don't attempt to force their values on others which is what Christianity/Islam etc are all about. So its going take some time...

Safehands · 19-03-2015 01:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think I've already outlined my beliefs pretty thoroughly in this thread so far. There are three main beliefs here

1. I believe that there are two major Christian doctrines called the Creation and the Fall. I have, at no point in this thread, argued that you or anyone else should believe these doctrines. I've stated that they are basic Christian doctrines. These can be defined as follows:
a) God is the maker of all things.
b) Mankind was in a state of innocence and chose to sin, losing his relationship with God.

Where is the evidence for any of this Nick?

Liberalbrehon · 19-03-2015 01:47PM

a) God is the maker of all things.

I don't think God makes the iphone so that statement is wrong. So you now have to reduce what God has made? How far are you willing to go back? Did God make the new species of spiders found recently or the new island in the pacific that really came from an undersea volcano but how would someone ignorant of that fact explain a new island in the pacific?

As for the iphone, it would seem like it's a God like device to a person from an Amazonian tribe just like when Cortes landed in Mexico from ships, with horses, guns and metal suits.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 01:56PM

Safehands wrote: »

Where is the evidence for any of this Nick?

The evidence for my statement that there are two major Christian doctrines called Creation and the Fall?

Here is the evidence that those two major doctrines exist and are held by historic Christianity:

1. Creation https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html The key phrase here is "Maker of heaven and earth."

2. The Fall
"The doctrine of the Fall (which has been part of the traditional Judaco-Christian response to the problem of evil) accepts the reality of evil and suffering, asserts that they have no place in the Creation purposes or ultimate will of the Creator, and attributes them instead to the agency and operation of creatures." (The Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society, edited by Paul Clarke, 2013, page 368)

I don't know why you're asking for evidence that these are both Christian doctrines that have been widely held by churches and Christians for centuries. I think that statement of mine would not be denied by anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the subject.

Delirium · 19-03-2015 01:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. I am perfectly at liberty to address an argument that another poster advances in the thread.

Remember that the Charter tells us to address the post, not to attack the poster. I am not at liberty to demand that everyone whom I think to be an atheist must provide evidence for everything they believe. That would be attacking the poster.

I am addressing the points that other posters have presented as arguments. I do understand why some atheists would like to be able to make arguments against Christianity and that no-one should be allowed to question or challenge those arguments, but that isn't going to fly here.

If you believe someone has breached the charter, please use the report button.

Asking if you believe in a Creator God isn't attacking you.

That being said, it should be possible for posters to rebut any points you make based on the content of your posts.

Thank you everyone for your attention.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 02:00PM

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

a) God is the maker of all things.

I don't think God makes the iphone so that statement is wrong. So you now have to reduce what God has made? How far are you willing to go back? Did God make the new species of spiders found recently or the new island in the pacific that really came from an undersea volcano but how would someone ignorant of that fact explain a new island in the pacific?

As for the iphone, it would seem like it's a God like device to a person from an Amazonian tribe just like when Cortes landed in Mexico from ships, with horses, guns and metal suits.

I often wonder if god was real what did he evolve from?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments