Merged: Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats up to you to decide. For millions all over the world, its the most relevant book that exists.

Millions of people like Country Music.
There's no accounting for taste.

It is no surprise that you make assertions instead of arguments.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

How did your god come into existence? That demands an explanation.

read this thread. I have answered your question already several time. Or do a google search.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by gibhor

so you failed to present the relevant part in the paper that refutes irreducible complexity in the cell.

which cell????

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Yes, i think so.

Arrogance. What makes you think your gunderscored is the real deal when most of the human population thinks it is not?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

read this thread. I have answered your question already several time. Or do a google search.

claiming something is magically eternal isn't an answer.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Yes, i think so.

Present your evidence that they are wrong.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

1.) we are discussion the universe. You haven't established why a natural mechanism is insufficient.

How could a natural mechanism exist, if beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed ?

Quote:

2.) If your conscience is evidence for god, than you must accept the idea that god isn't the god of the bible. after all, my conscience tells me that things advocated for in the bible (slavery, genocide, anti-gay, anti-woman) is immoral.

You should get your pre conceptions get straight. Otherwise you delude yourself. thats a job i wont do for you.

Quote:

Of course, the fact that social morality has changed so drastically over the centuries suggests that there isn't an external source of morality.

As far as i know, the basic moral commandments have never changed, aka you shall not kill, not lie, not steal etc.......

Quote:

3.) Christ, while an interesting story, isn't really evidence of much except as a protagonist in the bible.

That protagonist shaped humanity as nobody else. The followers of Christ died for his cause. Christianity is the most influential religion in the world......

Quote:

4.) Bible isn't evidence of much except people used to be fairly immoral....by modern standards.

Have you read it ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

which cell????

the first living one.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So you failed to present the relevant part in the paper that refutes irreducible complexity in the cell.
Thats what i was expecting.

Nope, Thats what your masters told you to respond to, and what how you must respond.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Fact is, nowhere in the Dover trial the irreducible complexity of translation, transcription, replication, in the cell was adressed. You are just making things up, without having any knowledge about what you talk about.

Look to thine own face first.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

read this thread. I have answered your question already several time. Or do a google search.

Many have answered your questions already and yet you continue to wallow in your self-imposed ignorance.

What created your god?

[devnull]

I have no more time or energy for you Gibhor, but I sincerely thank you for being one of the most potent forces for atheism I've even seen.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

the first living one.

which was????
wait? do you actually think it was a single solitary cell that all life came from?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

How could a natural mechanism exist, if beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed ?

After the big bang, here we are. Are you suggesting we don't exist, or what?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

You should get your pre conceptions get straight. Otherwise you delude yourself. thats a job i wont do for you.

You delude yourself, because...

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

As far as i know, the basic moral commandments have never changed, aka you shall not kill, not lie, not steal etc.......

which version of the ten commandments? You realise there is more than one in the bible, right? Which one are you referring to?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

That protagonist shaped humanity as nobody else. The followers of Christ died for his cause. Christianity is the most influential religion in the world......

Have you read it ?

Yes I read it. Your gunderscored is the biggest prat ever.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

How could a natural mechanism exist, if beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed ?

time started with the big bang.
you can't have existence without time.
So i see your question as inherently nonsensical.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

You should get your pre conceptions get straight. Otherwise you delude yourself. thats a job i wont do for you.

So the bible didn't provide laws on how to sell your daughter?
It didn't tell a story of a great flood that would have killed nearly all life?
It doesn't provide rules on how to treat slaves or how slaves should obey?

I think you need to reread the book you advocate.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

As far as i know, the basic moral commandments have never changed, aka you shall not kill, not lie, not steal etc.......

which basic moral commandments?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

That protagonist shaped humanity as nobody else. The followers of Christ died for his cause. Christianity is the most influential religion in the world......

except for the fact that the majority of the people in the world aren't christian.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Have you read it ?

Yes. I have. It is how I came to the conclusion that it isn't actually a good source of morality.

[BenjaminTR]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what claims are these, that are false ?

Talking snakes. Earth created in six days a few thousand years ago. Worldwide flood. Noah. Red Sea. Pillar of salt. Babel. Jesus rising. You know the list by now.

Quote:

there are millions all over the world that can testify that prayer works. Have you ever tried it out ?

I prayed when I was a kid. Never worked for me, but that counts for nothing. It is an anecdote, just like the stories you are talking about. Plus there is the question "Why does God hate amputees?" Prayer is only ever credited with achieving results that happen without prayer, like remission of some kinds of cancer, getting a job, surviving a storm or a battle, etc. Anecdotes that are not even impressive, and not systematically studied. In controlled conditions, prayer is indistinguishable from nothing (well, except that it makes some people calm and serene).

Quote:

there is no reason to cut out theistic explanations previous to the investigation.

This is basically what I said. Theism is not ruled out by definition, but experience has shown that appealing to it will almost certainly not help. Unlike with natural explanations, we do not have a gigantic repository of examples of successful supernatural theories to expand upon or use as a template. This makes exploring the supernatural unwise when the natural is still even remotely viable.

I may later respond to your claims about information in the cell, but it will take a long time to explain my views on that topic.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

why is there reality, rather than no reality ?

That is not a question naturalism can address.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

unfortunately, you are wrong. I deduce God from several facts of knowledge, namely the beginning of the universe, therefore a cause, the fine tuning of the universe, the arise of life , and information in the cell, irreducible complexity, and the fact, that the gap between dead matter, and consciousness, cannot be bridged. That all leads logically and rationally to theism.

The fine tuning argument that you don't understand and just parrot.

How many values are possible between 1 electron mass and 2 electron masses GIBHOR?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So resuming : methodological naturalism is fruitful, therefore no God exists ?

It doesn't care, next question.

Show evidence of god that is not better explained by other means.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what claims are these, that are false ?

That the sun and moon stopped in the sky.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

of course not.



the very fact that it came into existence demands a explanation. What caused it into existence ? how could it be a natural phenomena, if nothing physical existed beyond it ?

Who says the unknown cause of the BBe is not natural?

Cite references and citations.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you are free to stop participating at this thread.

You are free to discuss the possible values of the mass of the electron between 1 electron mass and 2 electron masses, why don't you?

Do you actually understand the fine tuning argument?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So you failed to present the relevant part in the paper that refutes irreducible complexity in the cell. Thats what i was expecting. Fact is, nowhere in the Dover trial the irreducible complexity of translation, transcription, replication, in the cell was adressed. You are just making things up, without having any knowledge about what you talk about.

You have yet to show the irreducible complexity, you just wave words around you don't understand.

Give us an example.

You have not given other reason than an assertion, what is so irreducible about transcription or replication that it could not have arisen piecemeal, be specific and cite peer reviewed journals.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

How could a natural mechanism exist, if beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed ?

We don't know does not equal "nothing physical existed.

You keep asserting your speculation, this universe did not exist prior to the BBe, where does the rest of your supposition come from?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

the first living one.

You mean the one without RNA and DNA or a nucleus?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

there are four witnesses of God :

1.creation :

[scripture removed]

2.conscience :

[scripture removed]

3.Christ :

[scripture removed]

4. The bible


The revelation of the bible is enough for anyone to be able to find the right path to the truth.

[scripture removed]

1. Creation This amounts to argument from ignorance. "We don't understand how it happened, therefore God." It's a logical fallacy, and cannot be used honestly as evidence that God exists.

2. Conscience This is easily explained by evolution. Humans are a social species, in other words we form communities for mutual benefit. It's only natural that we should have developed instincts that mediate social behavior.

3. Christ Can you give me Christ's email address or telephone number so I can ask him myself? Oh, he's dead? Then I suppose he wrote down statement clearly detailing whatever it is you claim he is witness to? What, he didn't write anything down? So we have no direct information from Christ at all? In that case, why claim him as a witness?

4. The Bible One of many ancient religious texts, none of it a first-hand account. Before you can claim the Bible as a witness, you must first demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable source of information. This has never been done.

So to summarize, you have absolutely nothing to support your position.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

so what does it need in your view , a supernatural explanation to be compelling ? what would convince you ?

The first step would be to demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists, and is not just a figment of the imagination. Hell, anyone demonstrating this could win a million dollars from JREF.

To use examples that you might be familiar with, if you could show us somebody who can walk on water without special flotation boots, this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists. If you could show us somebody who could instantly transform water into wine, this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists. If you could show us someone who could bring a four-day old corpse back to life (particularly if it had been stored at room temperature), this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists.

But if all you can present is ancient tales of a person who could supposedly perform such acts, all you demonstrate is the human capacity for storytelling.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So you failed to present the relevant part in the paper that refutes irreducible complexity in the cell. Thats what i was expecting. Fact is, nowhere in the Dover trial the irreducible complexity of translation, transcription, replication, in the cell was adressed. You are just making things up, without having any knowledge about what you talk about.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between a legal trial and a scientific paper is not my failure, but yours. The 49ers "failed" to score a home run tonight...

Kitzmiller was a legal trial. In a legal trial a court makes findings of law. I realize you do not understand that, but a finding of law is not a statement of a scientific principle. I provided for you links to the finding of law relevant to IC. The fact that you did not read them, or did not understand them, or do not understand the nature of a finding of law, is your failure, not mine. Your equivocation that the court would have addressed the failures of IC as a matter of law is disingenuous at best. Go back; read.


What I did provide was a number of papers which demonstrate that your claim, that Behe has "demonstrated" IC, is incorrect. To date, every example of claimed IC has been scientifically demonstrated not to be"irreducible", much less "impossible for natural selection to form"; or is being investigated. The fact that there may be a structure or process that has not (yet) been so demonstrated is one of the reasons I chose methodological naturalism--so far, every claim of IC which has been investigated has turned out not to be so.

Methodological naturalism makes discoveries.

Supernaturalism makes pronunciations.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

How could a natural mechanism exist, if beyond the Big Bang, nothing physical existed ?

Who is claiming that nothing existed before the Big Bang?

Either time began at the Big Bang, in which case the claim that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang is nonsensical because there was no before, or time didn't begin at the Big Bang, and we have no way of knowing what might have preceded it.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

As far as i know, the basic moral commandments have never changed, aka you shall not kill, not lie, not steal etc.......

So God was acting immorally when he killed and ordered people to kill?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

That protagonist shaped humanity as nobody else. The followers of Christ died for his cause. Christianity is the most influential religion in the world......

The followers of many religions have died for their cause. While I agree that Christianity is the most influential religion in the world, that doesn't indicate that Christianity is correct. It just indicates that Christianity has proven more virulent than other religions.

But I'm confused about something. Exactly how do you think "that protagonist" has shaped humanity as nobody else? What do you mean by "humanity" in this case?

Unless you mean shaped history? That comes with being so influential, provoking inquisitions, crusades and the dark ages.

[Astreja]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Science generally does not question that the universe IS fine-tuned to life. Do you appeal now to a UN scientific standpoint ??!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".

Nice quote-mining job, Gibhor. Did you miss this part?

Quote:

The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the Universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community. (emphasis Mine)

"Fine-tuning" is an anthropomorphic way of observing that we happen to be living in a universe where the parameters were supportive of the development of some forms of life. I see no evidence that our current parameters were established by anything other than natural interactions of matter and energy, and I see no evidence that we live in the best possible universe for life.

[Astreja]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So you have basically no positive evidence for philosophic naturalism, aka for strong atheism. Quit a weak basis to construct a entire world view, and your life , upon which you take important decisions, and eventually will determine your eternity.

Disgusting use of argumentum ad baculum.

Gibhor, if your god actually existed (but I rather doubt it), supposedly it would know what would convince us.

And if it were a genuinely good god that was actually worried about our fate in this hypothetical eternity, one would think that it would:

• Present itself to us in an unambiguous, direct way; or
• Find some way to make the afterlife safe and pleasant for nonbelievers.

The fact that you're playing the "Scaaaaary eternity alert! Booga booga!" card leads Me to suspect that you, Gibhor, believe in an eternal hell. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Astreja

Present itself to us in an unambiguous, direct way

He has done so though Jesus Christ, and the scriptures. The pharisees knew that only God could do the miracles Jesus did. Despite this, they rejected and killed him.

Quote:

Find some way to make the afterlife safe and pleasant for nonbelievers.?

God is just. His justice demands punishment for all sins. You have the choice. Either you receive Gods love, open your heart, and repent from your sins, and God will atribute Jesus sacrifice to you, and you go out free. Or you reject his love, and what he did on the cross for you, and you will have to pay yourself for your sins. As the bible says : the price of sin is dead. Not only physical dead, but eternal dead, far from the blessings of God. That is a terrible perspective, indeed disgusting, but the choice is yours. God has done everything through his son, Jesus Christ, to save all humanity, inclusive you, but he respects your will. The message of the gospel is not condemnation, but to tell us his love, and give us the oportunity to go to heaven forever.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Astreja

our current parameters were established by anything other than natural interactions of matter and energy, and I see no evidence that we live in the best possible universe for life.

the laws of nature, and the fundamental forces, must however also be fine tuned, to permit life......

http://dovetheology.com/apologetics/...finetuning/p4/

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

He has done so though Jesus Christ, and the scriptures. The pharisees knew that only God could do the miracles Jesus did. Despite this, they rejected and killed him.

I believe Astreja specified that such a God would be expected to present himself to us in an unambiguous, direct way. We are not the Pharisees, and we have not seen Jesus perform any of these alleged miracles, and we have no rational reason to believe that such miracles ever happened, just ancient legends of dubious veracity (ie, the Bible). As such, God has not presented himself to us in an unambiguous, direct way.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Who is claiming that nothing existed before the Big Bang?

most scientists do. In a unambiguous way :

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Quote:

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Quote:

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Either time began at the Big Bang, in which case the claim that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang is nonsensical because there was no before, or time didn't begin at the Big Bang, and we have no way of knowing what might have preceded it.

Quote:

So God was acting immorally when he killed and ordered people to kill?

No, of course not.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...11&article=260

Quote:

The biblical position shows that God is the Giver of life, and only He has the authority to decide when that life has accomplished its purpose.

Quote:

But I'm confused about something. Exactly how do you think "that protagonist" has shaped humanity as nobody else? What do you mean by "humanity" in this case?

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprim...=2008&month=11

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I believe Astreja specified that such a God would be expected to present himself to us in an unambiguous, direct way. We are not the Pharisees, and we have not seen Jesus perform any of these alleged miracles, and we have no rational reason to believe that such miracles ever happened, just ancient legends of dubious veracity (ie, the Bible). As such, God has not presented himself to us in an unambiguous, direct way.

God is not a dictator, but he respects our free will. He has given us enough evidence of his existence.

If you really want to know, spend some time, and read this :

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

What I did provide was a number of papers which demonstrate that your claim, that Behe has "demonstrated" IC, is incorrect.

Where did i make the claim, Behe was correct ?!! Where did i mention Behe, after all ??!!

what i presented , was this :

Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.

Quote:

the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

if this is a old argument, as some argumented, my question is : has perhaps science find out, that translation, transcription, replication does not work the way, as discovered a few decades ago ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

1. Creation This amounts to argument from ignorance. "We don't understand how it happened, therefore God." It's a logical fallacy, and cannot be used honestly as evidence that God exists.

you repeat a fallacious argument. We deduce God because we have overwhelming scientific data on hand, as never before.

Based on that, we can make a good case for God.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-a...istence-of-god

What data do you have on hand, to make a good positive case for philosophical naturalism, and strong atheism ??

How about you make a list, and point it out, the same way i did it in my forum? that would be a good beginning.

Quote:

2. Conscience This is easily explained by evolution. Humans are a social species, in other words we form communities for mutual benefit. It's only natural that we should have developed instincts that mediate social behavior.

Einstein disagrees with you.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t283...light=einstein

Quote:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Quote:

3. Christ Can you give me Christ's email address or telephone number so I can ask him myself? Oh, he's dead? Then I suppose he wrote down statement clearly detailing whatever it is you claim he is witness to? What, he didn't write anything down? So we have no direct information from Christ at all? In that case, why claim him as a witness?

read the bible, and you'll know.

Quote:

4. The Bible One of many ancient religious texts, none of it a first-hand account. Before you can claim the Bible as a witness, you must first demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable source of information. This has never been done.

well, feel free to think however you want. Many disagree with you.

Quote:

So to summarize, you have absolutely nothing to support your position.

Sorry to say, but do you have some better arguments ?

Quote:

The first step would be to demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists, and is not just a figment of the imagination. Hell, anyone demonstrating this could win a million dollars from JREF.

Just present codified information as contained in each single cell, that has a natural origin, and you have a case....... so far, no atheist was able to answer this question. Despite of this, you insist in a irrational standpoint. How come ?

Quote:

To use examples that you might be familiar with, if you could show us somebody who can walk on water without special flotation boots, this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists. If you could show us somebody who could instantly transform water into wine, this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists. If you could show us someone who could bring a four-day old corpse back to life (particularly if it had been stored at room temperature), this would count as a demonstration that the supernatural exists.

the eye witnesses testified jesus did these miracles. Why do you doubt ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You mean the one without RNA and DNA or a nucleus?

how do you know it didnt have one ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

We don't know does not equal "nothing physical existed.

You keep asserting your speculation, this universe did not exist prior to the BBe, where does the rest of your supposition come from?

It seems a desperate attempt to ignore solid scientific data. Most astrophysicists today believe the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Who says the unknown cause of the BBe is not natural?

Cite references and citations.

if all natural is times, space, and matter, and that did not exist beyond our universe, then its obvious the cause of the universe was not natural.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It doesn't care, next question.

Show evidence of god that is not better explained by other means.

sure.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-a...istence-of-god

could you explain each point presented better with philosophical naturalism ?