<...........scratchin' her head over this:
There is evidence! Concrete proof that there is a god!And she is a woman who hates guys like me?
Huh?
"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .
by hooberus 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
FlyingHighNow
-
FlyingHighNow
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?
The point is that people like you better and you like you better and you contribute to the cure and not the problem. You don't need some great big abusive parent in the sky to zap your a$$.
-
MissingLink
Oh, my turn to post an entire website.... Wait a minute... Perhaps I don't want to look like a complete a$$w1pe.
-
hooberus
Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
Fine-Tuning Design Argument:These arguments (if even valid) get you at BEST to a very weak form of deism.
A "watchmaker" god.
This of course, though possible, doesn't get us ANYWHERE, because no matter
how vastly improbable amino acids and fine tuned forces are, a intelligent
Watchmaker God must be far more so.And even if this "god" exists, it is not anything remotely like the god of
the bible.So yeah, I think "no evidence" is the only fair and open minded conclusion.
[inkling
And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance? The "God Delusion" book claims to show this, yet it has to resort to the bogus reasoning of equating improbability of coming about by pure chance, with improbability of existence. (Such reasoning would only be valid against the existence of any god believed to have come about by chance -which of course is a "god" that virtually no competent theologian believes in). In fact using this same "God Delusion style" reasoning (i.e. improbabilty of coming about by pure chance = improbability of existence) Richard Dawkins himself "almost certainly does not exist". (This is because he would be far more improbable by chance then his books which are vastly improable by chance, hense using the same "logic" Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist").
-
inkling
the bogus reasoning of equating improbability of coming about by pure chance, with improbability of existence.
Ok, then what is stopping me from simply claiming that a "fine-tuned" and ordered universe has always existed?
Richard Dawkins himself "almost certainly does not exist". (This is because he would be far more improbable by chance then his books which are vastly improable by chance, hense using the same "logic" Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist").
Ok, this is just silly and quite missing the point. We can fairly assume that Dawkin's exists because we understand (fairly well) the highly ordered and complex process that makes new people, some of the scientists, and some of them writers, etc... EXPLAINING the arising of this complexity is what science tries to do.
Complexity "regress" is unavoidable in every day life, because almost EVERYTHING in the world is far too complex and ordered to simply come from thin air, AND we happen to be able to observe the process that creates these complex things. This "regress" is then understandably traced back though a chain of cause/effect, back through a fetus, back though sperm and egg cells, back through DNA, and eventually back to amino acids. Complicated, sure, compared to nonliving rock, but still far simpler than a person.
Were do amino acids come from? Well, they are working on that. How does positing that a (obviously complicated) master worker god is hovering over the universe GET us anywhere? It takes the attempt to explain complexity backwards through a long chain of progressively "simpler ---> more complex" things, and just resets the whole thing, losing what explanatory progress we have made.
[inkling]
-
inkling
And she is a woman who hates guys like me?
Huh?Sorry, this seemed funny at 2am....
I was attempting to say that a universe which intentionally creates "male rivals"
such as the one pictured clearly isn't looking out for the romantic interests of
geeks like me.It was a thin "joke", half baked and not very funny.
[inkling]
-
hooberus
inkling, before moving on to other points what about my first question to you?
Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
Fine-Tuning Design Argument:These arguments (if even valid) get you at BEST to a very weak form of deism.
A "watchmaker" god.
This of course, though possible, doesn't get us ANYWHERE, because no matter
how vastly improbable amino acids and fine tuned forces are, a intelligent
Watchmaker God must be far more so.And even if this "god" exists, it is not anything remotely like the god of
the bible.So yeah, I think "no evidence" is the only fair and open minded conclusion.
[inkling
And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance?
-
inkling
inkling, before moving on to other points what about my first question to you?
And why would a creator God necessarily be "far more so" improbable than say the vastly improbable origin of life from non-life, or the origin of fine-tuning by chance?
Hmmm... Well, are you claiming that the creator is SIMPLER than his creation?
This does indeed happen in nature, to be sure:I hold that a eye is a very complex "creation" that was brought about by it's very simple
"creator"; natural selection, working on variations within a population in a specific environment.But if indeed "god" is "simpler" that the universe, he can hardly be an all knowing designer worth
worshiping... He would be more like a limited mad scientist who got in over his head and the universe
quickly got away from him, and became far more complex that him....rather like a child playing with a nuclear missile silo- the kid is far "simpler" than the complex,
profound, far reaching consequences of his actions, and therefore it can be said that he sparked
the whole thing, and is the "creator" of the mess in some crude way, but we would not say the kid
"designed" the situation in any meaningfully evil way.So therefore I suggest that in order for a creator to be credited as a intelligent, competent,
intentional designer of a universe, he must be AT LEAST as complicated as the universe.I (with the proper training) could design a computer, but I cannot design a computer more complicated
than my brain, without the help of other brains, or the help of other already complex systems
or programs that I didn't design, and don't fully understand.So even if a creator was only exactly as complex as the universe, I would say that saying that
either the "chance" of the universe OR it's designer just popping into existence is equally as
absurd.However, it strikes me as just as absurd that either the universe or it's creator has always existed.
All four possiblilites make my brain hurt equally.
So either the universe popped in existence, or it has always been here. I don't like it, but
that's the brute fact. I only "deal" with this mystery because it seems clear to me that the universe
DOES indeed exist, despite my headache.Why complicate things by positing ANOTHER complex thing (a designer) outside the universe that
is at least as absurd as the universe itself is?So, I ask you again: "what is stopping me from simply claiming that a "fine-tuned" and ordered
universe has always existed?"i.e. the universe "is" god.
[inkling]
-
5go
I think most misunderstand what an atheist is; one who lacks a theology. You don't believe in Norse mythology so the makes you a Norman atheist.
The main problem with the argument most make for supporting god is that their god exist and their ideas (theology) is 100% correct about him.
An extra dimensional being with the power to create things from thin air may exist; it would be hard, and possibly impossible to prove that though. Also, one thing is certain man's past ideas about God or the god's were wrong, and are not supported by the evidence at hand.
-
PrimateDave
So, this thread has been resurrected. Okay, I'll play along just for kicks.
I was recently reading the book Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler. It is a dystopian sci-fi novel set near L.A., California, in 2025-2027.
What makes this book relevant to the discussion at hand is the concept of god presented by the author. Allow me to indulge in a little cut and paste: ;)A lot of people seem to believe in a big-daddy-God
or a big-cop-God or a big-king-God. They believe in
a kind of super-person. A few believe God is another
word for nature. And nature turns out to mean just
about anything they happen not to understand or
feel in control of.
Some say God is a spirit, a force, an ultimate reality.
Ask seven people what all of that means and you'll
get seven different answers. So what is God? Just
another name for whatever makes you feel special
and protected? ...
Is there a God? If there is, does he (she? it?) care
about us? Deists like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas
Jefferson believed God was something that made
us, then left us on our own. ...
In the book of Job, God says he made everything
and he knows everything so no one has any right to
question what he does with any of it. Okay. That
works. That Old Testament God doesn't violate the
way things are now. But that God sounds a lot like
Zeus-- a super-powerful man, playing with his toys
the way my youngest brothers play with toy soldiers.
Bang, bang! Seven toys fall dead. If they're yours,
you make the rules. Who cares what the toys think.
Wipe out a toy's family, then give it a brand new
family. Toy children, like Job's children, are
interchangeable.
Maybe God is a kind of big kid, playing with his toys.
But what if all that is wrong? What if God is
something else altogether? ...
We do not worship God.
We perceive and attend God.
We learn from God.
With forethought and work,
We shape God.
In the end, we yield to God.
We adapt and endure,
For we are Earthseed,
And God is Change.
God is Power--
Infinite,
Irresistible,
Inexorable,
Indifferent.
And yet, God is Pliable--
Trickster,
Teacher,
Chaos,
Clay.
God exists to be shaped.
God is Change.
This is the literal truth.
God can't be resisted or stopped, but can be shaped
and focused. This means God is not to be prayed to.
Prayers only help the person doing the praying, and
then, only if they strengthen and focus that person's
resolve. If they're used that way, they can help us in
our only real relationship with God. They help us to
shape God and to accept and work with the shapes
that God imposes on us. God is power, and in the
end, God prevails.
But we can rig the game in our own favor if we
understand that God exists to be shaped, and will be
shaped, with or without our forethought, with or
without our intent.
That's what I know. That's some of it anyway. I'm not
like Mrs. Sims. I'm not some kind of potential Job,
long suffering, stiff necked, then, at last, either
humble before an all-knowing almighty, or
destroyed. My God doesn't love me or hate me or
watch over me or know me at all, and I feel no love
for or loyalty to my God. My God just is.
Not saying I'm a believer, but the concept presented by the author is thought provoking, nonetheless.
Dave