Satanus, no need to search too hard for a professional atheist.
There are a few around in other threads. And when all else fails, there's always Dawkins, the patron saint of atheists around here, it seems!
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Satanus
That's cool then, Christalone. A misunderstanding.
S
-
sabastious
That's just exactly my point. Why doesn't it make sense? You can't prove Zeus didn't create everything. You're just speculating! The Greeks got it wrong! Now prove me wrong!
This is a common atheist argument, and I have to admit it makes some sense. However, it's highly suspect coming from someone who never believed in the theology they are defending. It just wreaks of bad form to me. Get an ancient Grecian in here for Christ's sake! Oh wait, they are all gone. All we have is historians and theologians now whom are subject to error and decrepency.
What proof could you offer that I didn't open the book in the last year? The book is Lord of the Rings and it's a used copy I bought 10 years ago. Prove I haven't opened it in the last year.
Nice hijack. Now we are discussing on the terms of your analogy and not the topic at hand which is subject to written criteria. The burden of proof is satisfied by the existence of everything. Was it an intelligent Creator? Your book analogy, while a nice piece of philsophy, doesn't answer anything, it's just a justification that you use to resolve dissonance. This is great for you, but it doesn't help me at all because the analogy is insufficient to disprove the existence of an intelligent creator present during the Big Bang.
-Sab
-
sabastious
The central claim is "the universe was created by an intelligent being" so that I would assume that support for this claim would not entail any weasel words as if the claim where "the universe might have been created by an intelligent being." In this way, the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is the most applicable summarization to the claim given your argument which likewise was not formulated as a potential: "I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything." Thus switching the affirmative into a potential or changing it to a question does not really work.
Of course might is not conclusive, I never suggested that it was. Lets take a look at the definition of might:
might /mit/
Verb: In reported speech, expressing possibility or permission. Now lets look at the word possibility:
pos·si·bil·i·ty /?päs?'bil?te/
Noun: - A thing that may happen or be the case.
- The state or fact of being likely or possible; likelihood.
Once the possibility is established, which is an extremely important juncture, then motivation is established to proceed and a directive is created. We are corporeal beings that suffer from the effects of entrophy. Because of this limitation we require some sort of value for what we pursue, even merely an intellectual pursuit. The argument that atheists seem to make is that making the attempt to understand "God" is not even worth proceeding with in the first place. They say that the probability of us coming to being merely by ourselves (without God) is MORE probable than coming to being by an intelligent design. However, I do not believe that atheists can conclusively assert that the probability of God (creator) is less than the probability of spontaneous creation without intelligence.
-Sab
-
sabastious
you didn't prove anything
Yes I did. The known world operates on fixed laws. Our existence is proof of that. Who created the laws?
Yet for thousands of years this intelligent designer has allowed confusion and conflicting ideas to abound, yes?
There has been no confusion, only conflict resulting in confusion. We don't start out confused, we start out with understanding and then lies from opposing intelligence consumes us and we become confused. The reason you cannot prove that we didn't start out confused is that you don't have the data. Unless you call ancient wall paintings and god statues data, which it is, just not well understood, because we have been lied to.
If the goal was just to create something, and sit back and watch it destroy itself
The goal is to win and by winning I mean prosperity for all. No senseless death, suffering etc. Science seems to imply they could be heading in that direction. I have watched a lot of Michio Kaku and he doesn't rule out the possibility. He also says that we could all be corpses floating in space one day while other life considers us a "failed type 0 species."
-Sab
-
sabastious
Where does the bible say that god did the big bang?
I made a thread about how the God Particle is an explanation for Genesis 1:1.
-Sab
-
sabastious
Current knowledge is insufficient to disprove that proposition. So what?
If this is true it would make anyone who claims God cannot exist a liar. Many claim this and many more will soon. It is of my opinion that both Religion and Science are under brutal attack by people who want nothing but power. That's not the foundation you use to start a new world order. Governments are established by God, not man.
-Sab
-
EntirelyPossible
I made a thread about how the God Particle is an explanation for Genesis 1:1.
And your position was utterly destroyed by the fifth reply. The Higgs-Boson has nothing to do with Genesis or the bible.
Seriously, Sab, I don't want to get into this with you again, but you are making stuff up again, misunderstanding science, posting logical fallacies and untrue things again.
Yes I did. The known world operates on fixed laws. Our existence is proof of that. Who created the laws?
No one "created" them. No one decided the speed limit of light in a vacumn was going to be a certain speed and nothing else. You haven't proven anything. You have simply made an unproven assertion.
We don't start out confused, we start out with understanding and then lies from opposing intelligence consumes us and we become confused.
Unproven assertion.
The reason you cannot prove that we didn't start out confused is that you don't have the data.
Which is the exact same reason your previous statement was an unproven assertion.
If this is true it would make anyone who claims God cannot exist a liar.
The god as described in the Bible? Thor? Zeus? Define the specific attributes first. Then we'll see who's confused and who is lying.
Governments are established by God, not man.
So God is responsible for government massacres? Not surprising given his raping, pillaging and murdering in the OT. You worship a monster. Thankfully he's imaginary or else I would have to shoot him in the head to save billions of more lives.
-
Finkelstein
Scientific discovery and acquired knowledge is much more substantiated toward a rational perceived acceptance of reality as
opposed to induced imaginary story telling perceived from human ignorance.
-
sabastious
All definitions of creationism are limited by the culture that created them and carry that cultures motifs ( Middle East creationism references concepts such as the firmament, Tasmanian creationism has knee less humans with kangaroo tails and so on.)
Curious that you would say this when the OP definition doesn't fit your criteria.
It makes an observation: there are universal laws. Then it makes a hypothesis: those universal laws were created by an intelligent being. Then I test that hypothesis: I became a tradesman.
Now this is not conclusive proof of intelligent design, but it does satisfy the burden of proof. Now, the hypothesis can be proven, or it can be disproven. When both methods are used you then tally up how many "proofs" you have and how many "disproofs" you have. If you have more proofs than disproofs you have a confirmed theory. If you have more disproofs than proofs you have an unconfirmed theory. However the testing is personal, not extrapersonal.
The test doesn't have to be "I became a trademan" it can also be "I felt God in my body and he directed me to a book." In fact it all depends on the individual which means that God meant for individuals to choose WHY He is real. Which disproves the the need for an organizational religious strutcure to be imposed upon a populace. Organizations should be organically structured, not mechanically structured based on the ideology of only a few chosen elites.
-Sab