Posts by towerwatchman

And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being. OK after reading that I'm officially awarding towerwatchman the royal fruit cake award.

And the insults continue.

Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.

The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.

So on behalf of Plato, Aristotle, Moses Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Sir Isaac Newton I accept the ‘fruit cake award’.

Note: When in ‘check mate’ dishonest scholarship takes the last position of ‘ignorance’, by attacking the character of its opponent and not addressing the material at hand.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

Towerwatchman You have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.

Nothing rehearsed. Copy and paste yes. Either my work or if someone else, cited.

The thing is we have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to preach exactly the same stuff. You have a style that makes conversation impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful conversation?

Yet to this point no rebuttal with substance. Read the responses, most responses to my OP are rude. Why engage that, I will just go for the jugular in the argument and capitalize. All my post respond to some point made. Now if you find dishonesty, don’t tell me about it, point it out.

Let's go back to your OP. You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.

Anyone who is affirming a negative absolute would need unlimited knowledge.

1 - To be an atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means "without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.

When it comes to the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2 Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or deny the existence of deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then want to change the definition. What it comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity based on irrationality, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas. Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say ‘man up’. If Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism, and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.

2 - You have failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.

Again a supernatural being with intelligence.

I am willing to assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...
1 - By "god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a relationship with humans.
2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.

This god does not exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being self-refuting is wrong.

Atheism is not the denial of the Judeo Christian God but any deity. So follow the Atheist worldview and prove that no deity can exist.

Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.

But since you are so eager to disprove the Judeo Christian God, who am I to spoil your joy. Go ahead I will play your game.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Finkelstein

If natural law is omniscience then natural law must be god......... problem solved

Well it is not.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To cofty

TWM - Your intellectual dishonesty makes conversation impossible.

Care to point one out

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Finkelstein

The odds of the essential elements coming together over time by chance to form the initial building blocks of one cell is a statistical impossibility.
Not in the acceptance and understanding of molecular biology. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue or irrelevant.

"To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2}^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.

Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.

Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].

Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because a there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site is a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195. 1chance in 10^195.

Taking this into account only causes the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chance or the genetic information to produce them, to balloon beyond comprehension. In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K.

[There are 10^65 atoms in our galaxy]”

[Stephen C. Meyer]

Your faith is based on something you cant even logically define and is notably structured around ancient mythological expressions ( the supernatural ). When you base your proven facts solely upon beliefs, your facts aren't verifiable. Scientifically acquired knowledge and acceptance of that acquired knowledge is based upon observation of physical evidence, not imaginary beliefs, therefore it carries with itself a higher level of perspective reality.

I fully agree. My belief that a cell could not evolve based on slime plus time is proven by science. Again my belief is based on observation and physical evidence, yours belief in a prebiotic soup is based on imagination. One thing is for sure, you as an Atheist have a tremendous amount of faith compared to me a mere Christian. But to each his own, I by logic and reason, you by faith alone.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To slimboyfat

Yes it is.
Atheists hold two contradictory beliefs at once.
1. That human rationality is a result of natural selection shaped for survival not a God given faculty for seeing the world as it really is.
2. Human rationality can be relied upon to deliver a reliable answer to questions such as "does God exist?"
One or the other assumption has to give.

True if rationality evolved over time then, when it comes to truth, we cannot have any confidence in it because evolution aims not at truth but at survival. Any answers would have been selected on either pragmatic or utilitarian bases, because that view aims at survival and not truth.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

It is just a way of saying you can't work out how rationality contributes to human survival or perhaps was a side-effect of other evolutionary changes.

If your moral beliefs evolved over time then we cannot have any confidence in them because evolution aims not at truth but at survival, then the morals would have been selected on either pragmatic or utilitarian bases, because that view aims at survival and not truth

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Slimboyfat

theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)

Thoughtful atheists do try to provide arguments against God's existence. Undoubtedly, the most important of these is the problem of suffering. When you consider the extent and that of suffering in the world, whether due to natural disasters or to man's own inhumanity to man, then you had to admit that it's hard to believe in God. The horrible suffering in the world certainly seems to be evidence of God's absence. But as one colleague once wisely remarked to me, as a philosopher I am called upon to say what I think about some questions, not how I feel about it. And as difficult as the problem of suffering may be emotionally, that is no reason in and of itself to think that God does not exist.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

How can it be illogical to fail to believe irrational claims about invisible supernatural beings? Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe". I just find christian theism to be on a par with all other superstitions and I don't believe it. If evidence is ever presented to support it I am listening.

No one ‘fails’ to believe. One either believes it or not. Notice the contradicting statements. “Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe" vs “and I don't believe it.” Which is it?

Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.
Yes.

“Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. [JJC Smart].

Answering ‘yes’ is not a flattering state of affairs. Following the soft atheist to a logical conclusion all you are giving me is a report of the state of your mind. And pity would be the appropriate response from me.

towerwatchman

Posts by towerwatchman

To Finkelstein If natural law is omniscience then natural law must be god......... problem solved Well it is not.

To Finkelstein

If natural law is omniscience then natural law must be god......... problem solved

Well it is not.