1818 replies to this topic

[johnross47]

1. In a "proof" further back he says as one of his premises that the universe has a cause and that cause is god......does not accept that putting your desired conclusion in the argument as one of the premises, without any evidence for the validity of the premise, is completely wrong?

That's why I expressed surprise that shadowhawk teaches logic at university. He would HATE me if I sat in his class. I'd get a juicy fat F haha..

But the point is no one can answer these questions. They're in humanity's future, and they're for science to carefully unravel. I don't blame anyone for needing religious faith. This is a hard, cruel world with many ongoing tragedies. If god-belief helps, then great! Kudos! Just don't attempt to argue truth merits to speculative claims that've been passed down through generations of confused people. We're all confused! If god exists he loves beetles (thousands of species of beetles) and he loves confusion.

Can the explain how you make the leap from the conclusion that the universe has a cause to the unlinked belief that therefore there is god. These are relevant questions because Christianity depends on there being a god for Jesus to be the son of.

No one can explain that leap. We pat poor shadowhawk on his head and give him the sad news that he's just like all the rest of us poor schmucks: clueless.

He teaches logic? At a university? Really? Which one; there's not a lot in Scotts Valley since Bethany U. closed down in 2011.

[DukeNukem]

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Remember, at one point we couldn't explain how the sun moved across the sky without claiming gods did it. Eventually, science will prevail to show a godless Big Bang, too.

[sthira]

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Some natural human desires are in vain; we may have desires for which no object exists. I desire to see an extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker; I cannot. Desire for God doesn’t prove that God exists; God's discovery in the known world might prove that God exists.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

A desire for something "which nothing in time... can satisfy" is by definition not rational. Our desires may be emotional and not rational. Our desire for a supernatural being outside of time is emotional and not rational.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

And this "something ... people call 'God'" is faith. Faith in the supernatural that exists outside of the space-time universe remains irrational by definition. It shall remain faith until god is shown to exist and proven rational. Until then, we know that we don't know.

2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We have no more scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe coming out of nothing than we do for a perpetually existing universe. The burden of proof remains upon you.

We may play by similar logic, too. If I say something doesn’t have a cause, it doesn’t have a cause. I say the universe doesn’t have a cause.
Therefore, the universe doesn’t have a cause. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

We have no evidence for either. I have no claim; the intellectually honest position is that we don't know.

3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

I love Leibniz, too, but philosophers have successfully argued that a contingent being or state of affairs is a being or state of affairs that may exist, but it doesn't have to – its nonexistence is logically possible. That is, god may be real or god may be imaginary. We don't know.

4. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing language are designed

If evolution is true, then creationism is false, and therefore God doesn’t exist. Creationism can’t be true, since we lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause us to be uncomfortable. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

[johnross47]

johnross47

Here is where I discussed with you before premise 2. It seems you are asking the same thing over and over and acting as if I nor anyone else would answer you.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619845

I ask the question over and over because despite your assertions, it has not been answered; simply repeating the argument which I say is invalid, is not answering the objection to the argument.
the fundamental problem with all of these arguments is that they are trivial semantic tricks, but they have other flaws as well. The argument concerning what an atheist is supposed to say about the universe having no cause (which as usual you just pasted from Craig....why not speak for yourself?) suffers from the simple flaw of being a straw man; "the atheist" which one is that then?.....probably the ideal atheist for Craig's purpose conjured out of his wishful thinking. It also depends on a misrepresentation of what some atheists say about the universe. Most statements I have come across, about the universe, from atheists or agnostics, are hypotheses, not declarations of faith. Many mathematical cosmologist (whose maths is way beyond my understanding) also make hypotheses, not statements of purported fact, concerning the origins or possible eternity of the universe. What all these people are doing is suggesting possible answers and scenarios for discussion. So when Craig says
Premise 2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

What, then, about premise 2? Is it more plausibly true than false? Although premise 2 might appear at first to be controversial, what’s really awkward for the atheist is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. (Two statements are logically equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together.) So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the contingency argument? He typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Since, on atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact. But that is logically equivalent to saying this:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2: if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

.....he is indulging in dishonesty as well as cheap semantic trickery. "Nothing new there", to quote you
We could more usefully say that if atheism is true then we have no current explanation for the universe's existence. This a perfectly reasonable thing to say; it merely acknowledges our current state of ignorance; it says that if god is not an acceptable explanation we will have to look for another. Additionally as always, you cannot use god as part of the proof of god, except in the situation where he is clearly standing in front of you. If you have already proved god exists you can use him as part of an argument to prove something else.

[shadowhawk]

DUKENUKEM
Remember, at one point we couldn't explain how the sun moved across the sky without claiming gods did it. Eventually, science will prevail to show a godless Big Bang, too.

What faith. Off topic. Read;
http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

sthira:
Some natural human desires are in vain; we may have desires for which no object exists. I desire to see an extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker; I cannot. Desire for God doesn’t prove that God exists; God's discovery in the known world might prove that God exists.

And this "something ... people call 'God'" is faith. Faith in the supernatural that exists outside of the space-time universe remains irrational by definition. It shall remain faith until god is shown to exist and proven rational. Until then, we know that we don't know.

uIf evolution is true, then creationism is false, and therefore God doesn’t exist. Creationism can&rsqo;t be true, since we lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause us to be uncomfortable. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Another version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I desire to see things that do exist but I have never seen them. I assume the extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker did exist. Desire for God in the known “real,” world is obvious. This argument, like all proofs is not absolute. There is no absolute proof of anything in science only proof in the form of probability. That is the nature of these “proofs.”

Abstract objects exist outside the space-time universe and nothing could be more rational. Faith is the evidence of things not seen and is close to belief in probability.

Theistic evolutionists, of which there are many, believe God created using the methods of evolution. Therefore your statement is false that God does not exist if evolution is true.

johnross47

You aren’t following the argument. As I told you I do not want to get derailed by having to go back again to something we dealt with some time ago. After I finish talking about evolution we can spend some time on it again if you wish.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 November 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[johnross47]

I've only been partly following the argument because I've been away from my computer; my office ceiling came down on top of it (this is an old building) and it's taken a few weeks to get everything back together. Reading topics like this on a Nexus 7 is not easy; you can only see a small part at a time. I am however, now back in my office.

[sthira]

I desire to see things that do exist but I have never seen them.

But you may also desire things that may not exist. Your feelings of desire don't mean the objects of your desire exist in the material world. You may desire simething real or imaginary (I wish I could fly). Your desire for god doesn't show God's existence. It indicates that you desire God's existence.

This argument, like all proofs is not absolute. There is no absolute proof of anything in science only proof in the form of probability. That is the nature of these “proofs.”

Of course, and scientists are usually the first to admit no proofs are strictly absolute. Yet we can show higher probability for hypotheses by replicating. We have no way of testing for the existence of god in a way that's scientific. Maybe that'll change in the future. But for now, religion is anecdotal, and desire is in your mind. Science is sometimes anecdotal, too, but scientific data may be retested and verified, or refuted and debunked.

Abstract objects exist outside the space-time universe and nothing could be more rational. Faith is the evidence of things not seen and is close to belief in probability.

No. Until we show otherwise, nothing abstract or material exists beyond the space-time universe. All else remains speculative. It may exist within the imagination or mathematical formulae, but we're guessing.

Theistic evolutionists, of which there are many, believe God created using the methods of evolution. Therefore your statement is false that God does not exist if evolution is true.

As a logic professor at a university, you'll recognize that this is an appeal to authority. In my own statement I was merely employing your own logic in the opposite direction, and I've no claim in the god/no-god argument here beyond my plain thesis that we know that don't know if god exists or not.

[shadowhawk]

sthira
But you may also desire things that may not exist. Your feelings of desire don't mean the objects of your desire exist in the material world. You may desire simething real or imaginary (I wish I could fly). Your desire for god doesn't show God's existence. It indicates that you desire God's existence.

ShadowHawk SH Flying exists. I can’t desire anything that doesn’t exist in reality.

Of course, and scientists are usually the first to admit no proofs are strictly absolute. Yet we can show higher probability for hypotheses by replicating. We have no way of testing for the existence of god in a way that's scientific. Maybe that'll change in the future. But for now, religion is anecdotal, and desire is in your mind. Science is sometimes anecdotal, too, but scientific data may be retested and verified, or refuted and debunked.

SH: Science, to its credit is almost always wrong. Science is not the only wayto know something.

No. Until we show otherwise, nothing abstract or material exists beyond the space-time universe. All else remains speculative. It may exist within the imagination or mathematical formulae, but we're guessing.

SH: The number 2 is beyond space time and existed before the Big Bang. Math is the most basic science.

As a logic professor at a university, you'll recognize that this is an appeal to authority. In my own statement I was merely employing your own logic in the opposite direction, and I've no claim in the god/no-god argument here beyond my plain thesis that we know that don't know if god exists or not.
SH: Then why are you arguing for your ignorance? I am not disputing you.

[shadowhawk]

SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
“The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a tragedy by William Shakespeare. Set in the Kingdom of Denmark, the play dramatizes the revenge Prince Hamlet exacts on his uncle Claudius for murdering King Hamlet, Claudius's brother and Prince Hamlet's father, and then succeeding to the throne and taking as his wife Gertrude, the old king's widow and Prince Hamlet's mother. The play vividly portrays both true and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of treachery, revenge, incest, and moral corruption.”

If our only real world that exists is Hamlets, and we lived and had our being in that world of Denmark with its characters, beauty, and tragedy, what would be the evidence that Shakespeare existed? The atheists would say there is no Shakespeare and someday Science will show he doesn’t exist. It is a brute fact Denmark is the only thing that exists. Reason shows us there is nothing outside of Denmark.

But, the believers argue, “why is there something rather than nothing?” “Look, there us an alphabet of 26 letters arranged in a way that it tells us the story of our lives that takes mind and intelligence. Even the letters follow rules which themselves are not material and come from a mind with a will. There must be a Shakespeare.

“No,” the atheists say, “Our lives must be caused by monkeys.” There is no Shakespear. ???

[sthira]

SH: Then why are you arguing for your ignorance? I am not disputing you.

I am arguing for my ignorance (stating that I don't claim to know what I don't know) because it is honest to remain humble when we don't know things. When we claim to know what we cannot show to be verifiable in the known world then we are not rational. Admission of the unknown and the mysterious should make us curious. Ignorance may be a virtue when ignorance is a conscious starting point. We need ignorance as a conscious starting point to begin inquiries into what's mysterious. Making unfounded claims, spreading dogma, and pasting successfully rebutted ideas as if they're fresh and new is an unconscious ignorance. Awake: in terms of "logic", as you've moved from atheist to theist you've moved logically backwards. Admission of ignorance is a step in your journey on your way back to reality. Or not: it's your own personal journey and no one else's.

[sthira]

If our only real world that exists is Hamlets, and we lived and had our being in that world of Denmark with its characters, beauty, and tragedy, what would be the evidence that Shakespeare existed?

But we don't. We live in the real world right now. We don't live within the plays of Shakespeare. The evidence that Shakespeare lived is verifiable: we have his work. He was a man like other men who lived in a different time period.

The atheists would say there is no Shakespeare and someday Science will show he doesn’t exist. It is a brute fact Denmark is the only thing that exists. Reason shows us there is nothing outside of Denmark.

Atheists don't deny Shakespeare's existence. Atheists deny God's existence.

But, the believers argue, “why is there something rather than nothing?” “Look, there us an alphabet of 26 letters arranged in a way that it tells us the story of our lives that takes mind and intelligence. Even the letters follow rules which themselves are not material and come from a mind with a will. There must be a Shakespeare.

Humans invented alphabets. Alphabets grew out of the evolution of human experience. Alphabets were not real objects that existed in the natural world -- like giraffes -- until humans created alphabets. We created alphabets in order write down spoken language and to pass information onto succeeding offspring.

“No,” the atheists say, “Our lives must be caused by monkeys.” There is no Shakespear.

Human lives are not caused by monkeys. We are one species of mammal in a world with many other species of mammals. All mammals are our relatives on planet earth; some mammals are more closely related than others. Humans are closely related to many species of great apes -- pan bonobo is believed to be our closest great ape relative.

[sthira]

Flying exists. I can’t desire anything that doesn’t exist in reality.

Your inability to desire things that do not exist isn't consistent with the experience of others. Most healthy people have no trouble desiring things they recognize may not exist.

Science, to its credit is almost always wrong.

Without the advances of science you would not now have the luxury of sitting at your computer typing the words you're about to type next. Science gave you the luxuries you now claim are "almost always wrong." (sic)

Science is not the only wayto know something

We may know things beyond science. But since you're here attempting to show that god is proven by science, we're here to tell you that you're misapplying science. You've only offered unscientific claims that god exists.

The number 2 is beyond space time and existed before the Big Bang.

Nope. Numbers are symbols invented by humans who existed in the real world. Numbers are tools we invented; they are used for counting. Archeologists hypothesize that numbers were used by people as long as 30,000 years ago. This hypothesis is based on evidence found in the archeological record uncovered here on planet earth.

[shadowhawk]

sthira
I am arguing for my ignorance (stating that I don't claim to know what I don't know) because it is honest to remain humble when we don't know things. When we claim to know what we cannot show to be verifiable in the known world then we are not rational. Admission of the unknown and the mysterious should make us curious. Ignorance may be a virtue when ignorance is a conscious starting point. We need ignorance as a conscious starting point to begin inquiries into what's mysterious. Making unfounded claims, spreading dogma, and pasting successfully rebutted ideas as if they're fresh and new is an unconscious ignorance. Awake: in terms of "logic", as you've moved from atheist to theist you've moved logically backwards. Admission of ignorance is a step in your journey on your way back to reality. Or not: it's your own personal journey and no one else's.

ShadowHawk, SH OK, you convinced me you know nothing, but you keep arguing as if you do. How do you know I have moved backwards when you don’t know.

Humans invented alphabets. Alphabets grew out of the evolution of human experience. Alphabets were not real objects that existed in the natural world -- like giraffes -- until humans created alphabets. We created alphabets in order write down spoken language and to pass information onto succeeding offspring.

SH: Alphabets http://en.wikipedia....of_the_alphabet Indeed were invented by intelligent humans who created symbols to represent real things in the world in which they found themselves. The things they came to represent as intelligent symbols, exist in and of themselves and are not symbols. Which came first, the real objects or the symbols words came to represent. I am talking (symbols) about the real world.

Human lives are not caused by monkeys.

SH: You totally missed the point of the video. The video never said such a thing, I never said they were and don’t believe they were. Obviously you don’t know.

Your inability to desire things that do not exist isn't consistent with the experience of others. Most healthy people have no trouble desiring things they recognize may not exist.

SH: Name me something you desire that does not have some kind of existence.

Without the advances of science you would not now have the luxury of sitting at your computer typing the words you're about to type next. Science gave you the luxuries you now claim are "almost always wrong." (sic)

SH: Most of this has nothing to do with anything I said. Straw man! Are you claiming that Science is not often wrong?

We may know things beyond science. But since you're here attempting to show that god is proven by science, we're here to tell you that you're misapplying science. You've only offered unscientific claims that god exists.

SH: Where did I try to prove God by Science? You can’t even prove science by science. Another straw man. And I am misapplying science!

Nope. Numbers are symbols invented by humans who existed in the real world. Numbers are tools we invented; they are used for counting. Archeologists hypothesize that numbers were used by people as long as 30,000 years ago. This hypothesis is based on evidence found in the archeological record uncovered here on planet earth.

SH: Numbers are a symbol, like language, a human system of logic which describes how the real world works. That is why physics and math are the queen of science. There is an abstract object two and we use the symbol 2 to represent it. Nope what? What has this to do with anything I said?

[shadowhawk]

What we have argued so far, using Evolution as an argument for the existence of God.

1. Evolution is a string of cause and effects clear back to the Big Bang, which itself needs a cause. We called this chain of cause and effect, The Yellow Brick Road where evolution leads us to the necessary being, God. This is the real world. The evolving physical world is incapable of explaining itself. Evolution involves movement from one cause to an effect. Anything that moves, needs a cause for its movement. Evolution moves. The Kalam leads us to the end of the road, God.

2. Is this all just due to mindless random chance? That is the faith of Atheists. So, we turned to another obvious fact in the real world. Intelligent design. Humans, the result of Evolution we are told, are intelligent designers. That means evolution must lead is to intelligent design. Intelligent design is part of the real world, if you don’t believe me look in the mirror. We started off with Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Could random chance have produced the play? Is there evidence of a Shakespeare in Hamlet? http://www.longecity...120#entry624716
We started off with monkeys showing random chance could not produce Hamlet or any writing of Shakespeare. We them turned to scientist (and Christian) Dr. Francis Collins who was head of the Genome project, mapping the DNA. From him we learn what a monumental discovery this is, far exceeding Hamlet. The story of life, in the DNA code. Finally, we showed the amazing code itself.

Want to see hot debate on the topic of intelligent design?
http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 November 2013 - 11:36 PM.

[johnross47]

SH: Alphabets http://en.wikipedia...._the_alphabet Indeed were invented by intelligent humans who created symbols to represent real things in the world in which they found themselves. The things they came to represent as intelligent symbols, exist in and of themselves and are not symbols. Which came first, the real objects or the symbols words came to represent. I am talking (symbols) about the real world.
There are unjustified implications hidden in here, which could be pulled out later to unjustifiably support another point. The first words may well have referred to real objects, though we won't ever know, but at some point words also began to be used for hypotheticals and unknowns. We don't know, but assume that the real objects existed before the words; in many cases, such as water, stone, wind etc. this is fairly safely certain. In the case of ideas such as life force/spirit etc. it is not. It is not even certain that they exist at all.
Most of this has nothing to do with anything I said. Straw man! Are you claiming that Science is not often wrong?

Science admits when it is wrong. Science is a method and process of constantly examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from that. Bad scientists, such as Ancel Keys for example, are eventually found out and their work is replaced with something better. Much of the accepted body of modern science is quite clearly right, in as much as all the technology etc. clearly works. On the theoretical side, the predictive power of the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly strong. Intelligent design makes no predictions.

Name me something you desire that does not have some kind of existence.
I desire to fly unaided like Superman. I desire to live indefinitely until I choose to die.
What we have argued so far, using Evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
What you have unsuccessfully argued. We have argued something else.

Evolution is a string of cause and effects clear back to the Big Bang, which itself needs a cause. We called this chain of cause and effect, The Yellow Brick Road where evolution leads us to the necessary being, God. This is the real world. The evolving physical world is incapable of explaining itself. Evolution involves movement from one cause to an effect. Anything that moves, needs a cause for its movement. Evolution moves. The Kalam leads us to the end of the road, God.
The first sentence makes sense. The rest is unsupported supposition and assertion.

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk: SH “Alphabets http://en.wikipedia...._the_alphabet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet Indeed were invented by intelligent humans who created symbols to represent real things in the world in which they found themselves. The things they came to represent as intelligent symbols, exist in and of themselves and are not symbols. Which came first, the real objects or the symbols words came to represent. I am talking (symbols) about the real world.”

johnross47
There are unjustified implications hidden in here, which could be pulled out later to unjustifiably support another point. The first words may well have referred to real objects, though we won't ever know, but at some point words also began to be used for hypotheticals and unknowns. We don't know, but assume that the real objects existed before the words; in many cases, such as water, stone, wind etc. this is fairly safely certain. In the case of ideas such as life force/spirit etc. it is not. It is not even certain that they exist at all.

SH: Are you telling me ideas are not real? Tell that to Plato. http://www.drury.edu...ason/Ideas.html
You jumped into this conversation with someone else. Did you expect me to understand what you were referring to when you used the words, “life force/spirit?” Is physics real?

SH: “Most of this has nothing to do with anything I said. Straw man! Are you claiming that Science is not often wrong?”

johnross47
Science admits when it is wrong. Science is a method and process of constantly examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from that. Bad scientists, such as Ancel Keys for example, are eventually found out and their work is replaced with something better. Much of the accepted body of modern science is quite clearly right, in as much as all the technology etc. clearly works. On the theoretical side, the predictive power of the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly strong. Intelligent design makes no predictions.

SH: Now that you have given us a lecture on Science, is there anything above that contradicts what I said? Intelligent designers do make predictions and so does ID. However that is another topic. Are you also telling me, “Science is not often wrong?” http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129 I have been making a case for God evidenced by evolution. So far you have said nothing.

SH: “Name me something you desire that does not have some kind of existence.”

johnross47
I desire to fly unaided like Superman. I desire to live indefinitely until I choose to die.
What we have argued so far, using Evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
What you have unsuccessfully argued. We have argued something else.

SH: There are men, some of them super. We have learned how to fly using various means. You know what it is to live for a long time and you know what it is to choose. Right now you are choosing not to die. You have limited determinism as far as choices but nothing you mentioned as I said “does not have some kind of existence.”

|

SH: “Evolution is a string of cause and effects clear back to the Big Bang, which itself needs a cause. We called this chain of cause and effect, The Yellow Brick Road where evolution leads us to the necessary being, God. This is the real world. The evolving physical world is incapable of explaining itself. Evolution involves movement from one cause to an effect. Anything that moves, needs a cause for its movement. Evolution moves. The Kalam leads us to the end of the road, God.”

johnross47
The first sentence makes sense. The rest is unsupported supposition and assertion.

SH: I love it, this declaration is not an argument. Talk about unsupported supposition and assertion. That is all this is. You wish it was so!

[johnross47]

SH: “Most of this has nothing to do with anything I said. Straw man! Are you claiming that Science is not often wrong?”

johnross47
Science admits when it is wrong. Science is a method and process of constantly examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from that. Bad scientists, such as Ancel Keys for example, are eventually found out and their work is replaced with something better. Much of the accepted body of modern science is quite clearly right, in as much as all the technology etc. clearly works. On the theoretical side, the predictive power of the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly strong. Intelligent design makes no predictions.

SH: Now that you have given us a lecture on Science, is there anything above that contradicts what I said? Intelligent designers do make predictions and so does ID. However that is another topic. Are you also telling me, “Science is not often wrong?” http://www.longecity.../#entry537129 I have been making a case for God evidenced by evolution. So far you have said nothing.
Sarcastic remarks befitting a "teacher from hell" do nothing to advance the argument. This is not a lecture on science; it is a comparison between science, which has often been wrong and religion which has always been wrong. Science constantly appraises and alters its view in accordance with the latest evidence; most religion does not; ID and its variants are an attempt to use pseudo-science and superficial compliance with scientific method to fake up an argument in support of the same old religious position its proponents have always held.

SH: Are you telling me ideas are not real? Tell that to Plato. http://www.drury.edu...ason/Ideas.html
You jumped into this conversation with someone else. Did you expect me to understand what you were referring to when you used the words, “life force/spirit?” Is physics real?

More "teacher from hell" fury. You should get your blood pressure checked. At least you're using a source that's not your usual..........
I. the difficulty of arriving at the Forms "from the bottom up" (i.e., by beginning with sense experience), since:
a) it is hard to see how muddling about in the domain of multiple, different, changing, particular, imperfect entities would lead to a single, unchanging, general or universal, perfect "idea" or Form of something, and
b) it would appear that even to recognize what is before one (as a triangle, a square, as beautiful, etc.), one must already have access to the Form as the standard or paradigm by which an entity in the sense world is "known."

the problem with this sort of argument, despite its long and frequently fruitful history, is that is an attempt to explain natural phenomena without sufficient information about the body. If Plato were around now he might well be a neuro-psychologist because that is precisely the kind of question now being asked; how does the brain construct meaning and concepts? Some face recognition theories, for example, refer to ideal or average faces. There is not however any suggestion that these have any real existence outside of the current temporary organisation of the individual neural structure; the average moves from moment to moment, shifting in response to the faces recently seen. People do construct concepts such as the idea of a triangle; if people became extinct , three sided objects would continue to exist but the concept of triangles would vanish because it is just a temporary neural construct. You can't have a real ideal triangle because triangles vary; what you have is a list of properties of triangles which have been extracted from experience by brains; some of these properties are common to all triangles but the common properties are not sufficient to define any particular example, only to show that the example complies with triangularity. Concepts are made by people; they have no real existence outside of brains.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47
Science admits when it is wrong. SH: Does it really? Science is a method and process of constantly examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from that. Bad scientists, such as Ancel Keys for example, are eventually found out and their work is replaced with something better. Much of the accepted body of modern science is quite clearly right, in as much as all the technology etc. clearly works. On the theoretical side, the predictive power of the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly strong. Intelligent design makes no predictions. SH : The history of science is full of the wrecks of things most believed by scientists. It is always changing but this is not to say science never gets something right.

ShadowHawk: Now that you have given us a lecture on Science, is there anything above that contradicts what I said? Intelligent designers do make predictions and so does ID. However that is another topic. Are you telling me Science is not often wrong?

johnross47
Sarcastic remarks befitting a "teacher from hell" do nothing to advance the argument. This is not a lecture on science; it is a comparison between science, which has often been wrong (SH: Isn't this what I said?) and religion which has always been wrong. Science constantly appraises and alters its view in accordance with the latest evidence; most religion does not; ID and its variants are an attempt to use pseudo-science and superficial compliance with scientific method to fake up an argument in support of the same old religious position its proponents have always held.

Despite your usual logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks, you don’t even know what the topic of discussion is. The topic is “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY?” You are an excellent name caller, not just of me but anything you disagree with. http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

johnross47
More "teacher from hell" fury. You should get your blood pressure checked. At least you're using a source that's not your usual..........
I. the difficulty of arriving at the Forms "from the bottom up" (i.e., by beginning with sense experience), since:
a) it is hard to see how muddling about in the domain of multiple, different, changing, particular, imperfect entities would lead to a single, unchanging, general or universal, perfect "idea" or Form of something, and
b) it would appear that even to recognize what is before one (as a triangle, a square, as beautiful, etc.), one must already have access to the Form as the standard or paradigm by which an entity in the sense world is "known."

the problem with this sort of argument, despite its long and frequently fruitful history, is that is an attempt to explain natural phenomena without sufficient information about the body. If Plato were around now he might well be a neuro-psychologist because that is precisely the kind of question now being asked; how does the brain construct meaning and concepts? Some face recognition theories, for example, refer to ideal or average faces. There is not however any suggestion that these have any real existence outside of the current temporary organisation of the individual neural structure; the average moves from moment to moment, shifting in response to the faces recently seen. People do construct concepts such as the idea of a triangle; if people became extinct , three sided objects would continue to exist but the concept of triangles would vanish because it is just a temporary neural construct. You can't have a real ideal triangle because triangles vary; what you have is a list of properties of triangles which have been extracted from experience by brains; some of these properties are common to all triangles but the common properties are not sufficient to define any particular example, only to show that the example complies with triangularity. Concepts are made by people; they have no real existence outside of brains.

So you are arguing with Plato! Your arguments are not real, because they are ideas made by your brain. Your brain is real but what it does isn’t!. Your points are not real because the only real things are physical. Hmmm, sounds ^%(@$% to me. Well back to evolution and we may discuss "consciousness," as an argument for the existence of God later. Just an idea Happy triangle!

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 November 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[sthira]

So you are arguing with Plato! Your arguments are not real, because they are ideas made by your brain. Your brain is real but what it does isn’t!. Your points are not real because the only real things are physical. Hmmm, sounds ^%(@$% to me. Well back to evolution and we may discuss "consciousness," as an argument for the existence of God later. Just an idea Happy triangle!

Have you spent time in university studying Plato's work? Or even read his writing? If you have, you'll recognize the Plato (and Socrates) encouraged us students to doubt, to challenge dogma, to call out dishonest sophistry when we encounter it.

When ideas are shown to be retarded, Plato (and Socrates) encouraged us to challange them and govern our behavior appropriately. We change, ideas change, Plato encouraged fluidity of thinking, and we who have studied his work are entirely confident that Plato (and Socrates) would have loved nothing more than to have their beliefs and conclusions challenged outright and in a clear, plain voice. Their open-minded attitudes and practices are why we adore Socrates, Plato, even Aristotle. Contrast their open-minded liberal thinking with that of static religious dogma (eg, do the j-money jesus way or go to hell) and the former is way refreshing.

We see this reflected in you: you've been repeatedly shown you're mistaken in much of your copy and paste bold big-fonted words, and yet you keep shouting on and on in your threatening little charming cardboard cutout manner. Stick around and keep proselytizing for Jesus -- you're great, ur amusing us! Dance, little puppet for j-dolla bill.

[johnross47]

You've challenged me the same way before.....outraged or astonished that I might challenge an old idea. Plato lived 2500 or so years ago. Its not surprising his ideas are old. Knowledge has moved on. Religion has stayed still. Look at what Plato said and think how you would ask the same question now?
Id

[shadowhawk]

sthira:
Have you spent time in university studying Plato's work? Or even read his writing? If you have, you'll recognize the Plato (and Socrates) encouraged us students to doubt, to challenge dogma, to call out dishonest sophistry when we encounter it.

When ideas are shown to be retarded, Plato (and Socrates) encouraged us to challange them and govern our behavior appropriately. We change, ideas change, Plato encouraged fluidity of thinking, and we who have studied his work are entirely confident that Plato (and Socrates) would have loved nothing more than to have their beliefs and conclusions challenged outright and in a clear, plain voice. Their open-minded attitudes and practices are why we adore Socrates, Plato, even Aristotle. Contrast their open-minded liberal thinking with that of static religious dogma (eg, do the j-money jesus way or go to hell) and the former is way refreshing.

We see this reflected in you: you've been repeatedly shown you're mistaken in much of your copy and paste bold big-fonted words, and yet you keep shouting on and on in your threatening little charming cardboard cutout manner. Stick around and keep proselytizing for Jesus -- you're great, ur amusing us! Dance, little puppet for j-dolla bill.

The subject is not Plato or his works which I have studied in depth. I don’t think Plato has much to do with this. Contrary to your reprehension of Plato being a enemy of religion, Plato has had a tremendous impact on Christianity but that is another topic.

I started the “Is There Evidence for Atheism??” topic. Was I proselytizing for them?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885

Despite having more than a chance to present the case for Atheism, like you, they spent their time calling Christians names and violating the forum rules we have all agreed to. YOU TOO.
http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

I responded to the Atheists insanity after giving them plenty of rope to show what they were made of.
http://www.longecity...360#entry621042

Now you.

johnross47
You've challenged me the same way before.....outraged or astonished that I might challenge an old idea. Plato lived 2500 or so years ago. Its not surprising his ideas are old. Knowledge has moved on. Religion has stayed still. Look at what Plato said and think how you would ask the same question now?
Id

Still talking about Plato. Not only that, you are just calling his ideas names without any content.

http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 November 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[sthira]

First you say:

Are you telling me ideas are not real? Tell that to Plato. http://www.drury.edu...ason/Ideas.html

Then when someone explains, you say:

So you are arguing with Plato! Your arguments are not real, because they are ideas made by your brain. Your brain is real but what it does isn’t!. Your points are not real because the only real things are physical. Hmmm, sounds ^%(@$% to me.

Then when I respond:

...Plato encouraged fluidity of thinking, and we who have studied his work are entirely confident that Plato (and Socrates) would have loved nothing more than to have their beliefs and conclusions challenged outright and in a clear, plain voice. Their open-minded attitudes and practices are why we adore Socrates, Plato, even Aristotle.

You default to your Off Topic predictability:

The subject is not Plato or his works which I have studied in depth. I don’t think Plato has much to do with this. Contrary to your reprehension of Plato being a enemy of religion, Plato has had a tremendous impact on Christianity but that is another topic.

A few questions. First, do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

A few more questions. Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?

[johnross47]

sthira
"A few questions. First, do you read responses? If so do you understand what you've read? Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

A few more questions. Do you write? Are you able to form your own thoughts and express them, or is it all just copy, paste, and videos of others' ideas? Do you have thoughts on these matters you're able to communicate?"

I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up. He raised Plato but apparently we are not allowed to comment on Plato.

So you are arguing with Plato! Your arguments are not real, because they are ideas made by your brain. Your brain is real but what it does isn’t!. Your points are not real because the only real things are physical. Hmmm, sounds ^%(@$% to me. Well back to evolution and we may discuss "consciousness," as an argument for the existence of God later. Just an idea Happy triangle!

This passage is a perfect example of the incoherent rage and misrepresentation that he resorts too. Yes of course I'm arguing with Plato; Aristotle was the first in a long line of people to do so when he became an Impiricist; does that make Aristotle a criminal? Plato's words are not holy writ. All of these ancient philosophers were attempting to answer questions about the world and our experience of it, but without the benefit of modern scientific discoveries.
Then he says my ideas are not real because they are made by my brain. I think this is meant to be some sort of sarcastic satire of what I said, but it shows that either he doesn't understand the point or is happy to misrepresent it; I suspect a bit of both. To make it quite clear; a brain is real but in a state of constant change; thoughts are real transient states of the brain and may represent real objects or imagined ones. An example of a real object is a stone; an imagined object might be a construct made of bits of real objects and abilities, like a fairy; an imagined unreal object might conceivably be a god but in fact most of them apart from their supernatural powers are just constructs taken to the extremes, and the supernatural powers are extreme extensions of real powers. Can we imagine something that doesn't have a least some relation to known real things? Ghosts and spirits? Perhaps, but they probably arose from wrong interpretation of real events. A modern version of Plato's questions might be, how do the transient Planck-time states of the brain create our experience of a continuous world full of things "out there"
Evolution is a fascinating topic but has no bearing on god or no-god as far as I can see. There is a tricky task for some traditional religions to incorporate it but except for the biblical literalists and their ilk in other religions it's not insurmountable.

[sthira]

I have asked him these questions too; over and over, and never had a meaningful answer. He raises a point then abuses you for being "off topic" or calls your answer a logical fallacy, but without ever offering any argument to back this up. He raised Plato but apparently we are not allowed to comment on Plato.

Yeah, I agree he's a funny fellow. Generally, I'm not too interested in religious people or thought, and I'm not quite sure why I keep posting stuff here. SH is amusing, but I agree I'd like to see more original thought, and less of other people's ideas. If I want to know what some Jesus channel darling has to say I guess I'd find it on my own. He appears to be proselytizing for whatever reason, who knows.

Can we imagine something that doesn't have a least some relation to known real things? Ghosts and spirits? Perhaps, but they probably arose from wrong interpretation of real events.

I agree. And I'd add that religion is more about feeling than thinking. Our ancestors used god to survive hardships, and probably didn't have much time for questioning. As god has moved from heart to head, emotion to intellect, god has mostly dried up and blown away. We created god then we killed the idea, and not everyone has gotten the news. But for me I keep the door for god open -- who knows if god exists? No one knows. Many people still feel god, and they need no arguments for god's existence. Maybe SH appears to not feel god too much and so he needs to prove it to us all. Or whatever the motivations.

What are your intentions anyway, dear Shadowhawk?

[shadowhawk]

The above 3 posts by sthira and johnross47 are off topic and against the forum user rules which prohibits attempts to derail a topic by such tactics. See what people like them did to “Is there evidence for Atheism??”
http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817
http://www.longecity...ce-for-atheism/
http://www.longecity...360#entry621042

I have answered the 3 above posts elsewhere for those interested.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry625429

Evolution defeats this and sthira and johnross47 are themselves evidence for the existence of God. See next.

[johnross47]

"I have answered the 3 above posts elsewhere for those interested.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry625429

Evolution defeats this and sthira and johnross47 are themselves evidence for the existence of God. See next. "

Unfortunately none of these statements are true, or supported by any evidential backup. The link above just returns you to the same post that we already disposed of in the posts SH doesn't like; it offers no answers to anything at all. As I said before, repeating an argument that someone has refuted, is not the same as answering the refutation. All of the points I have made, apart from condemnatory comment on SH's style, are in direct response to points made by SH. You may have started the topic SH but you don't own it. You can't decide what arguments people are allowed to use. If you make a post in support of your view you have to accept that it is open to examination; when you quote Plato for your own purposes you are making Plato part of the topic; we are allowed to pursue that train of ideas; the fact that you don't like the results does not make it "off topic".

Whatever it is we are to "see next", I hope it is in your own words, properly argued and evidenced and please, not another tedious clip of WL Craig.

[sthira]

I have answered the 3 above posts elsewhere for those interested.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry625429

On topic would might be if you related your own story of transformation from atheist to theist. I think your personal conversion may be interesting and informative, and might provide insights to the relevant topic.

On topic are the questions -- what were the circumstances surrounding your conversion? Were you facing a life struggle, an injury, or a tragic event? Did you have dreams or visions? Did god come to you in a voice or a light or an overall body sensation? Did you suddenly just "know" god's truth? Or did you arrive at it through study, meditation and contemplation?

[shadowhawk]

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be according to atheistic naturalism and I assume according to johnross47, sthira and others. I am discussing evolution as it relates to evidence for God.

The atheist view:
1: Knowledge (epistemology) is the result of evolution.(the random chance Varity) which explains why there is no Shakespeare or creator of the universe. Everything is ultimately the result of random chance acted upon by natural selection. New information, necessary for evolution, is only by random chance operated upon by natural selection. Your DNA, design and brain are nothing more than pure random chance.

2: Causal explanations (etiology) are the tendency to explain all events mechanistically (from the Big Bang to the choices we make each day), which implies a kind of determinism.

3: Humans that exist (ontology) are based on the assumption that only physical things exist. We are, like the cosmos, only physical.

If this is true, out goes God, the soul’s existence and that of free will, moral obligations, and evil. I also suggest out goes any hope of eternal life because the brute fact is, the cosmos is dying. If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose. So much for life extension.

We are told that a atheistic naturalist view is the only reasonable one but is it? Lets compare them.

1. In the real world (Self-) consciousness exists.
A. Theists say, God is supremely self-aware/-conscious.
B. Atheists say, The universe was produced by mindless, non-conscious processes.
2. In the real world, personal beings exist.
A. Theists say, God is a personal Being.
B. Atheists say, the universe was produced by impersonal processes.
3. In the real world, We believe we make free personal decisions/choices, assuming humans are accountable for their actions.
A. Theists say, God is spirit and a free Being, who can freely choose to act (e.g., to create or not).
B. Atheists say, We have emerged by material, deterministic processes beyond our control.
4. In the real world, secondary qualities (colors, smells, sounds, tastes, textures) exist throughout the world.
A. Theists say, God is joyful, and secondary qualities make the world pleasurable and joyful to His creatures.
B. Atheists say, The universe was produced from colorless, odorless, soundless, tasteless, texture less particles and processes.
5. In the real world, We trust our senses and rational faculties as generally reliable in producing true beliefs.
A. Theists say, a God of truth and rationality exists.
B. Atheist Naturalists say, because of our impulse to survive and reproduce, our beliefs would only help us survive, but a number of these could be completely false. More on this later.
6. In the real world, human beings have intrinsic value/dignity and rights.
A. Theists say, God is the supremely valuable Being.
B. Atheists say, human beings were produced by valueless processes.
7. In the real world, Objective moral values exist.
A. Theists say, God’s character is the source of goodness/moral values.
B. Atheists say, the universe was produced by nonmoral processes.
8. In the real world, the universe began to exist a finite time ago — without previously existing matter, energy, space, or time.
A. Theists argue, a powerful, previously existing God brought the universe into being without any pre-existing material. (Here, something emerges from something.)
B. Atheists say, the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing — or was, perhaps, self-caused. (Here, something comes from nothing.)
9. First life emerged.
A. Theists say, God is a living, active Being.
B. Atheists say, life somehow emerged from nonliving matter.
10. In the real world, The universe is finely tuned for human life (known as “the Goldilocks effect” — the universe is “just right” for life). Our next evidence for God.
A. Theists argue, God is a wise, intelligent Designer.
B. Atheists argue, all the cosmic constants just happened to be right; given enough time and/or many possible worlds, a finely tuned world eventually emerged.
11. Beauty exists — not only in landscapes and sunsets but in “elegant” or “beautiful” scientific theories. Design.
A. Theists say, God is beautiful (Psalm 27:4) and capable of creating beautiful things according to His pleasure.
B. Atheistic Naturalists say, beauty in the natural world is superabundant and in many cases superfluous (often not linked to survival).
12. In the real world, we (tend to) believe life has purpose and meaning. For most of us, life is worth living.
A. Theists believe, God has created/designed us for certain purposes (to love Him, others, etc.); when we live them out, our lives find meaning/enrichment.
B. Atheists believe this life is all there is. There is no cosmic purpose, blueprint, or goal for human existence. They are the real deathists.
13. In the real world, both ---real evils moral and natural — exist/take place in the world.
A. Theists argue, Evil’s definition assumes a design plan (how things ought to be, but are not) or standard of goodness (a corruption or absence of goodness), by which we judge something to be evil. God is a good Designer; His existence supplies the crucial moral context to make sense of evil.
B. Atheists argue, atrocities, pain, and suffering just happen. This is just how things are — with no “plan” or standard of goodness to which things ought to conform.
Which view best fits the real world, theism or Atheism? Evolution, if you are a theist, includes both purpose and design, while for the Atheist there is no purpose or design.

Next, we will see how evolution defeats atheistic naturalism.

[shadowhawk]

"I have answered the 3 above posts elsewhere for those interested.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry625429

Evolution defeats this and sthira and johnross47 are themselves evidence for the existence of God. See next. "

Unfortunately none of these statements are true, or supported by any evidential backup. The link above just returns you to the same post that we already disposed of in the posts SH doesn't like; it offers no answers to anything at all. As I said before, repeating an argument that someone has refuted, is not the same as answering the refutation. All of the points I have made, apart from condemnatory comment on SH's style, are in direct response to points made by SH. You may have started the topic SH but you don't own it. You can't decide what arguments people are allowed to use. If you make a post in support of your view you have to accept that it is open to examination; when you quote Plato for your own purposes you are making Plato part of the topic; we are allowed to pursue that train of ideas; the fact that you don't like the results does not make it "off topic".

Whatever it is we are to "see next", I hope it is in your own words, properly argued and evidenced and please, not another tedious clip of WL Craig.

Off topic
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

You love just calling names. Why don’t you deal with what Craig says than engage in logical fallacies.
Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Just answering you if off topic.

[johnross47]

I've thought about it long and hard and I have to say, you are a waste of my time. You don't actually take part in the conversation; you post other people's arguments, usually WL Craig's bad ones, and then abuse anyone who disagrees with them. You are in constant breach of the rules of the forum. I have made proper points against Craig over and over but you have never once answered with anything except abuse.