This is not an argument against God on scientific grounds but against a certain understanding of God on moral grounds.
But we’re then just arguing about the pond freezing over. Who on earth says that there is intelligence involved? Your question is the the same question writ large.
Morality is also an emergent property. If a way of acting which has evolved to deal with certain aspects of life aligns with what we have agreed is beneficial then we describe it as being good.
Eternity is outside of time, no past or future—an eternal present, meaning always has been. Time and matter had a beginning.
Understand that the cosmos is made up of systems governed by laws. God created the laws of nature.
Understand the concept of design and purpose. Rain itself has a purpose, as it is a function of the Eco-System. All the system which make up the cosmos have a functional purpose. Even you are made up of systems designed for a specific purpose, from the ears on your head, to the teeth in your mouth, to your stomach; the food hanging from trees, to the small hole in your rear end; these all have a functional purpose. The purpose of your entire existence is to seek God, thus everyone is naturally drawn to harmony and beauty, and know the difference between goodness and evil. Evil is the misuse of something that has a purpose. To miss this point is to miss the point of existence itself, and then life is reduced to a sequence of meaningless entertainments which lead to nothing but a waste of existence, and time is always running out.
That’s like saying you don’t believe it’s possible to exist yet you exist. The problem is that you are confusing yourself.
Realize that no evidence will suffice for someone who does not want to believe. The problem is that Atheism is not a rational conclusion, it is a psychological condition, thus the atheist makes irrational arguments, such as claiming that harmony is accidental with no purpose.
Understand once and for all that it is impossible for a rational universe to bubble up accidentally. The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is a big fat clue that the cause of the universe is rational.
Why not. It’s a simple, straightforward evolutionary process. From reacting to external stimulus, to the storage of that information, to basic consciousness to self awareness and thence intelligence.
If the universe was irrational, we wouldn’t be here talking about it. It’s because it is rational is why we are here. But you don’t need a cause to result in order. It’s an emergent property of a rational universe. And maths is simply a mental construct we use to talk about it. Maths would be equally valid in describing any number of universes in which we could not exist.
This universe isn’t a watch on the beach. We can see that all it contains has happened naturally. There is no argument about that. We know pretty much how it all came to be. So the only room for a god is at the begining.
But what makes you assume that whatever it is you think started everything still exists in the eternal present?Bradskii:
Eternity is outside of time, no past or future—an eternal present, meaning always has been. Time and matter had a beginning.
That’s a religious viewpoint. Not scientific. And starting with a premise that God created the laws when we are investigating if the laws give us an indication God exists is something of a circular argument.
I’m afraid that is very wrong indeed. You’ll be telling us next that water was designed by God so that fish have something in which to swim.Bradskii:
Understand the concept of design and purpose. Rain itself has a purpose, as it is a function of the Eco-System.
I think that the irony of writing a sentence that was even more convoluted than the original to emphasise how wierd it was is lost on you.Bradskii:
That’s like saying you don’t believe it’s possible to exist yet you exist. The problem is that you are confusing yourself.
I didn’t realise I was suffering from a psychological condition. And in any case, the point being made was that it’s nonsense to ask someone who doesn’t believe someone’s evidence to prove that he or she doesn’t believe it. The onus of proof is on the person presenting the evidence. Which, by the way, does not take the form: God made the rules.Bradskii:
Realize that no evidence will suffice for someone who does not want to believe. The problem is that Atheism is not a rational conclusion, it is a psychological condition…
And see two posts up for the final part of the response. Too many characters for this post and a fourth post in a row is not allowed.Bradskii:
Yes. The problem is that you are claiming that harmony is accidental and without a purpose. When one builds on error, all conclusions will be in error. Thus an error in the beginning is an error indeed.
So if I investigate and find no purpose, it is an error on my part. But if you start your investigation having already decided before you start that there is purpose, that’s OK?Bradskii:
Yes. The problem is that you are claiming that harmony is accidental and without a purpose. When one builds on error, all conclusions will be in error. Thus an error in the beginning is an error indeed.
I haven’t made an error because I haven’t said you have to prove anything. I’m simply showing you that by your logic neither do I. Thus the burden of proof is even. I haven’t made a claim.
Agreed. And the mental exercise is worthwhile. But in the end I think most people even those who follow a faith would admit they don’t know, if they are being entirely honest.
Really? I find it to be refreshingly honest and open minded. There is clearly order, and I can understand the logic that it stemmed from something beyond (even if I don’t hold that position myself) but there being no evidence of it being “personal”.
Yes, and the key component of the property is logic. Without logic order is impossible. Realize that logic is independent from matter; your intellect is not coming from the substances that make up your brain but rather from a reality outside matter itself, what philosophers call a soul. Thus science will tell you that the universe- time and matter-came into existence from a cause outside of time and matter itself.
Where does this duty come from? Are you referring specifically to the subject of whether or not there is a god, or claims in general? If Joe believes in Bigfoot, I don’t feel and duty to investigate the possibility of Bigfoot just because he made a claim about it. I’d have to feel compelled by either curiosity, boredom, wanting to prove Joe wrong or because I believe knowing the answer would be beneficial to my well being.
I didn’t say that millions were martyred (though they have been and why you think we should naturally dismiss the Jews makes no sense to me) I said millions have died for their faith. Many willingly offering themselves as sacrifices directly, or having gone to fight on behalf of their faith, etc.
Most monotheists I have discussed with differed from you in making the claim that other gods don’t exist. Refreshing to find one who allows for the existence of other deities. (though honestly I thought monotheism by definition claimed that there was only one god)
Not sure, maybe time will tell?
I can only speak for myself. I first came here at the request /challenge of a family member and pop back in from time to time because the discussion is interesting. I don’t come here asking questions about God.
I tend to agree. The default ‘We don’t know’ leaves a lot of options open. Except a personal God, which I am pretty certain does not exist.niceatheist:
Really? I find it to be refreshingly honest and open minded. There is clearly order, and I can understand the logic that it stemmed from something beyond (even if I don’t hold that position myself) but there being no evidence of it being “personal”.
Define intelligence. Are we speaking of consciousness? Something more? It’s too important a concept to leave undefined.
So the theists keep warning me, insisting that I believe everything is an accident (in spite of us agreeing there is order in the Universe) and telling me that I MUST feel like my life is meaningless, which I don’t, or that my existence is pointless. Nope again. So, as I said before using logic might be intellectually stimulating and interesting but it doesn’t speak to the reality of the experience of those who hold those beliefs.
Faith is also a psychological condition and makes irrational arguments. Nor have I heard atheists claim that harmony, existence, or anything else is truly accidental. There is order and everything that is or occurs is the result of it. No more of an accident than anything a deity does.