Rationality - God cannot not exist

[Pete Crowther]

I just finished reading Antony Flew’s book ‘There is a God’. Great book! He was an atheist and philosopher for decades and has only recently adopted a ‘theistic’ position. His book is a logical explanation of why he now calls himself a ‘theist’. A recommended read for all I reckon.

“The world is rational. The relevance of this rationality is that the order of the world reflects the order of the supreme mind governing it. The reality of rationality cannot be evaded with any appeal to natural selection. Natural selection presupposes the existence of physical entities that interact according to specific laws and of a code that manages the processes of life. And to talk of natural selection is to assume that there is some logic to what is happening in nature (adaptation) and that we are capable of understanding this logic.”
Kurt Godel

“The very real rationality that underlies our thinking and that we encounter in our study of a mathematically precise universe could not have been generated by a rock. God is not an ultimate brute fact, but the ultimate Rationality that is embedded in every dimension of being…. God cannot not exist…. There can be rationality in the universe only if it is grounded in ultimate rationality.… It is incoherent, then, to suggest that consciousness and thought are simply and solely physical transactions.”
Roy Abraham Varghese

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Ah one of our Cut & Paste Specialists is here - long time no see...
So why do you recommend it? Where's the logic in it?
And don't do what others do (people have said stupid shit like "There is so much evidence for God I'll let you find it yourself" because that doesn't work)

[TÐöer]

I just finished reading Antony Flew’s book ‘There is a God’. Great book! He was an atheist and philosopher for decades and has only recently adopted a ‘theistic’ position. His book is a logical explanation of why he now calls himself a ‘theist’. A recommended read for all I reckon.

“The world is rational. The relevance of this rationality is that the order of the world reflects the order of the supreme mind governing it. The reality of rationality cannot be evaded with any appeal to natural selection. Natural selection presupposes the existence of physical entities that interact according to specific laws and of a code that manages the processes of life. And to talk of natural selection is to assume that there is some logic to what is happening in nature (adaptation) and that we are capable of understanding this logic.”
Kurt Godel


There is no presupposition. Kurt Godel definately, doesn't know what he is saying. This law mentioned, is something that we can observe today. And logically, it would have remained the same previously, even without any divine influence.

This law I am refering to, is natural selection. A person, or living being will always choose a mate it deems to have the best traits.

It's obvious isn't it? That creatures will have different traits, and the weaker ones will eventual go extinct.

There has been plenty of examples of this, such as the selective breeding by farmers. To say that this law cannot be observed or understood, is a self discrediting statement. (I could name you a few examples if you want)

"The reality of rationality..." who uses these kinda terms anyway, what is it suppose to mean? is it intended to make a person sound smart?


“The very real rationality that underlies our thinking and that we encounter in our study of a mathematically precise universe could not have been generated by a rock. God is not an ultimate brute fact, but the ultimate Rationality that is embedded in every dimension of being…. God cannot not exist…. There can be rationality in the universe only if it is grounded in ultimate rationality.… It is incoherent, then, to suggest that consciousness and thought are simply and solely physical transactions.”
Roy Abraham Varghese

"God is not an ultimate brute fact, but the ultimate Rationality that is embedded in every dimension of being" - now this is a supposition.

How does 1 know, that God exist before you jump to the conclusion, that his existence is embeded in every being??

What is the "Rationality" which is described here, before immediately, attributing it to God??

The existence of Complex, algorithm, and how stuff works, does not prove the existence of God. It just prove, how complicated things, can come into being through these processes. It goes all the way down, to just a single rock and brute force.

And, then again, when all this is said and done, how do you know, it was your God? and not gods of other religions who made it?

[TÐöer]

To add on further.... What we do know, is that stuff exist, and alot of these stuff seems so brilliant. Theists' question is... how come it's so brilliant? There must be a creator.

Well, it's like this. In another existence, where the laws don't happen to be as such, things don't happen. The reason, why you can observe all these brilliant laws, is because these brilliant laws made you able to observe them, and exist in this reality. Could this have occured without God? Yes, by chance. A dice can fall to any number without God's influence of it's outcome.

Could those brilliant laws be prove of God? No it can't it could be anything, how can it be proof of God? eg. A man exist. that does not mean, he must have been to Australia, though it is infinitely possible that he may or may not have gone there. His existence or the fact that he may be born in Australia is not proof whether he has been to Australia. This is a supposition!

idiot's aid (was compelled to do this just incase): Where "existence of the man" being the brilliant laws, and "been to Australia", as the conclusion "God exist". "Maybe born in Australia", as being the supposition of "God could do it if he existed".

[Pete Crowther]

To add on further.... What we do know, is that stuff exist, and alot of these stuff seems so brilliant. Theists' question is... how come it's so brilliant? There must be a creator.

Well, it's like this. In another existence, where the laws don't happen to be as such, things don't happen. The reason, why you can observe all these brilliant laws, is because these brilliant laws made you able to observe them, and exist in this reality. Could this have occured without God? Yes, by chance. A dice can fall to any number without God's influence of it's outcome.

Could those brilliant laws be prove of God? No it can't it could be anything, how can it be proof of God?

Absolutely ludicrous! You criticise the 'theists' for assuming the existence of a Creator because as you say "alot of this stuff seems so brilliant". Yet you seem to be willing to assume what is illogical based on the "brilliant laws" that you have observed. Your world view is based on chance and is statistically improbable. It points in the opposite direction to the "brilliant laws" that you have acknowledged exist. Your opinion therefore is not based on evidence. It is a rejection of the evidence and an active choice to believe in the improbable, rather than the probable.

Yes, a dice can fall to any number, but this is only considered 'chance' from our perspective because it is virtually impossible to predict. It is not chance in the true sense of the word, in the sense that it is completely random. Physicists and mathematicians would agree that you could know for certain which way the dice would fall if you knew the speed, starting position, angular velocity, friction, weight, starting height, distance, etc. of that which is thrown.

Additionally, you cannot use a dice as an example to support your point. To do so is illogical and makes gigantic leaps. We are not discussing the probability of matter organising itself in such a way that it becomes as complex as the world in which we live. The question you and I must answer is where the matter came from in the first place. Something cannot just come from nothing. Something eternal must be presumed because of the fact that stuff exists. It is either God that is eternal or matter which is eternal. You have to make your choice. But don't come up with silly suggestions that matter popped out of nowhere, without the initiative of God.

You said and I quote:
"The reason, why you can observe all these brilliant laws, is because these brilliant laws made you able to observe them, and exist in this reality."
Prove to me that this is the truth. Because as it stands, I have produced evidence to support my opinion and you have come up with an opinion devoid of evidence.

[Mister Pervert]

“The world is rational. The relevance of this rationality is that the order of the world reflects the order of the supreme mind governing it.

Ahoy Pete,

What "order"? A brick wall falls down and breaks up into bits on the ground. If there was any kind of rational order in the universe, that wall could re-assemble itself. "Probabilistic math" even allows for this, but also overwhelmingly predicts that is simply won't happen.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Yet you seem to be willing to assume what is illogical based on the "brilliant laws" that you have observed.
It's only illogical in your rather limited opinion. In fact, you haven't even indicated what you believe is being assumed, let alone how it is illogical.
Your world view is based on chance and is statistically improbable.
Which world view is this? Atheism? The disbelief in god/s isn't based on chance and certainly isn't statistically improbable, unlike god's existence.
If you're not referring to atheism, perhaps you can be more lucid in future. Remember, a succinct rant is a good rant.;)

It points in the opposite direction to the "brilliant laws" that you have acknowledged exist. Your opinion therefore is not based on evidence. It is a rejection of the evidence and an active choice to believe in the improbable, rather than the probable.
Wow, way to build on a false premise there but you're nothing if not symmetrical; finishing on a unsupported opinion regarding the probability of divinity.
Are you consciously aware that you're making a strawman, or are you just as shocked as the rest of us?
Suffice to say, until you somehow prove your first assertion and prove your position is the more probable one, you're just using fallacious logic.

Something cannot just come from nothing. Something eternal must be presumed because of the fact that stuff exists. It is either God that is eternal or matter which is eternal. You have to make your choice. But don't come up with silly suggestions that matter popped out of nowhere, without the initiative of God.
Unless you're a theoretical physicist or something similar, I doubt you have any qualification to assert where matter might have come from. As far as I'm concerned, matter/energy suddenly appearing is no more "silly" than the concept of an eternal god who spent an infinite span of time doing absolutely nothing before he decided to create a universe.
There are also theories that the universe expands and contracts in regular cycles, one being the Big Bang and the other the Big Crunch and that this is only one in an infinite series of universes.
Science doesn't know at this point. Better to admit your ignorance than to disguise your ignorance as an answer.
Prove to me that this is the truth. Because as it stands, I have produced evidence to support my opinion and you have come up with an opinion devoid of evidence.
The Doer made a logical statement based on the anthropic principle. It's essentially the same as saying that the man who has just won the lottery is only able to marvel at his luck because he's in a reality where he won the lottery.
By the same token, you can only observe the brilliant laws of nature (natural selection) because those brilliant laws (natural selection) resulted in (some) humans developing into intelligent animals capable of observing them.
If you can't grasp the logic, I can only suspect you're bitter that natural selection made your bloodline less cerebral and more suited to simple manual tasks.
As for this notion that your incoherent rambling somehow constitutes "evidence" of something other than confusion, you'll have to make the bits you believe are convincing bold in future posts, just so I know what the punchline is.

[TÐöer]

Absolutely ludicrous! You criticise the 'theists' for assuming the existence of a Creator because as you say "alot of this stuff seems so brilliant"..

Assuming is the right word. I completely, agree that all of science is beautiful, I never said otherwise. But to attribute that to God, is a complete shot in the dark.


Yet you seem to be willing to assume what is illogical based on the "brilliant laws" that you have observed. Your world view is based on chance and is statistically improbable.

Huh?

Which part was illogical? Let me try to make you understand better. Natural Selection, is part of this Brilliant Laws that we are discussing. It is something that you and I can understand is it not? If a child is born from parents who has features less then adaptable for his environment, eg. A European born in a hot place. Wouldn't he naturally have his parents less adaptive traits? Being less able to stand the desert heat, and less able to survive with little water. (Of course take away, our modern luxuries, of air conditioning, refridgeration, etc, since we were not born with it, and all these we developed much later)

Do yout think compared to the native the european will have a tougher time surviving and overall, the population of his kind in that area will be reduced?

Which part exactly do you not understand about natural selection that you feel is not a brilliant law probably created by God? (The scale of evolution out of consideration for the moment)


It points in the opposite direction to the "brilliant laws" that you have acknowledged exist. Your opinion therefore is not based on evidence. It is a rejection of the evidence and an active choice to believe in the improbable, rather than the probable.


I'm sorry, but Chance, is also a brilliant Law. You just used the word Statistics, in the same paragraph. What it just means is that things could happen, it is just a matter of time. If the chances to be struck by lightning is a million to 1. When you are struck, you don't say it is impossible.

Is this not true?

In this case, I have not given you evidence, because I thought there was no need to, because I thought it was a known fact. Don't worry, I shall explain to you each point in more detail.

ok, Evidence of Natural Selection:

Do you know the origins of the gold fish? How can a silly fish like that, which is not afraid of predators, breeds much less than other fish, and swims very slowly, ever come into being?

The creation of the goldfish, comes from active selection of the breeders. After cross breeding the fish, the most docile, and colourful fish were choosen, the rest were made into fish food. Down the line, the fish changed it's shape, colour, and behavior.

Same goes to the guppy in the drain. Why is it that fish from the same parentage, looks pretty in an aquariuim, but looses it's colourful tail when left to bred in a drain (not sure if you can see this, but it happens where I live).

I've also seen a documented case of wild foxes which were selectively bred in Russia as an experiment. The resulting foxes were of various colours, nothing like its parent. Someone also mentioned bacteria, and viruses, it goes the world around, and comes back again, because it has mutated into a more infections and resillient strain. All this was due to natural selection.

Then there are farm animals. The list is just too long, but before we talk about whether this law could create life. I'd first ask you, whether you finally realise that natural selection actually occurs in our reality.

These law, cannot just be conveniently denied because it does not suit God. It exist.


Yes, a dice can fall to any number, but this is only considered 'chance' from our perspective because it is virtually impossible to predict. It is not chance in the true sense of the word, in the sense that it is completely random. Physicists and mathematicians would agree that you could know for certain which way the dice would fall if you knew the speed, starting position, angular velocity, friction, weight, starting height, distance, etc. of that which is thrown.


Exactly! that's what I expect is the law of this reality. God, didn't blow at it, at the final moment, so it will drop just the way, that a Christian will win a million dollars. To think that, I am sure, you'd think it is far fetch, given all laws of reality, tells you that it is possible, without his interference.

And things can occur with various different outcomes, over time... all via chance, I don't need to prove this, cause you've already said it happens through natural causes.


Additionally, you cannot use a dice as an example to support your point. To do so is illogical and makes gigantic leaps. We are not discussing the probability of matter organising itself in such a way that it becomes as complex as the world in which we live.


Gigantic leaps? Consider this: Eternity. How many times do you think you'd be struck by lighting if you and the world existed that long? What are the odds? It's still a million to one. But I can tell you it will happen more times than we can count.

From what we can see from the laws of this reality, from the example you kindly shared with us, the occurance of any event, is just a matter of the sequence of events, the laws that play its part, which ultimately caused an outcome.

So how possible is it for things to rearrange itself, to create the universe? Very meek isn't it? Times that by eternity... the eternity, that you and I did not exist, to consider that there probably is no God, and things made no sense.


The question you and I must answer is where the matter came from in the first place. Something cannot just come from nothing. Something eternal must be presumed because of the fact that stuff exists. It is either God that is eternal or matter which is eternal. You have to make your choice..

We both know for a fact, that alot of things in this world, occurs through natural laws. And of course there are more laws yet to be discovered. Therefore if there was no God, it is 'possible' that all this things occured, with accordance to those laws.

So now, lets put both argument on the table, and compare them, we know that both possibilities are possible. The question is which is more likely and obviously true, according to our current grasp of knowledge.

Either God is eternal, or matter existed by itself. Matter, here would mean existence, and existence must have surely been eternal, if not God would not exist either. The keyword is 'exist'. Unless of course, you believe that there was an existence with God in it, who has always been there and there was nothing there except himself... void of anything. Then 1 fine moment in time he decided, to create the universe and fill it with matter.

1 fine moment, because it could not have been at the point of God's creation, since there was nothing before him, in such logic. We could only guess, what he did before he created the universe to keep him busy, maybe he created alot of worlds like ours then destroyed it, and recreated it... we can only guess.

Sorry I drifted off there it was a nice thought. Now, once again, lets consider, does a super powerful and complex God exist on it's own? or did meaningless matter and laws exist before him? It's obvious isn't it? It's easier to have simple brainless matter floating about in space, rather than a meaningful God, since brilliant laws, intentions, purpose, as you described it must have its maker. If you say no, then your concept that brilliant laws means there must be a brilliant maker is False.


But don't come up with silly suggestions that matter popped out of nowhere, without the initiative of God.


These are not suggestions, these are facts, just that you have not grasped it. But before we argue about this further, I'd like to know, whether my points to you on Chance, and Natural Selection are clear?


You said and I quote:
"The reason, why you can observe all these brilliant laws, is because these brilliant laws made you able to observe them, and exist in this reality."
Prove to me that this is the truth. Because as it stands, I have produced evidence to support my opinion and you have come up with an opinion devoid of evidence.
When you talk about your evidence, if you are refering to your description of how a dice falls in accordance to Brilliant Laws, well I acknowledge it above, that it further proves my point.

If you are refering to the comments you quoted, well, I have rebutted them, and I don't see how someone elses opinions can be considered facts, when they are not here, to receive my rebutal.

I hope you will answer all my points and not skip. Just like I have done. I tip my hat to you.

P.S. On reading back your first post, only did I realise the context in which the author was saying it. Which is, whether matter or God is eternal. That quote was all over the place, that I had to rebut the other points as well. Well, no harm, I've explained it in this post.

[TÐöer]

Thanks for the support Cosmic Teapot.

I think this is going to be an interesting discussion. We shall see whether things occur exactly as we predict. ;)

anyway, just to note, I posted my last post before I read yours. Ya completely agree with you on some things, like the question, of what was God doing during his eternity.

[SinisterDexter]

Your world view is based on chance and is statistically improbable.

This is categorically incorrect Pete and shows you do not understand "natural selection" or evolution.

Might I suggest to you a book I have been reading? The Greatest Show on Earth by the inimitable Dr Dawkins. It will explain to you, in painstaking detail made digestible to those who are not scientists, how national selection and evolution works. It is very much not by "chance".

[Jaar-Gilon]

“The world is rational. The relevance of this rationality is that the order of the world reflects the order of the supreme mind governing it. The reality of rationality cannot be evaded with any appeal to natural selection. Natural selection presupposes the existence of physical entities that interact according to specific laws and of a code that manages the processes of life. And to talk of natural selection is to assume that there is some logic to what is happening in nature (adaptation) and that we are capable of understanding this logic.”
Kurt Godel
“The very real rationality that underlies our thinking and that we encounter in our study of a mathematically precise universe could not have been generated by a rock. God is not an ultimate brute fact, but the ultimate Rationality that is embedded in every dimension of being…. God cannot not exist…. There can be rationality in the universe only if it is grounded in ultimate rationality.… It is incoherent, then, to suggest that consciousness and thought are simply and solely physical transactions.”
Roy Abraham Varghese ..........

........ I have produced evidence to support my opinion and you have come up with an opinion devoid of evidence

I can't see a jot of evidence Mr. Crowther and I'v got me really big glasses on!!
http://www.techdigest.tv/big-glasses.jpg

[wolty]

I can't see a jot of evidence Mr. Crowther and I'v got me really big glasses on!!
http://www.techdigest.tv/big-glasses.jpg


and your best nightie as well.:D

[kencooke]

But don't come up with silly suggestions that matter popped out of nowhere, without the initiative of God.



I think that this is really a variation of the first cause argument. The trouble with the first cause argument is that even if one accepts the argument as valid, it does not tell us what the first cause was. The first cause might be a god or it might not be.

[Jaar-Gilon]

But don't come up with silly suggestions that matter popped out of nowhere, without the initiative of God.
Yes, yes Pete that would be far sillier than the notion of god popping out of nowhere without the initiative of matter wouldn't it now! Stupid fricken atheists!!! Hang on a minute god isn't made of matter..........ah problem solved something made of nothing is no thing jeez that was pretty easy now wasn't it?

[Jaar-Gilon]

and your best nightie as well.:D
Yes it's a nice one isn't it dear?:)
It's the one I wear when I'm on the interwebs.:D

[wearestardust]

Two of the great pleasures of the interweb are (i) diverting threads and (ii) repeating, in a slightly different way, what's already been said. I'm going to indulge in the latter.

Pete, I've read carefully your various quotes and comments and it seems to me that your core thesis is this: something could not have come from nothing, therefore god did it. All the rest is frippery. Not much of a proposition. Not much of a god. Well, you asssert it, we think god is unnecessary and remain unconvinced.

Turning to the frippery that you are deploying to try and support your core contention: I'm afraid, as SinisterDexter has said fairly bluntly and others are implying, these are just showing your ignorance and, I'm sorry to say, laziness. You quote others saying someting like 'order cannot come from disorder by itself'. Well, there's plenty of science and evidence to suggest otherwise. You should find something to back up what you say, and engage with the opposing argument, rather than just throwing on the table that you disagree. Well I disagree with you! So I must be right too! Hah!

Here's a further thought on the issue of order coming from disorder: evolution comes about because the environment supports some random changes and not others. The emphasis is usually on the "selecction" part, but consider: it is based on "random change". In the case of evolution, the drive to disorder is in fact what drives it in the first place!

Also, btw, noting The Doer and Cosmic Teapot's mention of the antrhopic principle: just last week I was hearing on a science show the suggestion that the universal constants may vary across the universe! Where would that leave the idea of a fine-tuned universe?

[Caio]

Ahh yes, the good old argument about the existence of God, might I recommend to Pete Crowther a website I saw mentioned here earlier: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/, …
Read it first so you know what sort of argument to make and we don’t have to waste our time carefully explaining in painful detail going round and round and round about the fallacies in your argument.

Ill also note that you still haven’t provided any EVIDENCE for the existence of God, some testable evidence, not poking holes in things you don’t understand. And as I see it, you still haven’t provided an argument to support what your trying to prove…so lets see it before my web surfing gradually slips into porn and I loose interest in this pointless, infuriating and what will obviously be flawed argument. PROVE ME WRONG!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Oh no - there's just so much evidence we have to find it ourselves ;)

[Pete Crowther]

Welcome back Peter

It's interesting to note that all through Antony Flew's life as an atheist, he rejected the idea of an afterlife and, as he writes in his introduction to "There is a God", "this is one area in which I have not changed my mind." A man who does not believe in the afterlife has no reason to fear it.

He also states in an interview that as a Deist he stops short of a belief in the Judeo-Christian God and believes that God created the universe but has neither intervened in it since its creation nor given any special revelation to mankind.

As you respect this book so much, are you no longer a Christian or didn't you concentrate when you read it?

Hi Protium,

Thanks for your post. Yeah I read the book. It's a big jump to suggest that I didn't concentrate when I read it simply because I think some of what he has said is good, whilst rejecting other parts as false. I thought it would be good to expose myself to a perspective other than my own, hence reading a book written by a non-Christian. "Respecting the book so much" is not actually something I said, as you have implied. I said it was a great book and I recommend reading it. Obviously being a Bible believing Christian, I do not agree with everything he said in the book. However, even though I did not agree with everything he said, there were some arguments I did agree with and considered valuable enough to share.

Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a Christian. That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).

[Fearless]

The first sentence in your last paragraph would have sufficed but you just had to add the bit after just to rub our noses in it. :(

[TÐöer]

That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).

Hi Pete,

And why you?

Also wondering if you are going to reply my post? We were in the midst of discussion:

[wearestardust]

Hi Protium,
Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a Christian. That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).

You have his grace. Arbitrarily. No matter what. And I don't. Arbitrarily. No matter what.

Nice guy, your god.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Thanks for your post.
I also posted (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=27246&postcount=7) but I guess god didn't reveal it unto you. If you're not too busy trolling, maybe you could actually respond.
Yeah I read the book. It's a big jump to suggest that I didn't concentrate when I read it simply because I think some of what he has said is good, whilst rejecting other parts as false. I thought it would be good to expose myself to a perspective other than my own, hence reading a book written by a non-Christian.
You didn't really expose yourself to anything. You simply took whatever you felt supported your religious opinion and dismissed out of hand whatever conflicted with your faith. Please don't pretend that you were being open-minded when you were just looking for something you could quote mine out of context.
"Respecting the book so much" is not actually something I said, as you have implied. I said it was a great book and I recommend reading it.
I've read many great books but I've never come out of hiding to create a thread about them. Your actions imply the level of respect you have, which is obviously higher than usual.
Obviously being a Bible believing Christian, I do not agree with everything he said in the book. However, even though I did not agree with everything he said, there were some arguments I did agree with and considered valuable enough to share.
Hang on, I'll go grab a ladder so you can reach all the cherries.
You seem unaware that the bits you did agree with were based on the bits you didn't agree with. It's called context. To take them out of their context is like taking a commodore distributor cap and trying to jam it onto your corolla; it just doesn't work.
Maybe you should just stick to cherry picking the bible and leave other people's texts unmolested.

Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a Christian. That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).
No, one day you'll die and become an atheist just like us. The nonexistent don't believe in the nonexistent.;)

[TÐöer]

No, one day you'll die and become an atheist just like us. The nonexistent don't believe in the nonexistent.;)

Good 1!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

<Censored - long text not good for children>
Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a Christian. That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).Let's see - God killing over a third of the world's population - over 300 times more than Hitler killed - because they were non Christian or sinners or did evil or something like that. That must be God's mercy - what do you guys reckon?

[Fearless]

Wait for his next trick, I won't spoil it for you Croc, but it's coming soon!

Disclaimer: please don't ask me to define 'soon', just know that it is!

[Caio]

Forgive me, but wasn’t there supposed to be, oh I don’t know, some sort of irrefutable evidence for the existence of god Pete? You know the kind that proves that he cant not not not not exist? :confused:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Not not not not not not not not...err...I mean Hello. What galaxy are you from? Where is your leader?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Is this called cherry picking? Seems how most "insert delusion here" belivers use "their" chosen book to bolster their own views.

Strange, as it makes what I know of your views to be redundant.



or


or


or



or



or



Blimey.. someone's deluded here surely? :)

What about Pastafarians? They don't have the same opinion:
Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a religious bastard on crack. That status won't change because God is faithful and he has chosen me to receive his mercy, only by his grace (not because of anything I've done).Just so you don't need to ask in future, I will always be a Pastafarian. That status won't change because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is faithful and he has touched me with His noodly appendage.
RAmen.

[wearestardust]

I just finished reading Antony Flew’s book ‘There is a God’. Great book! He was an atheist and philosopher for decades and has only recently adopted a ‘theistic’ position. His book is a logical explanation of why he now calls himself a ‘theist’. A recommended read for all I reckon.


Andon your recommendation I read it. See my quasi-review on the general atheist chit chat page. The short version: it was an insult to my intelligence.

But at least Flew is better than Varghese.

But no doubt you disagree. Happy to discuss.

[gruber]

I lost interest when i saw rational and thiest:eek:

[wolty]

Yep, Rational and theist are mutually exclusive. Santa cannot not exist either because I have a mental illness and need to believe.
Or, It has to be true because I just can't cope with the world of bad shit, big words and naughty people. Others treat me so badly so at least I have one friend, who by the way made me as well. Now that is kinda cool. He knows everything I do and think, even when I think impure thoughts like wishing everyone else was just like me.
Rant off because I am pissed off with religion at the moment.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I think he's right about the coons. But then I'm a bit mental.

[Mentally Saturated]

Dear Pete,

I'm not sure locking yourself in to any particular belief system is a good thing. I'd hate to think I can't change my opinion on anything... it's a freedom most of us enjoy. I think to do otherwise is surely nothing short of incarceration of the mind.

If you're so determined to stick to one belief for all eternity, may I suggest getting a tattoo across your forehead that reads "I love my god" or some such, in big letters, for all to see. You should be proud of your undeniable faith. Go on.. what's the harm ? U won't be changing your opinion, after all.

Gary

[Digitalos]

Dear Pete,

I'm not sure locking yourself in to any particular belief system is a good thing. I'd hate to think I can't change my opinion on anything... it's a freedom most of us enjoy. I think to do otherwise is surely nothing short of incarceration of the mind.

If you're so determined to stick to one belief for all eternity, may I suggest getting a tattoo across your forehead that reads "I love my god" or some such, in big letters, for all to see. You should be proud of your undeniable faith. Go on.. what's the harm ? U won't be changing your opinion, after all.

Gary
But he would look like a complete moron - does Richard Dawkins have "I love evolution." on his forehead, even though he is immensely invested in it, and proud of his work... I think not.

Please don't abandon all reason just yet. ;)

[Cosmic Teapot]

But he would look like a complete moron - does Richard Dawkins have "I love evolution." on his forehead, even though he is immensely invested in it, and proud of his work... I think not.

Please don't abandon all reason just yet. ;)

Evolution doesn't praise acts of devotion.
False analogies also have a habit of making people look like complete morons.;)

[Digitalos]

Evolution doesn't praise acts of devotion.
False analogies also have a habit of making people look like complete morons.;)
Acts of devotion were never mentioned (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=32243#post32243). I find it helps if you read to what you respond.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Acts of devotion were never mentioned (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=32243#post32243). I find it helps if you read to what you respond.
O RLY?
So, tattooing "I Love My God" on your forehead isn't an act of devotion?
I find it helps if you understand what was written before you grind your digits into your keyboard in a desperate act of ineptitude.
Try harder.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Dear Pete,

I'm not sure locking yourself in to any particular belief system is a good thing. I'd hate to think I can't change my opinion on anything... it's a freedom most of us enjoy. I think to do otherwise is surely nothing short of incarceration of the mind.

If you're so determined to stick to one belief for all eternity, may I suggest getting a tattoo across your forehead that reads "I love my god" or some such, in big letters, for all to see. You should be proud of your undeniable faith. Go on.. what's the harm ? U won't be changing your opinion, after all.

GaryGood point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZySS8vJsyRE).

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Here's a fine example of devotion to faith (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367185,00.html).

[Pete Crowther]

The Doer made a logical statement based on the anthropic principle. It's essentially the same as saying that the man who has just won the lottery is only able to marvel at his luck because he's in a reality where he won the lottery.
By the same token, you can only observe the brilliant laws of nature (natural selection) because those brilliant laws (natural selection) resulted in (some) humans developing into intelligent animals capable of observing them.
If you can't grasp the logic, I can only suspect you're bitter that natural selection made your bloodline less cerebral and more suited to simple manual tasks.


The anthropic principle cannot be used as an argument against design. All this principle states is that the observable universe has a structure which permits the existence of observers.

Because the universe is 'finely tuned' (as science has shown) you can't say that because we happen to be here to observe the universe it goes without saying that the universe must be 'finely tuned'. Or a simpler way of saying it is 'if the universe were not finely tuned we would not be here to observe it, therefore because we are here we shouldn't be surprised about the fact that it is finely tuned. This is circular reasoning and cannot be used as an argument against design.

All the anthropic principle tells us is that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. However, it fails to tell us why these necessary conditions have been fulfilled. You are making the mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient in themselves for explaining our existence. This is similar to confusing 'agency' with 'mechanism'. Just because a mechanism exists for the existence of life or just because the laws of nature exist, doesn't mean we have an answer to why they exist or where they came from, or how they came about? You still need to consider the existence of God for these answers?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Who said the universe was 'finely tuned' now?

[Fearless]

Just because a mechanism exists for the existence of life or just because the laws of nature exist, doesn't mean we have an answer to why they exist or where they came from, or how they came about? You still need to consider the existence of God for these answers?
Just as much as you need to consider the the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You show me yours, and I'll show you mine ;)

[Atrax Robustus]

Because the universe is 'finely tuned' (as science has shown) you can't say that because we happen to be here to observe the universe it goes without saying that the universe must be 'finely tuned'. Or a simpler way of saying it is 'if the universe were not finely tuned we would not be here to observe it, therefore because we are here we shouldn't be surprised about the fact that it is finely tuned. This is circular reasoning and cannot be used as an argument against design.

PIFFLE!

This is blind assertion through conflating what are readily observable, naturally occurring processes with your inability to understand them.

Your assertion is illustrative of an all too common approach where you're simply taking the lazy approach to this argument and declaring "It's all so technical and immensely complicated - I can't conceive that anybody could understand it . . . therefore God exists."

Even you Pete, after dedicating the time and effort to actually learn some valid science would (at some time) be able to understand the relationships between the 'fine tuned constants'! All it would take is some effort and intellectual honesty on your part.

[Caio]

Because the universe is 'finely tuned' (as science has shown) you can't say that because we happen to be here to observe the universe it goes without saying that the universe must be 'finely tuned'. Or a simpler way of saying it is 'if the universe were not finely tuned we would not be here to observe it, therefore because we are here we shouldn't be surprised about the fact that it is finely tuned. This is circular reasoning and cannot be used as an argument against design.

Dare I point out that your saying that we are here because the universe is finely tuned so that we can be here, is also a circular argument and therefore cannot be used as proof of design? And how do you substantiate the claim that if the universe were not the way it is now that “we” couldn’t be here?

All the anthropic principle tells us is that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. However, it fails to tell us why these necessary conditions have been fulfilled. You are making the mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient in themselves for explaining our existence. This is similar to confusing 'agency' with 'mechanism'. Just because a mechanism exists for the existence of life or just because the laws of nature exist, doesn't mean we have an answer to why they exist or where they came from, or how they came about? You still need to consider the existence of God for these answers?

Well you have the burden of proof, offer up some evidence to substantiate your claims…and can you account for how god himself came into existence? And make it a good one because these arguments are getting repetitive and tedious…