"The Religion thread" Part III

[Mulu]

Seriously, I gave up reading anything Mulu has to write after he made broad generalizations and assumptions, and reared his ugly head.

Well, you must have at least read the topic line for this thread....

He's like a racist, only against religion.

I guess that makes you a racist against atheism and evolution. It's a two way street.

And the sad part is, I could dig out many, many instances of proof on where scientists have lied

Sure, people are opportunists. The difference is, science self-corrects.

and even throw a bit of science and truth back at him disproving macro evolution.

I'd love to hear it.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any mutation that has ever occurred in nature to be more than a deformity, or something gone horribly wrong due to radioactivity or pollution, or genetic inbred defects..

That's because you are uneducated in biology. Humans have a mutation in a protein in their jaw muscle that makes it weaker. That mutation resulted in less anchor stress on our skulls, which then allowed our skulls and concomitantly our brains to get bigger, thus making this discussion possible. The mutation that caused people to lose pigmentation and become white has been identifed. Thousands of such mutations have been identified. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You should leave this debate to TDawg.

And honestly, if this guy wants to believe all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly by no reason whatsoever came together into a tiny little spot about the size of a period on this page, and exploded to make planets and stars, and that all of that matter and energy was just there before that with no reason nor explanation, fine by me. I think that's highly delusional in my honest opinion though. Kind of like, can't see the forest for the trees kinda delusional.

What I believe is what we've observed as actual fact, and what we can logically deduce from those facts, nothing more. I don't even speculate on the origin or potential lack of origin of the Universe, there is no point to it. We've observed the Universe expanding. Extrapolating back that means it must have been much smaller in the past, perhaps even a single point (though that's just a guess). There is residual radiation left over from the Big Bang, so it therefore occurred. That's as far as I go regarding my beliefs. Well, I also of course reject any supernatural explanation of those events, for the simple reason that nothing supernatural exists.

And also, if he believes we all sludged out of the ocean as sea sponges

Technically it was tunicates, though we didn't sludge out onto land until amphibians.

with an evolutionary need to crawl on land

Think of it as opportunism. There was food, and no predators. Both good incentives.

and somehow added matter to ourselves over time and evolved into fishmenape things and then dropped the gills and became who we are today, well forgive me for being abit hesitant on believing in that possibility.

You had gills as an embryo. Explain that.

I truly believe we are not evolving, but de-evolving, because you can't add more to your genetic structure than what already is.

I agree with you that we are devolving, but for other reasons. We are devolving because we have managed to almost entirely avoid natural selection, instead replacing it with public policies that allow our most defective individuals to make the most babies. Extrapolating that out over time gives obvious results.

Like steel over time, it rusts and breaks down, just like almost all matter does over time ( unless it's synthetic like a twinkie in it's package ). It changes, and usually not for the better. That's why our cells die over time, and we die.

Hence the importance of TDawg getting it on with his brunette. You see, through sexual reproduction, we reinvigorate our DNA line with every new baby.

If we're such evolutionary beings we'd have cheated death by now. Found a way to breathe all the pollutants in the air, grown a protective layer of UV repellent skin.

Natural evolution takes millions of years for such slow generational beings as ourselves. Those environmental issues have only been around for a couple hundred years at most. Also, there is no evolutionary incentive to live forever, since the longer you live the more you compete with your offspring.

The truth about all these things are not even in the bible. They're found in science! And that's even the saddest part about this evolution crap.

You have yet to state any scientific truths.

Carbon-14 dating doesn't even work because the earth hasn't reached an accurate state of equilibrium. What I am saying is that the radioactive carbon in the air hasn't reached 30,000 years or so to accurately measure it against the faded radioactive carbons found in fossils. There have been finds so wildly inaccurate that it's mindnumbing that people still cling to evolution theory like it's the only way to be intelligently minded. Please. Study more.

People make mistakes in labs. They're human. I've seen mistakes done on blood exams. Does that mean blood exams are invalid, because sometimes people make mistakes?

What Mulu doesn't realize is there is alot to believe in about science, much truth in it, and then there's a lot of bullshit. Guesses that to this day, that are held as truth and fact.

I realize there is speculation and even junk in science. That's due to it being a product of humans, just like religion. I have the advantage of a critical mind and sufficient background education to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'll give you an example of chaff in science: Organizational Psychology is chaff. It's based on a study that was later debunked. Still, the field persists. But that's social science. Hard sciences are much better and getting rid of chaff. Still, cold fusion is chaff too.

That being said, I seriously hope this thread ends because Mulu isn't convincing me, someone who has done their homework and doesn't just blindly follow man conceived notions at every twist.

You most certainly have not done your homework, or more accurately what you've read is obviously tripe. You're willing to believe authors who purposefully lie to vindicate their faith, like the Texas streambed fraud artists, but you're not willing to read authors who are actually experts in the field. That's your choice, but it's a poor one.

As for religion and christianity, to lump everyone together and point blame in that direction, when it's your precious "humanity" that fails each and every time

Well, it's your humanity too, unless you are actually one of Helios's Thetans.

Humans will never change their ways, as history shows.

A few centuries ago you'd be tying the rope around some woman to burn as a witch. Humans may not change, as that would require biological evolution which has been largely circumvented, but society changes. Largely for the better, which is a good sign for the future.

All I have to do, is look up to the sky, and around, and know that there's something greater than our "accidental" universe. My heart tells me this. Not some book, nor some man on a pulpit. It's stupid not to think so in my opinion. To think anything else would seem ridiculous.

Yes, you are fully indoctrinated into Western religious thought.

I am sure Mulu will play "quote, counterpoint" for about ten more pages of self-righteous hatred.

Disagreeing makes me hateful? Then I guess you are filled with self-righteous hatred too. *yawns* Some christian you are.

[Mulu]

Conversely, Gawd haters, atheist and what not, do the same only proving God doesn't exist. Show my hardcore, tangible proof that would hold up in a court of law. That is to say beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Piece of cake, but you can keep your money, though I will admit this is the ultimate dead horse topic.

Exhibit A: QM. Quantum mechanics shows that the Universe is based on chaos, not law, not a plan, not a grand structure, chaos.

Exhibit B: Evolution. Evolution shows that we were not created in human form out of dirt or thin air or whatever, as religions all say. We are a product of natural evolutionary processes that can be traced back.

Exhibit C: History. History shows that our concept of god was born of ignorance.

I submit, that because god is a concept from our ingorance, a religous concept of a supernatural creator being, that simply showing the invalidity of such a concept therefore disproves the existence of the imaginary being postulated by the concept. The concept of god is inextricably intwined with the ideas of a plan or order to the Universe, and a creation of man in his present form. Both of those attributes of god have been disproven, by exhibits A and B respectively, and therefore god is disproven.

[Mulu]

Belief in God is belief depends on having faith.

See, even Dan gets it. Belief in god = faith, not reason. BTW, every real theologian I've ever had a religion debate with gives me this conclusion too; it's a matter of faith, not reason.

And I've said plenty of times already that the historical argument isn't a mathematical lock.

You do realize that most math "locks" don't actually work in reality? Since you seem to respect Einstein, I'll let him explain it.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ~Albert Einstein

In other words, your desire for a math lock about a non-mathematical concept is irrational. As a law student, you should know that proof is about burdens, and requesting a math lock is an irrational burden. I suspect the only reason you request it is because you know that non-mathematical concepts are not amenable to math proofs, *and* that your beliefs would totally fail under any other standard of proof. Thank you for conceding defeat.

Two major problems here - first, if a belief in God was rational, it would no longer be faith.

Duh.

Now you're welcome to argue faith has no value or place, but again you're tackling a metaphysical problem that neither you nor anyone else has the chops for.

Baloney. The metaphysical problem is imaginary.

Of course that comes by way of your limited appreciations of the word rationality and sanity.

And yet, I was right about irrational connoting a lack of sanity, wasn't I? Which then leads to rationality connoting sanity, despite your protestations. Sore loser....

Second, your definition of delusional is again off the mark. Delusion is about being resistant to confrontation with actual fact.

Actual fact, QM shows the Universe is based on chaos, and therefore has no intelligent designer. Actual fact, our concept of god was born of ignorance. Actual fact, belief in god is belief in the supernatural. Sounds like your beliefs have been resistant to actual facts to me.

And as I pointed out, I harbor a great many irrational beliefs. Of course I believe everyone on these boards harbors irrational beliefs, come join the human experience. Couple that with the fact that there are plenty of beliefs on which rationality provides no compelling basis for a decision, and such is life. And again irrational doesn't equal delusional. A number of irrational beliefs I've held have been addressed with facts and then changed.

The delusional aspects are addressed above. Thank you for admitting your belief in god is irrational. That always seems silly to deny.

It's not anything nearly as self-congratulatory as discipline; it's merely an aesthetic preference carried to logical conclusion.

Same difference. You can be disciplined about what you eat, or what you think, what you wear, or any number of things that are otherwise also described as an aesthetic preference carried to a logical conclusion, one does not exclude the other.

What's with you and throwing out the dictionary? Been reading too many judicial opinions that relied on redefinitions? You won't win semantic arguments with me. I'll call you on them everytime, because I think they're nothing more than silly pranks.

Actually, the error was made twice over - first rationality (or rather a preference for it) was accepted as a premise given the overall structure of the argument.

If you were correct, then "being alive" was an excepted premise. As was "being able to type" and "knowing English." But those aren't actually the premise of the argument. The premise was one of objective reality, nothing more. You can be irrational in a Universe of objective reality. Heck, I've known folks who were *loaded* with it, and even who have been highly successful with it. I've even known delusional people, truly delusional as in thinks you're a member of the IRA, who have been highly successful. They're still crazy. My argument is that rationality allows you to understand that objective universe better than irrationality, which is a simple truism, and not circular. Again, your semantics are failing, and a sideshow.

And that is really the difference between us in a nutshell. You're dealing on the up front, written logic, and I'm arguing from underlying assumptions permeating all of that.

Actually you're mostly dancing around the issues and relying on semantics.

And beyond that, I think you're missing how much has already been long-conceded in your quixotic quest to rid the world of those tiny vestiges of irrationality. If I would venture my guess, that premise is nearly as delusional as anything else mentioned in the thread.

They aren't "tiny vestiges," but let's state that plainly. You're saying that my desire for humans to rely on reason is delusional. Basically, that humans will never be any more or any better than they are today. I will concede that is certainly possible. That doesn't mean I have to give in to it. I'm fighting the good fight.

Actually, there's a lot of value there lying hidden in the "subjective to the observer" part - and that which is so casually dismissed is where the value of faith and belief are at their apex. And of course, plenty things that were believed in the stone age continue to be believed. The question is what has been disproven, what has been proven, and what has been neither. And Mulu has a model that lumps similar suggestions into a bucket (aka the "supernatural") and declares the refutation of most equals the refutation of all.

I'm still waiting for my example of the supernatural. One. Just one.

[AlmightyTDawg]

In other words, your desire for a math lock about a non-mathematical concept is irrational. As a law student, you should know that proof is about burdens, and requesting a math lock is an irrational burden. I suspect the only reason you request it is because you know that non-mathematical concepts are not amenable to math proofs, *and* that your beliefs would totally fail under any other standard of proof. Thank you for conceding defeat.

Oh please. Nothing you have identified - QM, evolution, or history makes the slightest dent into my belief structure, because I don't identify with the dogma of major religions. What I've pointed out is that there are grey areas in which there is no semblance of proof, hence avoiding your "delusional" bit. And similarly avoiding any evidentiary standard you wish to propose. When I use the term "mathematical" lock, I'll do you the favor of referencing basic logic. Is it logical proof, or tautological, or anything of that line. Since your argument comes down to, "we've disproven 80, or 90, or 99.999% of something, thus the balance is also wrong" you're not selling it. I'll happily cede to you that it is "unlikely" even wildly so. But your basic argument form is essentially an irrational one - one needs to basically believe in guilt-by-association, or accept the initial premises, to believe you've disproven anything.

Baloney. The metaphysical problem is imaginary.

Setting aside the idea that there is no single metaphysical problem, but rather a great host of them, it/they can be equally stated as your description of rationality. While question begging is generally frowned upon, it's the fundamental basis of metaphysics. That they're posed makes them meaningful, even if only to the individual observer proposing them, and even if the answer is only valuable to them.

And yet, I was right about irrational connoting a lack of sanity, wasn't I? Which then leads to rationality connoting sanity, despite your protestations. Sore loser....

Actually, I didn't address it because it was comical. One can be rational while being insane, and sane while being irrational. I pointed out you chose the most limited of the multiple definitions from the dictionary for your equation and synonymous comparison, and that you're dealing with concepts that don't generally lend themselves to binary classifications, even though it's far more convenient to deal with it that way in general conversation.

Actual fact, QM shows the Universe is based on chaos, and therefore has no intelligent designer.

Assumption - that "plan" must equal complete control and locality. Of course this is an interpretation of some dogma - it doesn't reflect my views. Thus you've not even confronted my views. Nor can you disprove that the universe was created and started ten thousand years ago by something that could fabricate and internally consistent physical model that would trace back to a big bang.

Actual fact, our concept of god was born of ignorance. Actual fact, belief in god is belief in the supernatural.

Assumption - that those things born of ignorance must by definition be wrong. That assumption aside, I agree with both of those statements in their literal form - and find them thoroughly unconvincing as arguments. I have been pretty clear that the origins of a concept are irrelevant except where specific aspects have been proven or disproven. I also find the guilt-by-association vis a vis the tacit "supernatural" insult to be irrational. So I'm not resistant to actual facts. I'm resistant to an interpretation of those facts which requires further underlying assumptions I have no need to accept.

Same difference. You can be disciplined about what you eat, or what you think, what you wear, or any number of things that are otherwise also described as an aesthetic preference carried to a logical conclusion, one does not exclude the other.

Actually, it's not really the same difference. One is about the argument, one is about someone puffing up their own ego. The latter seems less like an argument and more like intellectual masturbation. Like the "IQ test" comment, like the casual and off-the-mark insults. It's not about discussion or logic, it's about class or the lack thereof.

If you were correct, then "being alive" was an excepted premise. As was "being able to type" and "knowing English." But those aren't actually the premise of the argument.

Again, dare I drift into metaphysics, but an argument, or more vaguely, idea or logic, can conceptually exist without the existence of another creature, whether they can type or know English. No, these are not premises of the argument. Put another way, you must presume rationality (and hence a preference for it) to defend a preference for rationality. You might call it semantics; smarter people than you or I call it a comfortable job at a local university.

Actually you're mostly dancing around the issues and relying on semantics.

I'm pointing out for someone that espouses the virtues of logic, rationality, and objective reality, you seem dangerously incapable of ceding weaknesses or hedges in your position. And that's generally the mark of an amateur sophist. All arguments rely upon fundamental underlying assumptions which have a largely amoral context to them - the problem is you presume, then wonder why people who don't share your presumptions don't reach your conclusions. And whether you think of this as "mere semantics" I recommend you pick up a book on ADR sometime - it's the exact same point with some very real world payoffs. If you want the human race to improve, my advice would be to look inward.

[fluffmonster]

You people are a spectacle. I have to admit, I can't really wrap my head around the notion of butting up against Mulu's pseudo-intellectual righteousness. Is there an amusement factor at play or something? Ooo, I know what'd be fun...draw the analogies between Mulu and a Christian Conservative. They're there alright, in a meta sense.

[Rusty]

Meta? Ban.

[Mulu]

I'll happily cede to you that it is "unlikely" even wildly so. But your basic argument form is essentially an irrational one

How does accepting evidence beyond any reasonable doubt constitute an irrational argument? And notice I used a criminal standard, as the preponderance standard is too low of a bar. As we've already seen and you've admitted, belief in god doesn't come from reason, therefore the counter argument isn't the remaining 0.001% that has yet to be disproven. It's 0%. There is no countervailing evidence. Faith is irrational, accepting the overbearing weight of evidence against that faith as real isn't. And that is a position that you have not and cannot dispute.

That they're posed makes them meaningful, even if only to the individual observer proposing them, and even if the answer is only valuable to them.

Which makes them imaginary, like an imaginary friend, which may still be very important to that individual.

And yet, I was right about irrational connoting a lack of sanity, wasn't I? Which then leads to rationality connoting sanity, despite your protestations. Sore loser....

Actually, I didn't address it because it was comical. One can be rational while being insane, and sane while being irrational.

The act of being rational means for that moment there is clarity, thus sanity, just as the act of being irrational requires a lack of clarity, thus insanity, even if only for a moment. Sanity and insanity are not permanent attributes.

Actual fact, QM shows the Universe is based on chaos, and therefore has no intelligent designer.

Assumption - that "plan" must equal complete control and locality.

That's your assumption, not mine. The old view was that there was a natural order to the Universe, and this implied an intelligent designer. But the Universe has since been shown to be based on chaos, which implies no designer at all, or I suppose a crazy one.

Of course this is an interpretation of some dogma - it doesn't reflect my views.

It does, if your views are Spinozan, which is what your views sound like. The reason Einstein spent his last couple decades of life futily trying to disprove QM is because he *knew* that proof of a random universe meant no intelligent designer. He was fighting for an orderly universe that would come from a designer, and he failed.

Now, as I said, if your beliefs are that god is just as irrational as humans, maybe even more so, and created the universe to be chaotic, well then you are correct, I haven't disproved your beliefs. I haven't actually met anyone who holds those beliefs though. The existence of a creator spirit always necessarily implies order and purpose and meaning, and you've used those words enough that it seems to describe your outlook as well. There is no purpose or meaning in chaos. It's just chaos.

Nor can you disprove that the universe was created and started ten thousand years ago by something that could fabricate and internally consistent physical model that would trace back to a big bang.

You mean every atom was placed in such a state as to decieve us into believing the Universe is much older? You're right, I can't totally disprove leprechauns. That doesn't make them real. It does however make you crazy for believing in them. At the point where you simply reject reason and observational phenomena, you are no longer having a constructive discussion. You're just another acid dropout who thinks he's king of witch mountain.

I already stated that there is an underlying assumption in science that the Universe is real and comprehendible, that observed phenomena actually do occur, etc. That assumption is necessary to exercise reason. If you pretend all of this is just your opium dream that you are going to wake up from at any moment, that nothing is real, then yes I can't prove anything to you. I can still, however, declare victory since you are no longer a part of the proper exchange of ideas. At that point, you've dropped out of the race. I fielded my team, and you counter by sitting under the bleachers, smoking pot, and pretending the universe doesn't exist. Congratulations.

I also find the guilt-by-association vis a vis the tacit "supernatural" insult to be irrational.

How is belief in a creator spirit not belief in the supernatural? Please explain that to me.

So I'm not resistant to actual facts. I'm resistant to an interpretation of those facts which requires further underlying assumptions I have no need to accept.

The aforementioned opium dream, yes. It's a nonstarter position.

Same difference. You can be disciplined about what you eat, or what you think, what you wear, or any number of things that are otherwise also described as an aesthetic preference carried to a logical conclusion, one does not exclude the other.

Actually, it's not really the same difference. One is about the argument, one is about someone puffing up their own ego. The latter seems less like an argument and more like intellectual masturbation.

Or perhaps it's just entertainment, but you're still wrong as the statements are not mutually exclusive. You can be disciplined about something you also find aesthetically pleasing. Simple as that.

Put another way, you must presume rationality (and hence a preference for it) to defend a preference for rationality.

No, you must presume *reality* as already mentioned above. That reality could be irrational, as also already mentioned above.

The argument in full, then, is thus: The universe is real (an assumption but without it you are not here, so I guess I win by default); understanding that real universe is useful as it helps us to survive it (an assumption that the continuation of the human species has value, but without that assumption you have no value so why are you still breathing?); using a rational exploration of our real universe nets more useful information that believing in irrational fairy tales (a point you've previously conceded); thus, rationality is superior to irrationality, without assuming rationality a priori as reality does not equal rationality. Reality is objective fact, rationality is a state of mind.

You might call it semantics; smarter people than you or I call it a comfortable job at a local university.

They aren't smarter, I personally know some of those people, and though it is a comfortable job at a local university it's still chaff. Chaff pays well in our largely irrational society. I don't think I even have to say it, but all religion is chaff as well.

I'm pointing out for someone that espouses the virtues of logic, rationality, and objective reality, you seem dangerously incapable of ceding weaknesses or hedges in your position. And that's generally the mark of an amateur sophist.

I don't accept traditional philosophical nonsense, that's true. I studied it quite a bit, and came to the conclusion that it was largely wordplay. My arguments are still valid, and indeed superior, as long as you assume reality is real. Without that assumption, you don't exist.

All arguments rely upon fundamental underlying assumptions

I stated those assumptions plainly above. In all honesty, I assumed I wouldn't have to, as they are stating the obvious. A bad assumption on my part, as you need it spelled out.

I'm still waiting for an example of the supernatural. One.

[Lusipher]

For Rotku and Mulu:

Sorry, but that is the basis of religion. Faith. You want to use your limited human intelligence to justify everything in the universe, but you cannot get your mind around the fact that there is a all powerful deity. Its something to try and debunk everything with science, but it really doesnt matter. Your going to believe or not. My problem still is sometimes these debates go past discussion and into hate. If we were having the same discussion on issues as sexual orientation or politics we would have had someone step in by now and stopped it. Its ok to bash the christians cause its been the "in" thing to do since before the Roman Empire.

Mulu, your a lawyer and by heart a bullshitter. You can sugarcoat everything, put up all kinds of great charts, numbers and data, but it still doesnt prove anything in this thread. You either believe or not. Do us all a favor and pick something else to talk about for awhile

[Mulu]

I've actually been in "response" mode for all three of these threads.

[Inaubryn]

Conversely, Gawd haters, atheist and what not, do the same only proving God doesn't exist. Show my hardcore, tangible proof that would hold up in a court of law. That is to say beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Piece of cake, but you can keep your money, though I will admit this is the ultimate dead horse topic.

Exhibit A: QM. Quantum mechanics shows that the Universe is based on chaos, not law, not a plan, not a grand structure, chaos.

Exhibit B: Evolution. Evolution shows that we were not created in human form out of dirt or thin air or whatever, as religions all say. We are a product of natural evolutionary processes that can be traced back.

Exhibit C: History. History shows that our concept of god was born of ignorance.

I submit, that because god is a concept from our ingorance, a religous concept of a supernatural creator being, that simply showing the invalidity of such a concept therefore disproves the existence of the imaginary being postulated by the concept. The concept of god is inextricably intwined with the ideas of a plan or order to the Universe, and a creation of man in his present form. Both of those attributes of god have been disproven, by exhibits A and B respectively, and therefore god is disproven.

That's it? After skimming over these ungawdly long posts, I expected more from you, Mulu. Tsk. Tsk.

Quantum mechanics shows what we in our limited knowledge think we know to be true. But, every decade new sciences emerge that prove old sciences incorrect or just outight laughable. So, certain sciences hold up only long enough for the next science to come along and disprove it or append it. Either way, that proves nothing beyond the shadow of a doubt. What if God intentionally created the universe from chaos? He's supposed to be omnipotent so logic would state that an omnipotent being could easily outthink us mortals. He coulda easily laid everything out the way it's laid out.

Evolution? Hah! You forgot to add the prefix to that aka "The Theory of..." It is still referred to that way. And thus I present to you the basic definition of a theory.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

And while I'm a proponent of continuing human evolution, where it started, where we came from, and how we got here I don't know. Because I wasn't there. None of us were. And again, how do we know God didn't set the basic building blocks in motion thereby designing evolution himself? And the primoridal ooze could only be described by humans lacking the descriptive knowledge as dirt? You don't. You can't know that without being omniscient. You can only speculate and experiment and speculate from those experiments. So, again... what you've stated proves nothing, let alone beyond a shadow of a doubt.

History: Let me correct you first of all. Not history but recorded/written history. That being said, history is biased at best. Ever heard the saying that, "History is often written by the victors"? Since recorded history has only existed a relatively short time in the total human history and we know that deity, spirit, and nature worship has been passed down from generation to generation since way before that, how can we rely on recorded history? It wasn't there. We have no idea why various cultures engaged in various beliefs. We can speculate that they created these things to explain the unexplainable, but can you tell me honestly with 100% accuracy and knowledge that no great being appeared to these people at some point in the distant past and guided their way? If you can, I dub you the most amazing human being ever, either that or the oldest.

Reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG ep where the people began to worship the Great LaForge. He guided them in their time of need and gave them signs. It was their way of explaining the holodeck tech they knew nothing about. But 1000s of years into their future, their scientist will simply dismiss those signs as delusions or whatever is conveniently unable to be proven.

There's a point where one can rely too much on any given thing, science and religion are two of these. To put one's faith entirely in science saying that if science can't prove it it must be false is just as ridiculous as putting your faith entirely in religion and saying that every problem that arises in your life you'll put in God's hands.

So, Mulu after making a compelling if not overly nerd-tastic argument, as a juror member, I still have doubts. There's not enough hard tangible evidence for me to convict. And if you think that the existence of God is something that can ever be disproven, your just as delusional as those you have dubbed delusional. So, I will keep my money indeed.

I didn't expect the believers to take the bet. Their argument boils down to faith. You can't undoubtedly prove the existence of God either.

[Mulu]

That's it? After skimming over these ungawdly long posts, I expected more from you, Mulu.

I thought you'd appreciate my brevity.

What if God intentionally created the universe from chaos?

No religion says that. I am allowed to work within the matrix created by the believers.

Evolution? Hah! You forgot to add the prefix to that aka "The Theory of..." It is still referred to that way. And thus I present to you the basic definition of a theory.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Look it up.

And again, how do we know God didn't set the basic building blocks in motion thereby designing evolution himself?

Because the model of evolution is chaotic. It shows no plan.

Since recorded history has only existed a relatively short time in the total human history and we know that deity, spirit, and nature worship has been passed down from generation to generation since way before that, how can we rely on recorded history?

I don't have to. It's safe to assume our ancient ancestors weren't aware of quantum mechanics and the theory or fact of evolution, therefore the concept of god was born in ignorance of these and many other modern discoveries.

We can speculate that they created these things to explain the unexplainable, but can you tell me honestly with 100% accuracy and knowledge that no great being appeared to these people at some point in the distant past and guided their way?

That wouldn't actually alter my premise. Those humans would still be ignorant of our discoveries. Their concept of god would be based on an ignorant perception of this alien as the creator of the Universe.

Reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG ep where the people began to worship the Great LaForge.

It was a great episode. It also showed that religious beliefs are a product of ignorance. Despite the holodeck having given them a prophecy to follow, their belief in the supernatural origin of those events was false.

There's a point where one can rely too much on any given thing, science and religion are two of these. To put one's faith entirely in science saying that if science can't prove it it must be false is just as ridiculous as putting your faith entirely in religion and saying that every problem that arises in your life you'll put in God's hands.

It's technically a contradiction to believe in both. The ideas of a natural universe and the supernatural are mutually exclusive.

So, Mulu after making a compelling if not overly nerd-tastic argument, as a juror member, I still have doubts. There's not enough hard tangible evidence for me to convict.

And yet you admit that there is ZERO countervailing evidence. On that point, I'm going to have to appeal your verdict as being the product of an arbitrary jury.

And I may have to have my forum title changed to nerd-tastic.

[Inaubryn]

Ah. But it is the prosecution not the defense that must prove their case. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. So... I'm not worried about the defense's case so much as I am yours. It's like Miracle on 34th Street. Prosecution had to prove that Mr. Kringle was not Santa Claus.

Regardless, of all these arguments from either side, be they scientific or faith-based, nobody has tangible proof. It just isn't there. All we have is speculation and conclusions based on whatever sources they're derived from. Right now science believes that Jupiter is all gas with a small surface area. Well, what happens when we finally land on that bad boy and find that it's mostly surface with a surrounding atmosphere of something else? Belief shot to hell. But right now that's the accepted belief. But we've never been nor have we brought back hardcore proof from the planet itself. So we can only speculate at this point.

Science is just a more exact means of conjecture. And sometimes, hell a lotta times, it ain't that exact.

If this were 12 Angry Men... I'm not voting guilty.

[Jeppan]

Regardless, of all these arguments from either side, be they scientific or faith-based, nobody has tangible proof. It just isn't there.

I am sorry Inny but how can the burden of proof lie on the atheists? As Mulu stated before (I think) God might exist, but only as likely as anything else we cannot measure. By your logic I have to prove to you that Santa Claus does not exist, or that the invisible giant purple bunnies that eat invisible carrot-pies does not exist. The point is that the "proof" put forward of Gods existance is far from conclusive and might very well mean many other things, of which the "made up" option seems as credible or more credible than any other.

On another note I do not see how this thread is called hateful. On the contrary it is quite interesting, friendly and useful. It has given me good fuel for my RL debates with my muslim workbuddy. I can however understand that Killthorne and other chrisitans feel threatened by the thought of their beliefs being based on a huge ball of bullshit, but questioning ones beliefs might be a good thing once in a while.

[Mulu]

Well, admittedly I accepted a criminal burden of proof, which TDawg effectively conceded defeat to with his 99.999% statement. Still, a proper jury has to rely on available evidence, not empty speculation, so the outcome is appealable.

And just FYI, using radio telescopes we can actually see through Jupiter's clouds, so we do actually know it's a gas giant.

[AlmightyTDawg]

There is no countervailing evidence. Faith is irrational, accepting the overbearing weight of evidence against that faith as real isn't. And that is a position that you have not and cannot dispute.

From moment one I've happily conceded faith is irrational. It need not necessarily be delusional, unless it contradicts incontrovertible facts. I would also point out that regarding my conception, there is no supporting evidence either. Thus it's an intellectual tossup.

The act of being rational means for that moment there is clarity, thus sanity, just as the act of being irrational requires a lack of clarity, thus insanity, even if only for a moment. Sanity and insanity are not permanent attributes.

Postulate, man is beating another man to death because he believes the victim is a mind controlling vampire bend on world domination. At the same time he cries out "2 + 2 = 4." His belief that the individual, who he has no rational reason to believe is a vampire - particularly since he didn't believe vampires existed until that very moment, persists through the recitation of the mathematical equation. Is he sane or insane at that moment?

It does, if your views are Spinozan, which is what your views sound like. The reason Einstein spent his last couple decades of life futily trying to disprove QM is because he *knew* that proof of a random universe meant no intelligent designer. He was fighting for an orderly universe that would come from a designer, and he failed.

Now, as I said, if your beliefs are that god is just as irrational as humans, maybe even more so, and created the universe to be chaotic, well then you are correct, I haven't disproved your beliefs. I haven't actually met anyone who holds those beliefs though. The existence of a creator spirit always necessarily implies order and purpose and meaning, and you've used those words enough that it seems to describe your outlook as well. There is no purpose or meaning in chaos. It's just chaos.

There's nothing that suggests that chaos isn't foreseeable/knowable to the omniscient, but I don't necessarily go that far. Nor is it "chaos" in the traditional sense. At the Planck level, sure, but last time I checked that chaos doesn't well translate to the macroscopic level. Nor does purpose and meaning necessarily have to come from predetermination. In fact, to my way of thinking, it's quite the opposite way around.

You mean every atom was placed in such a state as to decieve us into believing the Universe is much older? You're right, I can't totally disprove leprechauns. That doesn't make them real. It does however make you crazy for believing in them. At the point where you simply reject reason and observational phenomena, you are no longer having a constructive discussion. You're just another acid dropout who thinks he's king of witch mountain.

I'm not sure I follow. So the idea is an omniscient being sets up a universe pre-fast-forwarded to a time of "creation" but specifically accounts for the time prior to it, precisely so that his creation can develop reason and a background in observational phenomena, and so that it's non-arbitrary and fits lovely logical models by which they gain understanding of that creation and grow both intellectually and otherwise. And by doing so, explicitly emphasizing reason and observational phenomena, you have rejected reason and observational phenomena. Cute. Regardless of the form one believes in something, the only thing that ultimately matters is the observable output. Those two universes, the big bang as we know it, and the "set in motion" are identical from the perspective of the later observer. How do you choose between them? You use Occam's Razor and decide one thing, other people use something else. At that level, creator myths can (and most properly should, even the acid explanation notwithstanding) be seen as allegories rather than historical accounts.

What you call "dropping out" of the "proper exchange of ideas" is precisely what I said long ago when I said each party goes on its merry way. You can feel the acid tripper's a loon, they can think you're a godless nut. I, for example, don't think it really matters much one way or another.

How is belief in a creator spirit not belief in the supernatural? Please explain that to me.

You phrase "belief in the supernatural" as though it's a self-evident indication of error, stupidity, or so on. Though phrased as a "fact" which is supposed to controvert something, you've presumed your conclusion and hence just thrown out a pointless insult.

No, you must presume *reality* as already mentioned above. That reality could be irrational, as also already mentioned above.

I can't go over this again. You just don't get it, and I can't explain it any better. You cannot justify a presumption for rationality without presuming rationality. The only proper answer to the question (or some variant thereof) would have been:

1. Boo Berry cereal
2. ???
3. Rationality!

Full credit would have been awarded for references to the Kool-Aid Guy, MacGyver, or Joey Fatone. Partial credit would have been awarded for references to Jason and the Argonauts, The White Album, or the invention of the printing press.

I'm still waiting for an example of the supernatural. One.

I don't have to convince you of pretty much anything, and seeing as personally I largely agree with you, it'd probably be disingenuous of me to try. The point is that you can't convince me (or anyone else) either - you have arguments set to appeal to those who are naturally inclined to your position, and they'll fall short on those naturally disinclined to your position.

Nor is the "irrationality" necessarily relevant - even if you lived with me for twenty-five years and shared my house and meals and everything and then took me to throw me into the volcano (thanks Firefly), and aside from asking me directly, you would notice no discernible difference between two versions of me - one who believes in a creator spirit, and one who doesn't. It's really a tree falls in the woods kind of thing - now you might chime in that one is a decent chap and the other is a babbling irrational loon who disgusts him, but you really make a mockery of yourself to do so.

Though we disagree on the interpretive value of QM and history - the former challenging a given conception of God (that he obeys our physical rules/principles and is supposedly either exerting complete control or set in motion a predetermined path, which of course gets complicated by those dogmas asserting free will) and the latter challenging the value of dogma and religion more than faith or belief (acknowledging of course that faiths are heavily sociologically cultured/conditioned), we are largely in agreement. My only point is that you overreach, and in asserting that you have solved it all and that everyone else are a rabid collection of hapless dolts, the joke's really on the other foot.

So go ahead and mock my critical thinking and pull out the same old hackneyed tricks, the fact is deep down you know I'm right. You may not think it's terribly relevant, but you understand the value of the objections. You're too smart not to.