Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
What Bob says...
What Bob says...
Rogerb. Wrote:
"A world full of scientists have tried to explain cells for years, and have failed to explain it to me in a way that I can actually comprehend without lots of studying. I will therefore, ignore science as a heresy, and cling to my simplistic explanation of 'GOD-DID-IT', because it's easier to understand that than it is to understand what a world full of scientists have to say..."
What Bob says...
Rogerb. Wrote:
Actually, what he is saying is:
"A world full of scientists have tried to explain cells for years, and have failed to explain it to me in a way that I can actually comprehend without lots of studying. I will therefore, ignore science as a heresy, and cling to my simplistic explanation of 'GOD-DID-IT', because it's easier to understand that than it is to understand what a world full of scientists have to say..."
I agree
I agree
Purex wrote:
The best alternative defense is for the atheist to just ignore fatuous and inane arguments (like those presented, and simply make their case, and stick to their own case, while ignoring the Christians' evidence. This will put the Christian in the position of trying to counter easily researched scientific facts, and is also where they tend to fail. They almost always end up blowing off the whole scientific community in favor of conspiracy theories, or stick only to approved "Christian" scientists like Hugh Ross or Kent Hovind.
Anyone here remember Bob B., and all of his claims that never came true? When questioned about his sources, he just said "I got it out of my own head!", because he hadn't actually researched. He was either making it up, or didn't want to be bothered with providing anything to back up his assertions.
I agree
Purex wrote:
Well, Bob didn't even present evidence, for starters. All he did was list a bunch of subjects that he has little or no understanding of, and claim that science "has no explanation" (that Bob accepts) them, either, therefore, "GOD-DID-IT" is the only acceptable answer. That is not a presentation of evidence. It is a presentation of IGNORANCE. Evidence is something POSITIVE and TANGIBLE that can be examined. What Bob presented simply doesn't qualify as evidence in a legal or a scientific sense.
Yes. These types of "prove God exists/doesn't exist" debates always follow the same pattern. They start off with a bunch of "factoids", some of which are not even true. The atheist debunks the factoids, or shows their flaws, then the Christian comes back with a whole bunch of NEW factoids, while ignoring the ones previously presented. In all of this, the atheist is constantly occupied with correcting the Christian's mistakes, rather than making their own case. If they miss explaining a single factoid, the Christian will jump all over them for it.
The best alternative defense is for the atheist to just ignore fatuous and inane arguments (like those presented, and simply make their case, and stick to their own case, while ignoring the Christians' evidence. This will put the Christian in the position of trying to counter easily researched scientific facts, and is also where they tend to fail. They almost always end up blowing off the whole scientific community in favor of conspiracy theories, or stick only to approved "Christian" scientists like Hugh Ross or Kent Hovind.
Exactly. Even when the Christians fail to seriously damage the atheist's case, they always fall back on the old "well, you're going to hell, and I'm not, so you lose anyway!"
Anyone here remember Bob B., and all of his claims that never came true? When questioned about his sources, he just said "I got it out of my own head!", because he hadn't actually researched. He was either making it up, or didn't want to be bothered with providing anything to back up his assertions.
One Eyed Jack
New member
No, but does this mean you're admitting there's a God?
Whether you like it or not, it's the answer to your question.
No it's not. The universe is created. God isn't.
I'm not trying win any points -- I was just answering your question.
I don't believe that's his premise. Only created things have a cause. God isn't created -- He's the Creator.
If he wants to prove the non-existence of God, then he needs to come up with a plausible explanation for the origin of life.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: What Bob says...
Re: What Bob says...
They don't have an explanation. All the studying in the world isn't going to help you understand something that isn't there.
Scientist don't have much to say on the origin of the cell, because they've yet to figure it out. Of course if you can trot out a model that deals with all of the questions Bob has put forth, I'd sure like to see it. I'm sure the rest of the scientific community would too.
Re: What Bob says...
They don't have an explanation. All the studying in the world isn't going to help you understand something that isn't there.
Scientist don't have much to say on the origin of the cell, because they've yet to figure it out. Of course if you can trot out a model that deals with all of the questions Bob has put forth, I'd sure like to see it. I'm sure the rest of the scientific community would too.
So no atheist on the face of the Earth has ever presented their case for the non-existence of God? I wonder why? Maybe you could take the time to state it here for posterity. That way, all atheists in the future can just point to your post as the be-all, end-all complete and unhindered case against God.
philosophizer
New member
Zakath is an atheist, not an agnostic. He claims that God does not exist, thus his entering into this debate. Now maybe for the agnostic, the origin of life isn't that important. They can just sit happily in their ignorance. But for an atheist, this is just one of many things that must be explained to lay the framework for a belief system. To believe that there is no God is an absolute claim. It must then have alternative answers for each of the questions that theism explains. If Zakath is the good little atheist he thinks he is, he should be able to provide these alternative answers. If he is lacking any answers, he should either re-evaluate his position or regress into agnosticism.
Sawrie, sorry, I can't keep up with 60 pages of posts and still have a life in the outside world, but has anyone laughed at your line of reasoning and "the matrix?" I saw discussion on this board about the movie before the 2nd one came out.
I find it more amusing than anything else to think that maybe our lives aren't "real." I've lost time to continue my study of philosophy, so there's probably an answer to this, but I guess I wonder if it matters what is real and what isn't in this sense. It's real to me, and I have no choice but to live as if it were, do I? What would I do differently if I thought it was the matrix? How would I get out? In some sense, I already believe it is the matrix, but I want to do my best here while I wait to be taken out of it.
I'm so afraid to post on here because I am so out of practice. The more I learn the more I know I don't know. Maybe I'll just keep lurking till I become wise. hee hee!
I find it more amusing than anything else to think that maybe our lives aren't "real." I've lost time to continue my study of philosophy, so there's probably an answer to this, but I guess I wonder if it matters what is real and what isn't in this sense. It's real to me, and I have no choice but to live as if it were, do I? What would I do differently if I thought it was the matrix? How would I get out? In some sense, I already believe it is the matrix, but I want to do my best here while I wait to be taken out of it.
I'm so afraid to post on here because I am so out of practice. The more I learn the more I know I don't know. Maybe I'll just keep lurking till I become wise. hee hee!
Brenda wrote:
< I guess I wonder
if it matters what is real and what isn't in this sense.>
The question as to its reality is the classical Cartesian argument - the only witness to its reality is a part of itself; i.e., the physical sense organs and nerve cells. The argument that it is, in some sense, unreal goes back to Solon through Plato, and also from Krishna and Buddha. (The physical world is maja - illusion.)
Matrix emphasizes that our experience occurs within the brain, and, as in dreams, doesn't actually require an external world for stimulus. Now, if you wake up from a nightmare, aren't you greatly relieved that it wasn't real? It made a difference, didn't it?
< It's real to me, and I have no choice but to
live as if it were, do I?>
This is the reasoning of the pragmatist, Santayana. From a practical point of view, your actions would be unaffected by the problem. However, this view is that of the materialist, and ignores the possibility of spiritual reality as an alternative.
<What would I do differently if I thought it was the matrix? How would I get
out?>
I think that is a more profound question than you realize, and I am convinced that it has an answer, but not one that you would readily accept.
BTW, it is interesting that if Zakath had accepted Sawrie's reasoning, he could have used it to refute Enyart's argument that God created the physical world. He could have just asked, "What physical world?".
If it exists, then its creation by God is a possible explanation, but there are others. I would like to see Zakath offer an alternate. I hope that we will see some direct argument for the nonexistence of God. We don't want to suffer through that old Thomas Aquinas - Hume business all over again.
< I guess I wonder
if it matters what is real and what isn't in this sense.>
The question as to its reality is the classical Cartesian argument - the only witness to its reality is a part of itself; i.e., the physical sense organs and nerve cells. The argument that it is, in some sense, unreal goes back to Solon through Plato, and also from Krishna and Buddha. (The physical world is maja - illusion.)
Matrix emphasizes that our experience occurs within the brain, and, as in dreams, doesn't actually require an external world for stimulus. Now, if you wake up from a nightmare, aren't you greatly relieved that it wasn't real? It made a difference, didn't it?
< It's real to me, and I have no choice but to
live as if it were, do I?>
This is the reasoning of the pragmatist, Santayana. From a practical point of view, your actions would be unaffected by the problem. However, this view is that of the materialist, and ignores the possibility of spiritual reality as an alternative.
<What would I do differently if I thought it was the matrix? How would I get
out?>
I think that is a more profound question than you realize, and I am convinced that it has an answer, but not one that you would readily accept.
BTW, it is interesting that if Zakath had accepted Sawrie's reasoning, he could have used it to refute Enyart's argument that God created the physical world. He could have just asked, "What physical world?".
If it exists, then its creation by God is a possible explanation, but there are others. I would like to see Zakath offer an alternate. I hope that we will see some direct argument for the nonexistence of God. We don't want to suffer through that old Thomas Aquinas - Hume business all over again.
One-eyed Jack said:
Exactly. This is why I laugh every time a religious person tries to justify their god's existence on "scientific grounds". They never provide any scientific proofs for their gods. they merely admit their own ignorance of science, and mankind's ignorance of subjects that are nearly impossible to study due to the reality of mankind's limits.
True. But a current lack of an answer is not "evidence" of God. It is merely an admission of our current limited knowledge. Bob has merely succeeded in asserting, rather than proving anything.
I would simply refer you to an exobiologist or a field researcher in microbiology. They have more knowledge on the subject than Bob or I do.
Rogerb wrote:
If Bob embraces science, he could at least start out by learning the basic formal logic to avoid fallacies such as he presented in his first argument. Lack of a human explanation to totally and completely explain a given scientific phenomenon is not proof of God. It is nothing but proof of our incomplete knowledge.
If Bob embraces science, he could at least start out by learning the basic formal logic to avoid fallacies such as he presented in his first argument. Lack of a human explanation to totally and completely explain a given scientific phenomenon is not proof of God. It is nothing but proof of our incomplete knowledge.
Rogerb wrote:
Here ar the links:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march2000/smith.html
(I have read George Smith's books, and by far, his books are the best on the subject)
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/ng/ft/atheist.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/mrskeptical2000/
http://www.thevillageatheist.co.uk/dontbelieve.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9656.htm
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
(Note: I do not necessarily agree 100% with any of these sites, but am simply presenting them as examples of "many" atheists who have made a case against God)
Roger, if you could be so kind as to refrain from your ignorant and childish wisecracking for a minute, I will present you with links to many atheists' cases against God. The case has been made again and again by various people, but these cases are rarely discussed in online forums like this because people like you are simply not interested in it, and would rather resort to wisecracking and innuendo.
Here ar the links:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march2000/smith.html
(I have read George Smith's books, and by far, his books are the best on the subject)
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/ng/ft/atheist.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/mrskeptical2000/
http://www.thevillageatheist.co.uk/dontbelieve.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9656.htm
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
(Note: I do not necessarily agree 100% with any of these sites, but am simply presenting them as examples of "many" atheists who have made a case against God)
- Status