The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak

<snipped a tired retread of Pascal's wager>

Excellent post. Perhaps Zakath will think about it.

Already did that, years ago, Jay. Pascal's wager doesn't make any more logical sense now than it did when I first read and rejected it...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>And the fact that you do, doesn't mean that it is.<<

Quite true, this is why scientists rely on EVIDENCE rather than belief.

>>But consider this -- the great majority of organisms found in the fossil record (clams, sponges, and the like) are still alive today, while extinct organisms only make up a very small fraction of it.<<

Aux Contraire, mon ami. Almost 99.9% of all the species to ever walk the globe is extict today.

Wrong. If this were true, you would no doubt be able to name 1000 extinct species for every living one, but I'm fairly certain you won't be able to do this. However, you're welcome to try if you'd like. I'm sure I'd find it such an exercise amusing.

>>Also, don't forget that the evidence can be misinterpreted. I can take a ferret, a civet cat, and a panther (based on their morphology) and show you how one evolved into the other, even though that's clearly not the case. Now if all these animals were extinct, such an assertion would be difficult to argue against.<<

However, DNA evidence would clearly prove you wrong, since the diversity in DNA is way too great to account for it.

Hard to get DNA evidence from a fossil, since the organic material is pretty much gone. Sorry. Better luck next time.

>>Really? Then what would that make man -- a force of nature? You can't have a scientist create something, and then turn around and say that proves intellligent design wasn't required. That's just ridiculous.<<

That is because, despite all the tinkering, the scientists still use NATURAL forces to do their job.

Face it -- you made a dumb statement, and you got called on it. You're not going to smooth-talk your way out of it either.

Throwing together a mix of chemicals, having the right acidity, some electron sparks etc. These are forces of nature, and as such CAN and DO occur in nature. Therefore, while the exact circumstances can never be recovered, we do know what circumstances will produce life.

No we don't, or we would have done it by now.

And these circumstances can occur in nature.

A lab isn't nature. Ask any scientist.

>>If you're so sure about that, then I'm sure you can come up with a few examples for our consideration.<<

Genetic Algorithms, Langstons Ant, to name a few.

Uh... I'm talking about something biological -- not some oversimplified computer simulation. Come back when you've got some real evidence.

Also, the bacterial evidence speaks highly of natural selection at work.

Really? Show us how then.

>>Or maybe it's just a stupid theory.<<

Which is no reason to presume its wrong, especially considdering the evidence.

What evidence?

>>Why should anyone oppose science? Truth isn't going to contradict itself. <<

Correct.

>>But at least you admit that evolution isn't science.<<

I'm sorry, but you must have misread my words.

I don't think so.

I never said evolution isn't science.

You said creationists didn't dispute 'science itself' -- and you were right, we don't. What we dispute is evolution, which is nothing more than an unworkable theory.

Evolution IS science.

Science fiction is more like it.

Creationism however, is NOT science.

I never said it was. That doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[shima]

>>Wrong. If this were true, you would no doubt be able to name 1000 extinct species for every living one, but I'm fairly certain you won't be able to do this. However, you're welcome to try if you'd like. I'm sure I'd find it such an exercise amusing.<<

Well, all dinosaurs are dead. There were quite a few around.

>>Hard to get DNA evidence from a fossil, since the organic material is pretty much gone. Sorry. Better luck next time.<<



Trat is true. However, we weren't talking about biological history but rather the Theory of Evolution. DNA evidence supports evolution.

>>Face it -- you made a dumb statement, and you got called on it. You're not going to smooth-talk your way out of it either.<<

Alright. Lets take an example: suppose the scientists were able to throw a few enzimes into a solution, zap the thing with a few 1000's volts while heating it at 45 degrees Celcius, and added some small grains of sand and clay to the mix. After several years, a very primitive lifeform is distilled from the mix.

Now, do you suppose that these circumstances can NEVER occur in nature? Then you are quite mistaken. The scientists only design is in the right circumstances. Circumstances that can easily occur in nature.

>>No we don't, or we would have done it by now.<<

I was talking about the hypothetical case where scientists DID produce life from non-living elements in the lab. We haven't so far, but that is mostly due to the enormuos amount of possibilities and the long time it would probably require.

>>A lab isn't nature. Ask any scientist.<<

A scientists works with natural forces. Ask any scientist.

>>Uh... I'm talking about something biological -- not some oversimplified computer simulation. Come back when you've got some real evidence.<<

Ah, you are talking about the bacterial resistance to peniciline?

>>You said creationists didn't dispute 'science itself' -- and you were right, we don't. What we dispute is evolution, which is nothing more than an unworkable theory.<<

Why? Evolution makes predictions about the behavior and genetic make-up of populations, and of the connection of several datasets like the DNA and fossils based on evolutionary descent. What "predictions" does creationism make?

>>I never said it was. That doesn't mean it's not true.<<

When the evidence contradicts Creationism, then creationism is wrong. And the evidence DOES contradict it. After all, creationism posits that the earth is 6000 years old, while science has established that it is much older.

 

[Zakath]

Trying to get caught up after a trip out of town...

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack


Absence of evidence isn't the same thing as evidence of absence. Surely an intelligent fellow such as yourself understands this.

Read again, what I wrote, Jack. I never claimed that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.

What I claim is that I have not seen any empirical evidence for the existience of any of the myriad of deities that get tagged with the title "God" by religionists. Thus the term 'absence of evidence."

When some makes the claim that an entity with the characteristics of a deity exists, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate the existence of such a being empirically...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
Trying to get caught up after a trip out of town...

Read again, what I wrote, Jack.

Ok.

I never claimed that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.

Really?

Without evidence, all that's left is to either say that something doesn't exist or to fill the perceived void with comforting fantasies...

Sounds pretty much like it to me. Even after reading it again.

What I claim is that I have not seen any empirical evidence for the existience of any of the myriad of deities that get tagged with the title "God" by religionists. Thus the term 'absence of evidence."

When some makes the claim that an entity with the characteristics of a deity exists, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate the existence of such a being empirically...

Creation itself testifies of the Creator. If you can't see that, it's probably because you're not looking.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What I claim is that I have not seen any empirical evidence for the existience of any of the myriad of deities that get tagged with the title "God" by religionists. Thus the term 'absence of evidence."

When some makes the claim that an entity with the characteristics of a deity exists, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate the existence of such a being empirically...

The extreme outlier called 'man' is empirical enough for me. If our communicative skills are merely a random biological advantage, then there should be a continuous Guassian distribution of the animal population that have similar advantages and therefore, similar advances with respect to having the upper hand on the environment. However, no continuous distribution exists. Man is an extreme outlier which cannot be explained by mere random variation. It seems an external influence is at work in man's advancement, which has no biological precedent.

It's difficult to be convinced empirically that man is just another lucky animal, when the evidence of history indicates the "luck" which man enjoys isn't within the probibalistic realm of random variation.

God bless,

 

[temple2006]

When some makes the claim that an entity with the characteristics of a deity exists, it should be relatively simple to demonstrate the existence of such a being empirically...

Zak....Why would it be relatively simple? Relative to what?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

True science is not opposed to true Theism. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (The World as I see it, 1934)

God bless,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

Theist: I have no proof that God does not exist. Therefore, I believe He does exists.

Atheist: I have no proof that God does exist. Therefore, I believe He does not exists.

Agnostic: I have no proofs for or against God's existence. Therefore, I don't know if God exists or not.

Seems like the lack of evidence on either side makes Pascal's wager, as well as other pragmatic arguments for theism something to consider.

Can you tell me why you've rejected Pascal's wager?

For me, pragmatic arguments as well as the fine-tunedness and complexity of the universe points to the existence of an Intelligent Designer, not random chance. It's no proof, but one of many converging clues which takes me beyond pure agnosticism toward theism.

God bless,

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>Wrong. If this were true, you would no doubt be able to name 1000 extinct species for every living one, but I'm fairly certain you won't be able to do this. However, you're welcome to try if you'd like. I'm sure I'd find it such an exercise amusing.<<

Well, all dinosaurs are dead. There were quite a few around.

How many were there? And how many species are around today?

>>Hard to get DNA evidence from a fossil, since the organic material is pretty much gone. Sorry. Better luck next time.<<



Trat is true. However, we weren't talking about biological history but rather the Theory of Evolution. DNA evidence supports evolution.

Hardly. But you're welcome to show us how, if you really believe it does.

>>Face it -- you made a dumb statement, and you got called on it. You're not going to smooth-talk your way out of it either.<<

Alright. Lets take an example: suppose the scientists were able to throw a few enzimes into a solution, zap the thing with a few 1000's volts while heating it at 45 degrees Celcius, and added some small grains of sand and clay to the mix. After several years, a very primitive lifeform is distilled from the mix.

Now, do you suppose that these circumstances can NEVER occur in nature?

I know they can't.

Then you are quite mistaken.

I'm afraid not. I think you need to study some more science. I mean real science.

The scientists only design is in the right circumstances. Circumstances that can easily occur in nature.

Prove it then. Until you do, it's nothing more than a bunch of hot air.

>>No we don't, or we would have done it by now.<<

I was talking about the hypothetical case where scientists DID produce life from non-living elements in the lab. We haven't so far, but that is mostly due to the enormuos amount of possibilities and the long time it would probably require.

Or it could just be the fact that such a thing isn't possible...

>>A lab isn't nature. Ask any scientist.<<

A scientists works with natural forces. Ask any scientist.

Under controlled conditions -- which are anything but natural.

>>Uh... I'm talking about something biological -- not some oversimplified computer simulation. Come back when you've got some real evidence.<<

Ah, you are talking about the bacterial resistance to peniciline?

I don't think so, unless you can show us how mutation and natural selection have produced some more 'specified complexity or information,' as you put it.

>>You said creationists didn't dispute 'science itself' -- and you were right, we don't. What we dispute is evolution, which is nothing more than an unworkable theory.<<

Why? Evolution makes predictions about the behavior and genetic make-up of populations, and of the connection of several datasets like the DNA and fossils based on evolutionary descent.

Like the birds being descended from dinosaurs? But wait, the first true birds existed alongside the dinosaurs -- tens of millions of years before these new fossils that have been found in China (the supposed half-bird, half-dinosaur fossils). That poses a bit of a problem, doesn't it?

What "predictions" does creationism make?

Who cares? I never claimed creationism was science. It's not up to me to support any claims that it is.

>>I never said it was. That doesn't mean it's not true.<<

When the evidence contradicts Creationism, then creationism is wrong. And the evidence DOES contradict it. After all, creationism posits that the earth is 6000 years old, while science has established that it is much older.

That hasn't been established conclusively. Radiometric-dating is unreliable because the principle operates on too many unverifiable assumptions.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Creation itself testifies of the Creator. If you can't see that, it's probably because you're not looking.

The universe is what it is.

What it isn't is some entity's "creation".

Since (I'm assuming) you're human, I would submit that the "testimony" you perceive is merely an artifact of your brain function. Humans try to derive patterns from even random events. Couple that brain function with a desire to see a specific pattern and, voila, there's your "evidence."

That also explains why non-believers do not see the universe as evidence for a creator.

 

[temple2006]

Zak....A human being IS an immense longing. And there is never to be any satisfaction for that longing, at least in some cases? Is that all there is?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath

The universe is what it is.

What it isn't is some entity's "creation".

Since (I'm assuming) you're human, I would submit that the "testimony" you perceive is merely an artifact of your brain function. Humans try to derive patterns from even random events. Couple that brain function with a desire to see a specific pattern and, voila, there's your "evidence."

That also explains why non-believers do not see the universe as evidence for a creator.

Because they don't want to?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Zakath

The universe is what it is.

Name one object, person, animal, or idea that a) wasn't created, and b) dosn't serve some kind of purpose? Exactly. There is none. Everything is/was/and will be created for some kind of purpose. Your watch didn't just come out of no where; it was created to tell time. Grass dosn't grow out of thin air; it's created to feed living things, supply oxygen, etc. Babies don't come out of thin air; we create them to love. Ideas don't just come from nothing; we create them to serve our purposes. Even our waste that goes into the toilet serves a purpose.

I'll say it again; Everything was/is/ and will be created for some kind of purpose. We just don't "exist"; nothing does, nor has, nor will. If everything we create serves a purpose, what makes you think that we weren't created for one?

 

[Flipper]

Unsupported assertionarama.

You can assign as many purposes as you like to things. You might as well argue that the purpose of Io is to orbit Jupiter, or that the purpose of Cygnus X is to emit high-energy jets.

Does it then necessarily follow that there is a creator? No. You have failed to establish any such link, but you have managed to anthropomorphize everything in nature.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Unsupported assertionarama.

You can assign as many purposes as you like to things. You might as well argue that the purpose of Io is to orbit Jupiter, or that the purpose of Cygnus X is to emit high-energy jets.

Does it then necessarily follow that there is a creator? No. You have failed to establish any such link, but you have managed to anthropomorphize everything in nature.

The link has been established -- you just fail to recognize it. According to Zakath, this is largely because of your desires. I would have to agree with that part of his assessment.

 

[Flipper]

One_eyed Jack:

The link has been established -- you just fail to recognize it.

By whom? Perhaps you can refer me to a paper on the subject that is generally considered authoritative (hint: not the bible).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
One_eyed Jack:



By whom? Perhaps you can refer me to a paper on the subject that is generally considered authoritative (hint: not the bible).

I thought you wanted authoritative?

 

[Flipper]

Authoritative, not authoritarian ;P

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You want an authoritative text or not? If you do, there's the Bible. If you don't, why ask for one?