CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm actually into apologetics myself too! My friends and I many times have long winded conversations on problems we can for see people having or asking.
Yes, its really good stuff to get into. I usually like studying it a lot and see how many different authors have a say in a particular books that I like to read.
That's like saying math is only games to try to.prove physics. Both apologetics mathematics are based upon a few fundamental assumptions that the entire field would fall apart if proved infallibily wrong.
Actually im only breaking one rule, the one about length. Although it seems off topic, I was foreshadowing the circular reasoning of many believers and unbelievers.
Religion was grate for its time. not now. i say this because we can see it.
we can talk to practically anyone on the planet. we see over several gods, yet the one god of Christianity, Islam, Jewdism are all right and true?
when the world was large it was good to help people grow but now its only holding us back.
we live in a world of logic and math. our problems should not exceed that. doing so is (to be humerus) putting a stumbling block in front of the blind.
why would it be good for humanity to spend all day or dedicate them self's to a god that will not help them?
Religion is childish. its nothing more then filling the unknown with something that suits the user and ables them to replicate it to make a profitable gain. What does the pope do? what does a priest do? there not much more the over glorified counselors.
HOWEVER!
it was not all bad. through out history we see the unification of people though one belief. and if anything that would be a major step forward to a perfect world.
its funny, if you look at every one of the major religions they all say the same thing (at the end). they all have a happy ever after. that i blelive is true. but a ever after with out religion and an intellectual society yet responsible for its actions
We live in a world of evilness, a world that can't address why we are even here and why and how we got here?
Why don't you explain the first cause. Would love to see the evidence and proof you have to explain what scientists can't begin to address.
What does the ability to talk to people around the globe have anything to do with anything, especially faith in God? Logic and math?
Why don't you address the logic behind all we know started with a big bang? What happens when something explodes? Is their order or chaos?
How do you know there is no God? And how do you know if there is a God that He would not help people? The fact is there is no possible way you can prove there is no God. You would be in the minority of all that have lived to have believed so. The first peoples of the world believed in a high power. To say all this happened...out of nothing? Now that is irrational. Something does not come from nothing.
What is childish is to make pot shots at people who do have faith especially because you can't answer questions that have been asked since the beginning of time.
If you know about the world religions you would see that they DON'T all say the same things. They can't be all right. They are opposed to one another in many ways..especially about the end.
...you know i would fancy your argument. but as i was righting it i came to the conclusion; its not something i need to share. we as a people can not deal with that fact. so it would be better to just leave it until a majority says it. feel free to request it. i will say it but, you have had fair warning.
Technically your bible is pro slavery, there are many texts which instruct you on how to treat your slave, how a slave should obey their master, how to sell your own daughter into slavery, etc.
First of all where does it say in the Bible that God approves of slavery?
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) What does this scripture say?
Slavery was completely different in Old Testament times...and there were specific rules as the Word states on slaves. No sex with slaves, they can't work on the sabbath, hurting or injuring a slave was punishable by death.
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)
'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)
He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21)
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
It is false to say a Christian would condone slavery. The fact is in biblical times people volunteered to be slaves.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Slavery is the owning of another human being, slave masters and how they treated their slaves (bad or good) always varied, back in "biblical times" there were masters who beat their slaves and others who treated them kindly, there were also slave masters who existed during the 19th century (pre civil war era) who were either cruel or "kind" to their slaves. Either way the bible itself does not oppose slavery and the argument your taking is that the bible says its "ok" to own slaves, just as long as you treat them "kindly" (but as the verses I put above show, the bible does not instruct you to be kind to your slave). Throught history the bible was used as justification for owning slaves.
None of those verses condem slavery, just because some may tell masters to be kind to their slaves, does not mean that it was anti slavery, there is not one passage in the bible that directly condems slavery.
in many religions in there history rape slavery and all the things we see now as bad were once OK. the majority does rule. i don't think its grate but what i have to say would not impact this world enough to allow them to see it. as far as i know religion is slowly ending. and for me that's enough.
fair warning because, i was once a religious man. now iv come too see how things really are, and to me, the way i see them now is slightly sadder then i hoped. but if you really want to know what i mean on this, then i could PM you.
Being a Christian is not about religion...it is about the relationship one has with Christ.
Religion can fade away but a relationship with God will not if you follow what He has told you. Also people can take religion away...they can't take a relationship away. They can take your Bible away, prohibit you from going to church or to pray in public. They can prohibit any public display of your faith...jewelry, bumper stickers, reading materials, magazines...etc.
BUT THEY CAN NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.
If you let that go then you didn't want it bad enough...the blame is on you.
If you are in a relationship with God it requires work on both sides. I know a lot of people who say...God won't do this, won't do that, He didn't answer my prayer. They said this while they were intentionally sinning and doing wrong. If you claim Christ then responsibility comes with it. Funny how hard people work on their relationships with people and they don't with God.
The fact is we want to spend time with the ones we love and cherish. And if you claim Christ...you should want do the same with Him.
if you want to be blessed by God then you need to be aggressively blessing other people.
Romans 5:8-11
(v.8)But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. (v.9)And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. (v.10)For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. (v.11)So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
i originally had a long dispute to tell you but... being a christian is legit totally about religion. im not addressing the rest simply cuz i think its pointless.
The only difference between religion and apologetic religion is that the latter attempts to defend itself within the framework of rationality. However, they are both irrational because both attempt to defend a belief that cannot actually be substantiated.
And for the sake of clarity, believers can be rational... just not about religion.
1. Their is not apologetic religion, just apologetic works and theologians for a certain religion.
My point was that apologetics is simply an attempt to defend religion within the framework of rationality but an attempt does not equate success.
2a.Thank you for your claim, where's your evidence?
My proof is that religion has never been proven. Not that the burden of proof is actually on my side (to provide proof that proof does not exist is an absurd expectation, really... and it sidesteps the responsibility of the belief holder to actually substantiate and defend their belief).
2b. Because you gave no evidence for 2a, 2b cannot be substantiated.
My point here was actually just to acknowledge that whether or not someone is irrational about religion they can still be rational about other things.
[1]"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a heral . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
[2]Celsus's (secular source) claims of Jesus working sorcery.
[3]Why would so many Jews give up their lifestyle? Other "Messiahs" had come but none had the same high number of followers Jesus Christ had when he was alive on this earth.
Yes, it is a rational belief to have. It is just as rational as any other belief or lack there of because the individual can find rational reasons to believe and keep believing.
Many people find it irrational that things came into being without the assistance of any force more powerful than what was made. If it is of use and functions, someone intelligent made it. That is one reason.
Many people find it irrational that things came into being without the assistance of any force more powerful than what was made.
As far as we know, it's not irrational for that to happen, but until a rational explanation backing up those claims is presented, then it remains irrational to believe that it's true.
If it is of use and functions, someone intelligent made it.
Yeah, but that does not mean it was "your God" who created it. There are other possibilities, such as Aliens creating us, or even some multidimensional beings.
As far as we no, it's not irrational for that to happen, but until a rational explanation backing up those claims is presented, then it remains irrational to believe that it's true.
As far as humanity knows, yes that happening is irrational. We have never seen something of use be made from nothing by essentially, no one.
Yeah, but that does not mean it was "your God" who created it. There are other possibilities, such as Aliens creating us, or even some multidimensional beings.
But it is just as likely that this God did as it is any other God and any other reason.
Which is why it is irrational, it follows an assumption and comes to conclusion based on observation.
Btw, if your God exists, I wouldnt exactly call him an "intelligent designer". For example:
1. 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water, we cant inhabit or drink from it
2. Genetic mutations such as cancer, down syndrome, autism, etc.
3. Diseases
4. Less than 99.9% of the universe is inhabitable by humans
5. Over 90% of every type of creature or lifeform that has lived on this earth has gone extinct
6. Our galaxy is slowly caving in on itself from black holes and collapsing supernovas
7. The milky way galaxy (the one we inhabit) is only one of over zillions of other similar solar systems in the universe (that gives justification for belief in aliens) why would God put his supposed "greatest creation" in the middle of nowhere in a never ending galaxy
8. Miscarriages
9. Women have menstral cycles
10. Men have nipples
11. Food and water go down the same pathway that we breathe out of
For the thousanth time: WHAT CREATED GOD?! If you simply say he is eternal than your stating its possible for something to have always existed, then it that case God is unessesary, think about it, which is more likely; that the universe itself is eternal, or something else that was eternal created the universe?
If that's evidence, then it's also evidence for many other things as well, like the possibility of the universe being created and fine tuned by aliens or some other beings.
Yes, religion is a rational belief to have because you can easily state the following:
There are so many religions and while many seem extremely divergent the reality is they all have the same basis...belief in one or more god(s) who by definition have control over we the creatures they somehow created.
You do not need to prove or disprove evolution because that can exist even if we were originally created. In fact,what a brilliant idea. An imperfect, self improving and cleansing system where over time diversity is balanced with the propogation of more favorable traits.
If I am understanding you correctly, your argument is that religion is rational because it is a widespread phenomenon. That is like saying discrimination is rational. I mean, it pervades every society right? So it must be.
Believable is not the same as rational. Not at all.
No No! I am saying if you look at why religion is a widespread phenomenon, you will see that its roots are based in extremely similar beliefs often based on the same historical (if you can call it that) accounts.
I see. However, you did post that argument upon the affirmation of this debate implying that the commonality between religion is a basis for claiming religion as rational. Perhaps I am still missing something?
I'm going to say that yes, Religion (in general, not any specific one) can be a rational belief to have. Often, the religious beliefs are not rational or reasoned at all, but that doesn't mean that they never are.
Assume, for a moment, that the individual in question is neither a religious scholar, nor does he or she have anything resembling a university level science background. This in fact represents most of the population of even developed countries.
From this perspective, with limited information available, an individual is essentially choosing which group of humans to have faith in; the atheist community or the community of the religion in question. Without the capability to perform any but the most basic experiments by oneself, trusting in the atheist perspective essentially means accepting the results of experiments one not only did not perform, but does not even truly understand; additionally, it means accepting the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiments. Science is not as perfect as we would like it to be; experiments themselves can be performed incorrectly, not properly controlled, and even when they are properly executed the conclusions drawn are not necessarily valid. For some, the fact that science is constantly being revised as new data is uncovered is a mark in science's favor- but for others, that in and of itself compromises the trust that those individuals can place in current scientific knowledge. Certainly, there is peer review amongst the scientific community for the aspects of science that are at odds with religious perspectives- but also recognize that for every verse of every holy text, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of analysis and interpretations available. From a certain point of view, one could say that any given religious interpretation has had its own heavy share of peer review.
Belief in an afterlife, for example- whether factual or not- is a rational position simply due to the inability of most (if not all) humans to actually conceptualize oblivion. Before something can be reasoned, the key concepts at play must first be conceptualized (even vaguely) as a starting point. As an example, people knew about gravity, if not in so many words and without the actual physics involved, simply due to the fact that when something is dropped, it falls. Quantum Mechanics and its ilk, on the other hand, appear as arcane hocus-pocus to most laymen due to an inability to conceptualize it.
Evolution vs. Creationism is a similar topic; from a certain perspective, applying Occam's razor seems to favor a creation event caused by forces we simply don't understand over current life taking its current shape over a time period that nobody can actually conceptualize and caused by random mutations. Without influences in either direction, simple observation shows that pretty much every life form on the earth has its own place in a huge system that fits together neatly like a puzzle. Experiments that seek to verify or observe speciation are exceedingly difficult even for the scientific community, and are well beyond the reach of the layman.
This is why religion has persisted for so long; whether correct or not, it provides answers to many questions that fit what is observable by the layman. What is being rational, what is being reasonable, if it isn't arriving at a conclusion that is consistent with ones observations?
Not all rational, well reasoned positions are factual, and not all factual positions are rational or well reasoned.
From this perspective, with limited information available, an individual is essentially choosing which group of humans to have faith in; the atheist community or the community of the religion in question.
This is a false dichotomy. You ignore soft atheism and agnosticism, which require no evidence because they are essentially statements of the absence of belief rather than a belief for or against religion.
Without the capability to perform any but the most basic experiments by oneself, trusting in the atheist perspective essentially means accepting the results of experiments one not only did not perform, but does not even truly understand; additionally, it means accepting the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiments.
The theistic option of course being that believe in hearsay rather than research, though your point is taken that most people either lack the resources or the dedication to generate an informed and opinion. However, a lack of education/knowledge does not make any belief more rational (just maybe less irrational).
Science is not as perfect as we would like it to be; experiments themselves can be performed incorrectly, not properly controlled, and even when they are properly executed the conclusions drawn are not necessarily valid.
The fallacy here is that imperfection of evidence is conflated as being equal to the absence of evidence. Science is certainly imperfect, but given its checks against human error it is more probabilistically and reliably true than non-scientific belief.
Certainly, there is peer review amongst the scientific community for the aspects of science that are at odds with religious perspectives- but also recognize that for every verse of every holy text, there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of analysis and interpretations available. From a certain point of view, one could say that any given religious interpretation has had its own heavy share of peer review.
The difference of course is that scientific peer review follows standards of proof whereas religious interpretation does not. Further, while science has internally challenged and modified its understandings religion has not changed at all in its fundamental beliefs (i.e. a god exists and created life). What changes and what is challenged internally has nothing to do with the belief in god but with relatively minor things (i.e. what clothing is acceptable, the role of women in congregations, the acceptability of homosexuality). So sure, religion has changed but that change has not been informed by any rational process substantiated by reason and evidence.
Belief in an afterlife, for example- whether factual or not- is a rational position simply due to the inability of most (if not all) humans to actually conceptualize oblivion.
The inability to reconcile a genetically and socially conditioned drive towards life and significance with the reality of impermanence and insignificance does not make belief in an afterlife rational. In fact, it is a clear example of the ways in which religion allows the human mind to sidestep rationality in favor of emotional gratification.
Evolution vs. Creationism is a similar topic; from a certain perspective, applying Occam's razor seems to favor a creation event caused by forces we simply don't understand over current life taking its current shape over a time period that nobody can actually conceptualize and caused by random mutations. Without influences in either direction, simple observation shows that pretty much every life form on the earth has its own place in a huge system that fits together neatly like a puzzle. Experiments that seek to verify or observe speciation are exceedingly difficult even for the scientific community, and are well beyond the reach of the layman.
You assume Occam's razor is true of course. Playing along, the principle is meant to give preference to theories. An irrational belief is not a theory, and thus creationism does not weigh against evolution. Otherwise we would assume that leprechauns are a better explanation of an apple falling than gravity; do not conflate simple with easy.
Furthermore, creationism has its own host of objections and complications. Not the least of which is: if God created everything, where did God come from. You are only displacing the point of arbitration without actually resolving the matter (which actually makes creationism a more complex notion, rather than a simpler one).
What is being rational, what is being reasonable, if it isn't arriving at a conclusion that is consistent with ones observations? Not all rational, well reasoned positions are factual, and not all factual positions are rational or well reasoned.
Rationality is a process of substantiation. As I said earlier, a lack of knowledge does not make something more rational only less irrational. If you dilute the meaning of rationality to include anything observed it looses its purpose altogether, namely it ceases to serve as a distinction between uniformed assumption and educated thinking.
-Not a false dichotomy. I'm oversimplifying here, obviously, but the specific oversimplification in use is literally a divide between those who believe in a god or gods and those that do not. You may have noticed that I'm not using a specific religion here but a generalization as well.
-Rational is defined as being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Level of knowledge doesn't really factor in- additional information can change a rational opinion, but an opinion formed via reason and logic is a rational position regardless of currently available data. This is one of the reasons for the changes in various scientific theories over the time.
-I did not allege that imperfect evidence is equal in any way to absence of evidence. It's not, by any means- but to a certain mindset, it's actually worse; one has to acknowledge that.
-Recall that I'm referring specifically to those who lack the capacity, motivation, or both, to do independent review and research. Obviously, the standards of proof et al within the scientific community are pretty evident to those who take the time to educate themself on such, but to those who do not or can't, even the standard of proof is dubious,
-Belief in an afterlife is rational as an extension of that which we take for granted in order to perform any reasoning; that our senses and memories combine to give us a more or less accurate perception of reality. This is far from perfect, I'll acknowledge, but as we've seen on both the scientific and religious sides- imperfect reasoning or lacking knowledge does not make a reasoned position from assumptions we make out of necessity any less rational, and I expect the positions on such to be revised if and when better data is available, obviously with a large number of holdouts despite it.
-I should again note that I'm not referencing my own position here. And when I refer to 'creation event' I am not referring to what is generally accepted as creationism, eg. someone snapped their fingers and called all life into being. The broad strokes I am painting also allow for evolution being used as a tool by a creator, shaping it intentionally rather than leaving it to the whim of random mutations. Perhaps I should have said Intelligent Design there, my apologies. I should also note that the statement/question "If God created everything, where did God come from?" has its own fundamental flaw- namely, the premise of the question assumes there is a god that created everything, and if one makes the assumption that a supernatural being and/or event created the universe as we know it, that supernatural being and/or event, being supernatural, does not need its own cause; we're already well outside the realm of causality and what can be observed and measured directly.
-Your understanding of what is rational is flawed. Rationality is in fact the state of being agreeable to or in accordance with reason. A rational position is one formed using reasoning and logic. Level of knowledge does not factor at all into whether or not a position is rational. Rational does not mean correct. Reasoning from bad data, or lacking key data, is not flawed reasoning because of that even if incorrect conclusions are drawn from it. Frankly, that's why the scientific method exists; to maximize the amount of data and sanitize as much human error from the reasoning process as possible.
That you oversimplified does not negate the consequential construction of a false dichotomy. My point was that you have created a realm in which the only comparable standard for rationality is between theism and strong atheism, with no allowance for the merit of the non-assumptive nature of non-belief (e.g. agnosticism, soft atheism).
You falsely conflate my refutation of your analysis surrounding knowledge with my views on rationality. Knowledge was never my premise. I was merely responding and bringing your statements to their natural conclusion of contradiction and fallacy. I never once stated that rational means correct, and in fact a significant part of my analysis that you did not even address was grounded in the very definition you are providing of rationality being defined by logic and reasoning. In short, my point was that science is rational because it pursues a course of logical analysis whereas religion pursues a course of substituting assumption where knowledge does not yet exist (or even with total disregard to knowledge that does exist). Science and religion are both fallible, but science is significantly less fallible because it engages with a process of logic and reason whereas religion engages emotion.
Lacking capacity and/or motivation to pursue logical processes does not by default make a conclusion reached outside of logic and reason a rational one. In the absence of knowledge substituting assumption is not rational so much as it is emotional; most people do not do well when confronted by the unknown and feel a need to explain it by whatever means necessary.
Regarding afterlife Belief in afterlife is not assumed for the sake of being able to reason, it is assumed for the sake of avoiding reasoning and facing the uncertain or unknown. There is no proof at all, sensory or memory-based, that indicates that an afterlife is a part of reality.
Regarding creationsism/ID. This is not an especially relevant distinction in the context of my refutation. My point applies to both equally. Your only counter to my turn on Occam’s Razor is a fallacious retort that God does not need a cause because he is the cause. This absolutely does not address that fact that God (a something) came from nowhere (nothing). It is the same problem, just with a fancy little bit of circular reasoning to circumvent its obvious flaw. What you claim can in no way be substantiated and it is a wholly unfounded assumption.
I suppose we'll just simply have to disagree entirely on this; your reasoning isn't flawed, you just have a completely different perspective than I do. I don't see any benefit to continually going back and forth on this matter; I've made my statements and I stand by them.
I do not use profanity...but when someone is acting like a child...then call them out. Why do people need to use profanity? This is a debate site...and usually the ones who do this are kids...who just crash the site to disrupt it.
Is it an insult to call someone out on language unbecoming to a debate?
I can't believe I'm siding with churchmouse on this, but come on- the overwhelming majority of satanism is not legitimate satan worship by any means and exists specifically to troll religious individuals. There are exceptions, but the tenor of the original post makes it pretty obvious that it is not one of said exceptions. It is quite obviously an inflammatory post intended to offend those of a religious mind, particularly those of Christian faith- it is worse than a personified insult because it's a direct attack against a mass of people, posted prominently in a debate that would obviously draw many of them to it. It's worse for the same reason that genocide is worse than homicide, much as I hate to make such an extreme comparison. If churchmouse is guilty of anything here, it is feeding a troll, as we've all been known to do at times.
The belief in God can be reasonably disputed as being rational. Religion, however, as a whole is not rational as its multiple forms contradict one another. But if one where to look at the various types of religion and cut off the least rational types that would leave one type of theism, which once filtered again could be seen as rational from a theological standpoint.
The main issue with religion as opposed to just the philosophical notion of God is that its strength is also its weakness - religions usually show a viewpoint of involved gods or God which usually means the intervention into our realm. The strength of this is that it helps to convince those who witness it that their God is real. However this leaves open the negative - the ability to disprove those events,and pick apart that belief system. So it would have to be a decently strong piece of theology.
You cannot isolate religion into a singular theism, and to premise an argument on an impossible hypothesis is utterly meaningless.
The conception of an involved deity or deities is not a strength in defense of its rationality. An interpretation of events as divine intervention is not evidence of divine intervention. There can be no "decently strong piece of theology" because it is all based on fallible assumption.
That's like saying that you cannot argue for a particular type of government in a debate about governments so I'd hardly call it an impossible hypothesis.
And fallible theories can then be argued for and against appropriately, using the limits of current science, philosophy and historical research. In fact the idea of an involved God makes it more rational as if it is true it becomes possible to definitively prove, as opposed to the probability element of just the philosophical evidence.
Not really. Your argument as I understood it was that by filtering out the nonsense and less defensible stances of religion one could create a rational form of religion. That is like saying that by filtering out the problematic aspects of all types of government one can create a functional form of government. Neither is useful because neither is a remote approximation to reality. There is no religious belief that filters out the indefensible, and I would argue that any attempt to do so would ultimately negate religion as being rational.
An involved deity cannot be definitively proven. No act or occurrence can be conclusively or even suggestively linked to any deity through any course of logic; if it could it would already have been done. The notion of an involved deity is hardly new, and claims of divine intervention are as old as the debate we are having now... yet that intervention has never been proven.
Yes that is what i'm saying, and that does seem very realistic. The way we morph our governments over time makes them more effective. Unless you want to say that Athenian democracy would be just as effective today than our current models.
Why can't it be definitively proven?. When a deity moves into the physical realm it becomes an observable and testable event.
There is little to suggest that our governments are actually more effective, particular as there is no standard point for assessing effectiveness between governments across cultures across massive spans of time. I think it is safe to say, however, that Athenian democracy was probably more effective than Somalian government (if not American republicanism). Similarly to government, I do not think religion today is much if at all better than religion before. And if it is, I would contend that this is a consequence of secular moderation and external pressures rather than of religion itself. If anything, religion has most consistently counteracted development and change.
An involved deity does not become physical themselves, but influences events in the physical realm. Because such events cannot be proven to any degree to be causally connected to any deity, an involved deity is not evidential proof of religion.
The reliability of a religion is dependent upon two main categories.
The first is the role model(s) that represents the religion and who according to the effectiveness of his morals and actions has the credibility to be the representative of that religion.
The second is the moral argument. This is due to the fact that it is unnatural for a representative or prophet who abides by morals or whose morals are innate in him to deceive people into worshiping God. And further than that, the human being has a built in characteristic to accept good and reject evil from the first day he is born. And so religion reinforces that mechanism of choosing good rather than evil.
Any other categories like miracles of Moses or Jesus peace be upon them or the miracles of the Quran are there to to support the moral and prophecy arguments.
Yes, it is very rational. If you think about it honestly, If there is no God, then how do we know anything? We don't. Everything could just be an illusion. You could have dreamed up everything that we know. You say it's not true? Prove it. And if this world is just an illusion then why are there laws of physics? Why does gravity always seem to work? But, then again, this argument I just made could just be nonsense, imagined as a logical question...
It is rational to be afraid of death, as it is in our natural programming to want to live. It is also rational to seek the truth. What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?
It is rational to disagree with others. It is not rational to fight to the death for your beliefs, and encourage others to do the same. It is not rational either, to accept one ridiculous answer and lead your life by it, and yet turn your back to a similar answer, profetised by a secondary religion.
What's more, it is irrational to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face which are disproving your beliefs ( or at least some of them) and to continue fighting for something which has been proven ( or at least in part) not to be true.
What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?
Depends on who the person is. If this is like an uneducated family in China or Africa it's completely rational. A deity of some sort or belief in reincarnation is okay for them.
Actually it does. From the logical viewpoints they see this as something inherently true. It's rational to them. All logic isn't objective. To them it makes perfect sense.
If the only standard for something to be rational is that it makes sense to someone then rationality as a concept becomes utterly meaningless. Furthermore, if that is the standard then any person who believes in a deity or reincarnation is being rational regardless of what context they are situated within.
No human thought can be purely objective, as we are all influenced by feelings and opinions that we hold. However, the very purpose of logic is to mitigate this subjectivity through a particular system of principles and criteria for assessing the validity of inference and demonstration. Logic is the science of formal reasoning, and rationality is distinguished as a consequence not of its inherent objectivity but for its mitigation of subjectivity to the greatest extent possible. Just because someone thinks something that does not make it rational, because rationality requires a system of procedures for analysis and deduction.
There is a difference between uneducated people and people who lack common sense.
Education is vital, but but you do not have to be Einstein to see the unseen.
People with true wisdom can see God and the purpose of creation without having to tackle the scientific details which never contradict with the fact that God exists.
I am not afraid of death...I would like to live a long life however. I know my eternal life will start after I die. I would think someone who is unsure about what happens after death...would be afraid.
You talk about answers to questions. Why since you say the believer knows nothing....don't you explain why we are here and how we got here. What was the first cause?
It is rational to fight to the death for something you believe in. I would fight for Christ and my family. It is rational to encourage others to do good, the right thing.
The facts?
Why don't you share the facts with us all.
What was the first cause?
And address cause and effect...coming from the science angle of it.
Did a big explosion happen? If it did...what caused the explosion and why?
How do you account that evolution formed the universe in perfect harmony...the eye, the egg, life on our planet and on no other?
Why is being in an intelligent creator so irrational..if you can not explain anything either?
I would think someone who is unsure about what happens after death...would be afraid.
I do not believe in life after death. In fact, I am quite convinced that there is no life after death. This does not frighten me. I am reconciled with my own mortality and universal insignificance. To me, escaping into a belief in the afterlife to avoid confronting those realities cheapens the life we know we have.
It is rational to fight to the death for something you believe in. I would fight for Christ and my family. It is rational to encourage others to do good, the right thing.
It is not rational at all to fight to the death if one appreciates the finality of death. Of course, believing in an afterlife without any actual evidence to support that belief should make death insignificant. But a belief that fighting to the death is rational when premised upon an irrational belief is itself irrational.
And please, who are you to say you actually know what is "good" or "right"? Does it never strike you how incredibly egotistical that is, to think that you have the correct view on life, the universe, and everything and everyone else is just flat out wrong. Especially when you cannot prove it at all.
Why since you say the believer knows nothing....don't you explain why we are here and how we got here. What was the first cause? [...] And address cause and effect...coming from the science angle of it. Did a big explosion happen? If it did...what caused the explosion and why?
I will not pretend to understand complex scientific theories on the origins of life and existence, nor will I attempt to claim that science is even capable of explaining all of that yet. However, I refuse to substitute an arbitrary set of beliefs for knowledge we do not yet have. Ultimately a belief in god does not answer the question of where existence came from anyways; it only changes the point of arbitration to the consideration of where god came from.
How do you account that evolution formed the universe in perfect harmony...the eye, the egg, life on our planet and on no other?
The universe functions as a complex system because it has had billions of years to develop from the simplest causes to the more intricate effects. Given that the human life span has never exceeded much more than a century, obviously it is a challenge for most people to conceive of how much complexity natural cause and effect can generate. Creationism is a way of sidestepping the frequent human inability to grasp the possibility of complex evolution. Basically, since we cannot fully understand or appreciate it, let's invent a deity who can.
The existence of some deity capable of accounting for the complexity of the universe and creating it in one go makes far less sense, particularly as it necessitates the creation of such an intelligence. If you subscribe to a creationism where god laid the seeds and let things develop from there... well, then, your own reasoning defeats itself since clearly cause can lead to complex effect.
But you don't know for a fact that there is no life after death. I would think that would make you afraid. Because if there is....say if Christ said was true...then who loses out? What convinces you that there is no life after death?
Gee...that means no consequences so what reason would it be to be kind and do nice to people? Who cares. And if there is no eternal punishment, no consequences...then it should not matter what we do...murder, rape....no incentive to be good.
What realities are bad to confront? If you don't think there is an after life...you shouldnt be afraid to confront anything in life, even the bad stuff...who cares. You end up in dust anyway, right?
it is rational to fight for the death in something you believe in..especially if you believe in an after life. If there is one our existence matters, it means something. If there isn't one...as I said who cares. If one believes in an afterlife where consequences in life matters...you better believe it matters how one lives.
What is good and right? Well rape is bad. ARe you saying its good? What is good about rape? How many people think rape is good? Do you think someone should be punished for rape?
You don't understand complexed science...no one does totally. There is more unexplainable than explainable. That does not mean there was not a first cause....why are we here and who put us here? I don't have enough faith to believe it was by random chance.
I don't understand the first thing about scientific theories..but I know they can't answer the big questions in life...the big ones we all wonder about. And I don't think any mathamatician would say....that it all statistically could have happened the way it did.
But you don't know for a fact that there is no life after death. I would think that would make you afraid. […] What convinces you that there is no life after death?
Life after death demands a sense of self be perpetuated after death. Our sense of self is a byproduct of neural processes in the brain, and it is a fact that our sense of self ceases when the brain ceases to function. Even if this were incorrect, I would rather live a good life and trust that that would yield me a happy afterlife than arbitrarily subscribe to a religion. There is no basis upon which to make an informed conversion to one over another. Are you not afraid that you have chosen the wrong religion?
Gee...that means no consequences so what reason would it be to be kind and do nice to people? […] no incentive to be good.[…]ARe you saying rape is good?
Frankly, I find it terrifying that so many peoples' morality are informed only by the threat of hellfire. The only incentive I need to care about others is an innate compassion for life, and knowing that this is the only life places that much more impetus upon respecting it for myself and others.
Besides, the absence of consequence in the afterlife hardly removes all consequence in this life. If you murder, rape, or commit other harmful acts of course there will be consequences - social and legal. Morality does not depend upon religion to exist, and secular law penalizes quite well without religion.
In point of fact, religion more frequently counteracts popular moral justice than supports it – more violence has been enacted in the name of religion than any other cause or idea, and shall I even begin to count the number of times the Bible codifies assault on women and negates consent, or how about the number of sex scandals and cover-ups within the Catholic Church?
What realities are bad to confront? If you don't think there is an after life...you shouldnt be afraid to confront anything in life, even the bad stuff...who cares. You end up in dust anyway, right?
I am not afraid to confront any reality, and I would argue that no reality is bad to confront. It is avoiding reality that is harmful, and my contention is that the religious are afraid to confront their mortality and insignificance.
it is rational to fight for the death in something you believe in..especially if you believe in an after life.
As I said already, any action taken due to an irrational premise is itself irrational. You believe fighting to the death is rational because you believe the afterlife is rational; neither is because the latter is not (you still have not proven it is).
There is more unexplainable than explainable. That does not mean there was not a first cause...I don’t have enough faith to believe it was by random chance. I don't understand the first thing about scientific theories..but I know they can't answer the big questions in life...
The primary difference between religion and science is that religion pretends to have answers absent proof, whereas science acknowledges not having all the answers and does not pretend to absent proof. Most mathematicians, physicists, and other relevant professionals would make that same distinction.
Tell me, which really requires more faith then - religious assumption absent and even against proof, or scientific knowledge accompanied by acknowledgment of what remains unknown? What you are really saying is not that you do not have the faith to believe in science, but that you find religious faith easier than acknowledging and confronting the unknown.
It is rational to be afraid of death, as it is in our natural programming to want to live. It is also rational to seek the truth. What is irrational, is accepting something lamentably not true, because you cannot think of a suitable answer for the question. What is life, what happens after death, why are we alive?
It is rational to disagree with others. It is not rational to fight to the death for your beliefs, and encourage others to do the same. It is not rational either, to accept one ridiculous answer and lead your life by it, and yet turn your back to a similar answer, profetised by a secondary religion.
What's more, it is irrational to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face which are disproving your beliefs ( or at least some of them) and to continue fighting for something which has been proven ( or at least in part) not to be true.
^ Many aspects of religion are irrational.
How would you explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
Fine tuning? come on now? Heard this one before. How is the universe fine tuned when 90% of it is fatal? Perhaps you choose to view it as fine tuned because you have grown to find certain things about it more convenient than other things about it (which should happen fine tuned or not) and this makes you more secure in your beliefs about god?
Fine tuning? come on now? Heard this one before. How is the universe fine tuned when 90% of it is fatal? Perhaps you choose to view it as fine tuned because you have grown to find certain things about it more convenient than other things about it (which should happen fine tuned or not) and this makes you more secure in your beliefs about god?
There is evidence of fine tuning such as the flatness of the universe this is know as the flatness problem (1.) a suggested solution is cosmic inflation (2.) but that makes the fine-tuning even more worse (3.) by by a factor of (10 to the 10th power ) to the 100th power so instead of solving it it makes it worse and much worse. It is possible that a multi-verse is happening although it has not been observed at all and appears not to exist. I am not trying to do the "god of the gaps" but there should be evidence of multiple universes (4.) by now. The problem with this supposed logic is at best evidence is few and far between with 5. and 6. (5.)(6.) being almost the only evidence of evidence that I could find. So believing in a God or a Creator is not illogical as some atheists claim. Although the hypothesis of the multiuniverse is something to ponder about never the less.
There is evidence of fine tuning such as the flatness of the universe this is know as the flatness problem (1.) a suggested solution is cosmic inflation (2.)
In the first wikipedia article you showed me, it also brings up the Einstein Caratan Theory as a solution. I also fail to understand how this flatness within the universe we have had to try to make sense of, at all suggests fine tuning?
(3.) by by a factor of (10 to the 10th power ) to the 100th power so instead of solving it it makes it worse and much worse. It is possible that a multi-verse is happening although it has not been observed at all and appears not to exist. I am not trying to do the "god of the gaps" but there should be evidence of multiple universes (4.) by now. The problem with this supposed logic is at best evidence is few and far between with 5. and 6. (5.)(6.) being almost the only evidence of evidence that I could find.
Yet the evidence for god, assuming the rest of your logic with this is correct and your point is correct, is at least equal to the evidence of a multi-verse if not less.
So believing in a God or a Creator is not illogical as some atheists claim. Although the hypothesis of the multiuniverse is something to ponder about never the less.
It is still quite illogical in my honest opinion, I don't see how the flatness of the universe makes it all fine tuned or better for the life inside of it. Secondly you still haven't addressed why 98% of our universe will kill us, seems like a lot of wasted space to me for a god to create so superfluously.
In the first wikipedia article you showed me, it also brings up the Einstein Caratan Theory as a solution.
It's possible
I also fail to understand how this flatness within the universe we have had to try to make sense of, at all suggests fine tuning?
Life as we know it needs heavy elements to live which is only possible in a flat universe.
Also galaxies and planets can form instead of black holes, etc.
It is still quite illogical in my honest opinion, I don't see how the flatness of the universe makes it all fine tuned or better for the life inside of it.
See above
Secondly you still haven't addressed why 98% of our universe will kill us, seems like a lot of wasted space to me for a god to create so superfluously.
For possibly humans and other sentient creatures to survive. Also if a God or higher being wanted to and only had limited control over it (this is a hypothesis) he didn't want it to be "too" fine-tuned.
It is because if the universe was "too" fine-tuned there would be "mass wars" in the galaxy and the primitive humanity would be helpless..... So what seems to be "not fine-tuned" might actually be helpful to primitive civilizations in the galaxy preventing mass invasion and protecting the survival of species throughout the galaxy. Like for instance a conquering empire of aliens (in theory) would be devastating for all sentient life throughout the galaxy if the speed of light was faster or slower. Faster for the speed of life and there might be wars that would devastate full regions of the galaxy. Slower and sentient life is stuck in one spot. There is many other supposed debunking of fine-tuning but they do not point out the problem if it was different.
As well as more scientifically backed up than a creator.
Life as we know it needs heavy elements to live which is only possible in a flat universe.
This isn't evidence for fine-tuning if something about our universe is essentially for us to live, otherwise life wouldn't exist at all, and you might as well make the argument that life in and of itself is evidence for god, which I don't mind you going that route if you wish. A big problem I have with fine tuning, is that it assumes that we can distinguish a designed universe over an universe that wasn't, when we've only seen and really can imagine one kind of universe.
Also galaxies and planets can form instead of black holes, etc.
Why do black holes exist at all if our universe is fine tuned?
For possibly humans and other sentient creatures to survive. Also if a God or higher being wanted to and only had limited control over it (this is a hypothesis) he didn't want it to be "too" fine-tuned.
It is because if the universe was "too" fine-tuned there would be "mass wars" in the galaxy and the primitive humanity would be helpless..... So what seems to be "not fine-tuned" might actually be helpful to primitive civilizations in the galaxy preventing mass invasion and protecting the survival of species throughout the galaxy. Like for instance a conquering empire of aliens (in theory) would be devastating for all sentient life throughout the galaxy if the speed of light was faster or slower. Faster for the speed of life and there might be wars that would devastate full regions of the galaxy. Slower and sentient life is stuck in one spot. There is many other supposed debunking of fine-tuning but they do not point out the problem if it was different.
Why not just create one intelligent species within the universe?
This isn't evidence for fine-tuning if something about our universe is essentially for us to live, otherwise life wouldn't exist at all, and you might as well make the argument that life in and of itself is evidence for god, which I don't mind you going that route if you wish. A big problem I have with fine tuning, is that it assumes that we can distinguish a designed universe over an universe that wasn't, when we've only seen and really can imagine one kind of universe.
We can tell a "fine-tuned" universe is one that sentient life can do the best in.
No but it is pretty clear what ones would benefit us the most. For example in a universe with no matter= no life
universe with too much matter= giant black hole.
Perhaps if there was a multi-verse (and my point still stands regardless of whether or not there is one) universes with too much matter or not enough wouldn't come into existence often, and most universes would look like ours, but some with more life and some with less. You can't imagine exactly what this would be like, you can't compare this universe to another, you never seen a "fine-tuned" universe that you knew was fine-tuned, so how do you know ours is? How do you know this isn't how a universe that formed at random wouldn't form this way?
Perhaps if there was a multi-verse (and my point still stands regardless of whether or not there is one) universes with too much matter or not enough wouldn't come into existence often, and most universes would look like ours, but some with more life and some with less. You can't imagine exactly what this would be like, you can't compare this universe to another, you never seen a "fine-tuned" universe that you knew was fine-tuned, so how do you know ours is? How do you know this isn't how a universe that formed at random wouldn't form this way?
Ill say it again for a third time, Im not trying to argue there is a multiverse, I don't necessarily believe in one either, my argument was a hypothetical. It even says in the argument you quoted that my argument still stands regardless of whether or not a multiverse exists. How can you differentiate between a fine tuned universe and one that wasn't, we've only seen one universe. How do you know this isn't how a universe wouldn't form at random?
How so? I mean I can see how it can be so unlikely in that it's formation is at random, but that is an inevitable unlikeliness. Just how throwing sand up in the air and it landing in a random formation is an inevitable unlikeliness.
How so? I mean I can see how it can be so unlikely in that it's formation is at random, but that is an inevitable unlikeliness. Just how throwing sand up in the air and it landing in a random formation is an inevitable unlikeliness.
I already showed you if dark matter was different life wouldn't form
This isn't evidence for fine-tuning if something about our universe is essentially for us to live, otherwise life wouldn't exist at all, and you might as well make the argument that life in and of itself is evidence for god, which I don't mind you going that route if you wish.
Ok
Why do black holes exist at all if our universe is fine tuned?
They are necessary for life and for galaxy formation. Scientists also agree with the hypothesis. "Take away the black holes and you get a different mix of elements, in different places. You might also get different, more volatile stars, which explode in a destructive supernova, blowing away inchoate complex structures."
Why not just create one intelligent species within the universe?
You are saying life should be common in the universe if it was fine-tuned.
A big problem I have with fine tuning, is that it assumes that we can distinguish a designed universe over an universe that wasn't, when we've only seen and really can imagine one kind of universe.
Ok this is how we can distinguish a fine-tuned universe. A fine tuned universe is a universe that allows the formation of sentient lifeforms. A "Extremely" fine-tuned universe is a universe that allows sentient life to exist for over 100,000,000 years. Our universe is fine-tuned as to allow sentient life to exist for eons. (About a billion years will sentient life be able to live on earth in theory assuming no terraforming or space exploration.) That will probably not happen so in theory humanity will never go extinct or will be "upgraded" and be in a way so that "normal" humans would be very rare in the universe. I am moving on because that is another story to talk about. Sentient life is in of itself evidence of a higher intelligence and the problem with the multiverse theory is that there is no evidence of a multiverse. If you want to call this "fine-tuner" God or "aliens" or a "higher being". To make religion a rational belief to have you have to first prove that believing in a higher being or a creator is a rational belief to have as to tie it into the debate title.
My argument to this would be, why would life require a fine tuner or a creator?
You are saying life should be common in the universe if it was fine-tuned.
It would make a lot more sense than to have all this extra space lying around. Dead planets and space itself.
Ok this is how we can distinguish a fine-tuned universe. A fine tuned universe is a universe that allows the formation of sentient lifeforms. That will probably not happen so in theory humanity will never go extinct or will be "upgraded" and be in a way so that "normal" humans would be very rare in the universe. I am moving on because that is another story to talk about. Sentient life is in of itself evidence of a higher intelligence and the problem with the multiverse theory is that there is no evidence of a multiverse. If you want to call this "fine-tuner" God or "aliens" or a "higher being". To make religion a rational belief to have you have to first prove that believing in a higher being or a creator is a rational belief to have as to tie it into the debate title.
What is your logic behind this, what if there was a multiverse and we could observe a quantity of universes and found life wasn't all that special or rare in a universe? The fact that life exists isn't evidence of a fine tuner, it is inevitable that life would exist somewhere.
What is your logic behind this, what if there was a multiverse and we could observe a quantity of universes and found life wasn't all that special or rare in a universe? The fact that life exists isn't evidence of a fine tuner, it is inevitable that life would exist somewhere.
My point is that there is no evidence of multi-verses in the universe(s).
My point is that there is no evidence of multi-verses in the universe(s).
Which doesn't combat my point, you are missing my point, my point still stands regardless of whether or not there is a multi-verse. In fact if anything your point compliments mine, how do you know that life would be oh so special that it would require a fine tuner. What if life is always guaranteed to exist somewhere if our universe was reset over, and over and over? there would always be life? If the universe started over and over and over and kept creating life somewhere inside itself, it would be creating life at random, disproving your fine tuning argument, and statistically, that is what would happen.
Which doesn't combat my point, you are missing my point, my point still stands regardless of whether or not there is a multi-verse. In fact if anything your point compliments mine, how do you know that life would be oh so special that it would require a fine tuner. What if life is always guaranteed to exist somewhere if our universe was reset over, and over and over? there would always be life? If the universe started over and over and over and kept creating life somewhere inside itself, it would be creating life at random, disproving your fine tuning argument, and statistically, that is what would happen.
The fine-tuning wouldn't of changed the laws would be the same if the universe keeps "resetting".
The fine-tuning wouldn't of changed the laws would be the same if the universe keeps "resetting".
what? are you trying to say the fine tuning is in the laws of a universe? How do you know that a universe with any other laws is possible? Maybe we have the laws we do, because all universes have to have those same laws? Maybe that is what comes with a space time fabric? I still can't see how you could distinguish a designed universe over one that wasn't when you've only seen one universe.
what? are you trying to say the fine tuning is in the laws of a universe? How do you know that a universe with any other laws is possible? Maybe we have the laws we do, because all universes have to have those same laws? Maybe that is what comes with a space time fabric? I still can't see how you could distinguish a designed universe over one that wasn't when you've only seen one universe.
You are saying it would have a "big crush" then a "big bang" but give no reason for such a thing to happen and even allowing you to allow that to happen what would cause the laws to reset.
You are saying it would have a "big crush" then a "big bang" but give no reason for such a thing to happen and even allowing you to allow that to happen what would cause the laws to reset.
No offense, but could you try taking a little more time to articulate yourself better, I can hardly understand what you are trying to say... I am not saying that this will happen, it is hypothetical... I am not saying our laws will ever reset. You are saying that the laws that we have require fine tuning... why? what is so off about them, what? are the laws we have not supposed to be the laws we have? does it not make sense that these laws exist? maybe if there was multiple universes we could observe, we'd see these same laws would always have to exist for the universes to exist. Maybe these laws come with a space time fabric, just as geometry comes with shapes.
No offense, but could you try taking a little more time to articulate yourself better, I can hardly understand what you are trying to say...
Ok I am saying is there is no evidence of a multiverse so that is out and the universe even if it did reset wouldn't change the laws of physics.
... I am not saying that this will happen, it is hypothetical...
You are giving no evidence why that would occur
You are saying that the laws that we have require fine tuning... why? what is so off about them, what? are the laws we have not supposed to be the laws we have? does it not make sense that these laws exist?
Dark energy for example if it was even slightly larger galaxies wouldn't form. I could give you more examples.
Ok I am saying is there is no evidence of a multiverse so that is out and the universe even if it did reset wouldn't change the laws of physics. You are giving no evidence why that would occur
The point I am trying to make is you have no evidence or reason to think our universe is special by any means that would require a fine tuner, we only know of one universe (regardless of whether or not there is only one universe). We don't know if our laws of physics would be any less unlikely with or without a fine tuner because we don't know how other universes are supposed to look like.
Dark energy for example if it was even slightly larger galaxies wouldn't form. I could give you more examples.
How do you know without a fine tuner that dark energy would be slightly larger? It seems like you are just trying to find what could be different about our universe to make it less ideal for us. I could go "well if the ocean was lava instead of water, fish couldn't possibly live in it, ergo humans are responsible for the ocean being made of water" it doesn't work like that. How do you know a universe is supposed to have more dark energy? How do you know that the amount of dark energy we have wasn't inevitable anyway?
No, but you don't have evidence that a fine tuner is required for our laws of physics yourself. That is really an argument from ignorance "I don't know how we got our laws of physics, so god must have done it".
You just said Why not just create one intelligent species within the universe?
what side are you on?
an intelligent species within the universe that existed through out the universe. This would be a significantly better argument for a fine tuner, if human beings existed all over the universe, evolution allowed us all to become the same therefore there was less tension and no wasted space.
an intelligent species within the universe that existed through out the universe. This would be a significantly better argument for a fine tuner, if human beings existed all over the universe, evolution allowed us all to become the same therefore there was less tension and no wasted space.
My point it is observation bias in 2.5 billion years (just a long time) humanity would expand are you saying the fine-tuning argument would magically gain it? (credibility)
My point is it observation bias in 2.5 billion years (just a long time) humanity would expand are you saying the fine-tuning argument would magically gain it? (credibility)
If what you are trying to say is, that fine tuning is allowing us to explore the universe, and it is ridiculous to let it just have us already explored is asking too much evidence. Then my reply to this is, that I am saying if something highly unlikely, or contradicted the probability of what our universe could create this greatly, and every planet was habitable, or almost every planet, this would be a good argument for fine tuning maybe. Not just saying that the laws are so perfect for what the end result is that a god must have designed it... it doesn't work that way, the end result will always correlate with the laws of the universe.
Cause the chances of this happening assuming there is just one universe 1 to infinity for a universe to be fine-tuned for sentient life.
Sentient life, is rare for any one planet, but for an entire universe, maybe not at all. Maybe for an entire universe to provide life somewhere, is guaranteed?
Sentient life, is rare for any one planet, but for an entire universe, maybe not at all. Maybe for an entire universe to provide life somewhere, is guaranteed?
That is not my point I am saying is to make it able for sentient life to be able to be throughout the universe requires lots of fine-tuning by a intelligent designer.
I am saying is for life to even be able in a universe to develop requires an extremely high level of luck or an intelligent designer.
That is not my point I am saying is to make it able for sentient life to be able to be throughout the universe requires lots of fine-tuning by a intelligent designer.
How so, sentient life existing somewhere is inevitable so I fail to see how a fine tuner is necessary.
I am saying is for life to even be able in a universe to develop requires an extremely high level of luck or an intelligent designer.
No it doesn't, it is pretty much guaranteed. Life to exist on any given planet is highly unlikely, but life to exist anywhere in the universe, is like I said multiple times, inevitable.
No it doesn't, it is pretty much guaranteed. Life to exist on any given planet is highly unlikely, but life to exist anywhere in the universe, is like I said multiple times, inevitable.
Why would a god be required to have the exact laws of physics we have now? Are you saying that because we don't know where our laws come from that god must exist? that is an argument from ignorance.
Why is it rational to be afraid of death? I am not afraid of death...why are you? You maintain that there is no life after death...so you just end up as ash....so what are you afraid of?
I think you are wrong....dispute is to argue or debate. We are debating. I am addressing what you said. I question what you said, what you claim is the truth. We are engaging in discussions and arguments.
No it is not rational, a child who claims they have an imaginary friend will be allowed this fantasy ,till he or she is a certain age,
and then the illusion is gently dispelled , as the child's matures .So why is this any different? . Humans fear death , and the thought of extinction.There seems to be a need not to feel that this life is all we have, so "God " and the belief in a God is their safety net.
It is incredible in every other facet of life believers , use logic and reasoning , yet when it comes to this they just claim it's " faith " . All believers are brainwashed from childhood , if a child was never exposed to a belief in God till adulthood, they would reject the idea out of hand as nonsensical tripe .
I was one of those brainwashed kids. I fell away for many years, using alot of those silly statements until I actually stopped being lazy and reviewed the evidence as unbiasedly as I could and decided belief in a higher being was acceptable. I was able to use the process of elimination to settle where I am today.
Its ignorance,stubborness and personal bias that makes this process so difficult, you have believers and nonbelievers not bothering to study both sides with an honest heart and prefer to just throw ad hominems and conjecture around.
God never lost to iron chariots. The people of Judah did. Anywho, he beat them in Judges 4 which proves that chariots could lose and God can beat iron chariots.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I remembered the verse about 3 seconds after I posted the comment. My rebuttal is in my previous argument. My apologies.
The point is God was with those people. It was God's power that allowed them to be successful in previous battles and God's power that was insufficient when it came time to throw down with iron chariots. Sure there are enough apologist websites for you to look up an excuse for anything, but your rebuttal only serves to underscore the fact that the Bible is merely a collection of contradiction and nonsense.
God never lost to iron chariots. The people of Judah did. Anywho, he beat them in Judges 4 which proves that chariots could lose and God can beat iron chariots.
In case you never read it.
My point is God never lost to the chariots, the Israelites did. Iron chariots were the most advanced of there time, so they had a huge fear factor. Of course the Israelites were confident that they could beat the foot soldiers, but when a real problem arose they began to show fear. Which is why they lost, because they lost faith in God and when that happens, he always leaves them to their own devices.
This makes no sense. What you're saying (what the apologists who made up this excuse to cover up for an obvious problem are saying) is that as long as God was with them, they could win battles they didn't need him for, but as soon as they came up against any real resistance, God being with them wasn't enough. Also why did they lose faith in a God who just helped them win every other battle. Not only is a loss of faith just a made up explanation, it's not even logical.
I think you are deliberately interpreting what you want from what I said.
as that as long as God was with them, they could win battles they didn't need him for
Okay no. They could have still lost the battle with the foot soldiers, but they were confident they would win. In other words, they saw a possibility, and God being with them made it an assurance.
but as soon as they came up against any real resistance, God being with them wasn't enough.
That has always been the Modus Operandi of the Isrealites- to give up whether God is with them or not whenever they face real opposition.
But the men who had gone with him said, “We can’t attack those people! They’re too strong for us!” 32 So they began to spread lies among the Israelites about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored is one that devours those who live there. All the people we saw there are very tall. 33 We saw Nephilim there.
Whenever it seems too tough they give up. They sometimes do not even try. Are you saying God should force them to run into battle even though they don't want to?
Also why did they lose faith in a God who just helped them win every other battle.
If you read the Old Testament you would realize that they are just overall negative. And God does not really bother himself with negative people.
Not only is a loss of faith just a made up explanation, it's not even logical.
It is pretty logical when you realize that it is hard to keep faith when you are seemingly bound to lose. It's called morale.
I am not sure what you guys are talking about, but I have a question. In Judges 4 did God defeat the iron chariots, or help the people of Judah to defeat the chariots?
Oh, so when God doesn't help them beat the chariots, it is because the people of Judah are weak, but when He does help them it is Him defeating the chariots. Nice double standard.
That is not a double standard. I had a good Additional Mathematics teacher, I thank him for assisting me get the highest possible grade for my regional examination, but I also know that I am the reason I always failed in my unit tests because I never studied. Me failing meant it looked bad on him because the grades of students is assumed to reflect the work of the teacher. But that was not the case
Likewise, the failure of Judah and the Israelites seemingly makes God look bad, but that was not the case.
You said that you had tests that you failed, but that wasn't your teacher's fault. I am not trying to insult your intelligence, I am insulting your belief that God should be praised when someone succeeds and that He should not be blamed when someone fails. You also admitted that God was a quitter when Judah needed Him.
Would you call a garden where 98% of the plants died finely tuned or would you call into question the skills of your gardener?
The bible only says God wanted life on earth and that is confirmed by science as there is not any complex or intelligent life on any other planets. What happens if God only wanted us to be the only planet with life? I would also like to point out before you talk about the multiple universe theory that I have heard to explain the fine-tuning, I would like to add why is there no evidence for these multiple universes? I would like you to look at the fine-tuning of the Cosmological Constant. It has been said that who created God but the naturalistic big bang falls into this same "problem" which is solved by saying someone or something created time. The bible also says this in the book of Jude. (1)(2)(3)
Who says there's no life, complex or otherwise on any other planet? I can tell you who isn't saying that; cosmologists...but what do they know?
Like what cosmologists? We also don't see evidence of life on other planets. The only major planet that could support life expect for Earth is Mars and if it had life or not is unsure and unlikely at best.
Find me even one who doesn't think it's likely that extraterrestrial life exists. I will admit, I haven't looked for any myself, but I can't imagine anybody who knows what they're talking about thinking that...maybe a creationist cosmologist if such a thing exists, but I'm talking about somebody you can take seriously.
Find me even one who doesn't think it's likely that extraterrestrial life exists. I will admit, I haven't looked for any myself, but I can't imagine anybody who knows what they're talking about thinking that...maybe a creationist cosmologist if such a thing exists, but I'm talking about somebody you can take seriously.
Well that was an odd article. You have one person cautioning against making assumptions that life is plentiful in the universe (a reasonable position, but stopping short of stating it's unlikely to exist) and then a link to a video that talks about comets delivering the building blocks of life and the recent discovery of such comets and several planets that might support life in close proximity of each other. It seems like your link did more to support my argument than it did yours.
Well that was an odd article. You have one person cautioning against making assumptions that life is plentiful in the universe (a reasonable position, but stopping short of stating it's unlikely to exist) and then a link to a video that talks about comets delivering the building blocks of life and the recent discovery of such comets and several planets that might support life in close proximity of each other. It seems like your link did more to support my argument than it did yours.
I was thinking you where talking about life being common in the universe.
Another problem with life on other planets in the universe (or at least the milky way galaxy) is that most star systems is that they are red dwarfs (the most common stars in the universe) is that planets in them become tidal locked which makes life almost impossible. Also red dwarfs flare decaying the magnetosphere rapidly and leaving the atmosphere decaying rapidly and becomes unstable leaving complex and/or intelligent life impossible to our knowledge.
Well...lets see. I think it's a really complexed question but I will try.
It all boils down to CHANCE...with me. The chance that an egg..or the eye..or our entire planet just came into existence by random chance....not buying it. Is it impossible that a molecule just happened by chance?
Then how about cause and effect? Did something come from nothing? Just some random chance event in perfect harmonious unity so that everything works?
Am I to believe that the cosmos in all of its complexity was created by chance?
R.C Sproul said this..."chance is magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing."
So chance implies no design or designer. The eye as I said is a complexed property.
This is what Darwin had to say about this. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Ok the egg....it is one of the most highly organized and complexed structure in all the world. Sperm meets egg...and a human is created...an animal created so small it can't be seen by the human eye....microscopic with all it needs genetically. It is as small as a grain of salt and yet it has all the instructions it needs to develop.
Now look at our earth...precision and design. Ocean tides, gravitational pull of the moon....coming together perfectly. Even the temperatures on earth...our closeness to other planets. If we were closer to the sun we would burn up...further away we would freeze.
Random Chance? No way. That would take a lot of faith to believe.
Human beings have created far better "eyes" in the cheapest of cameras. Odd that an omnipotent god's handiwork has been so thoroughly bested by run of the mill technology.
And once you consider the number of stars just like our sun in the universe, all this talk of, "if the sun was just a little bit further or closer bla bla bla" becomes mathematically insignificant - a fact completely lost on the ignorant authors of Bible mythology (and remarkably, modern day adherents like yourself).
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Basically, you are arguing that because there is not a full scientific understanding yet it is rational to substitute arbitrary assumption. That is not rational.
"It's not rational to believe in a supposedly omnipotent God who was defeated by iron chariots, so there goes Christianity, Judaism and Islam."
You said that....implying you know the truth. You made a factual statement.
So again...what is the first cause? You seem to know about about Christianity...the world....so why and how did it all start?
I don't get it.
What is it about cognizance of the obvious irrationality of believing in a supposedly omnipotent magic super being who was thwarted by low-tech weaponry that implies omniscience?
Religion in itself is a placebo of the mind, it gives comfort to those who find thereselves in fear of the harsh world that surrounds them, it also works as a system of indoctrinative brainwashing that begins when a child is born into a culture based on these religous principles and is taught and forced to accept these principles and reject all outside information, even those that contradict their "truths" .
Thats only your perspective, I have a friend from Saudi Arabia whonis a Muslim, her "relationship" with Allah is as real to her as your "relationship" with Jesus is to you. Christianity is a religion as any other, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Wiccanism, Norse Mythology, Greek Mythology, etc. all are backed up by the same concept: faith, which is the belief in something despite the lack of evidence. God is in itself an extraordinary claim, and like any other extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, the default of any approach to such a claim is to remain skeptical until you are shown proof of its exsistance. I am an Atheist because I dont believe that a God exists, due to the lack of evidence.
Are the Torah, Bible , Quran, Along with 124000 prophets and recorded historical events not enough?
I would say if God revealed all the evidence, unbelievers will stick to their opinion.
The "extraordinary claim" is anything but God. He is the only answer to existence. The world is evidently "built" and perfect. Even the way that we die, the way others are born, and how life is fatal, support the religions' perfection in the way it informed us about our current life, and the life after.
It is not only faith that believers grasp, it is also the wisdom of being able to see what others do not see.
Creation and planning of such perfection (The Universe, the human being, the solar system, and most important: The facility given to the human being to cope with his environment, feed off of it, enjoy it, and learn from it) means not only that there is "a" creator, but "the" supreme and sublime founder, designer, and beneficent.
God has been notifying humanity of his existence and the necessity for his worship from the dawn of history ( since the time of prophet Adam peace be upon him) through prophets Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Ismael, Yaakoub(Jacob),
Youssef, Ayoub, Yunis, Musa(Moses)...Isa(Jesus) and finally Muhammad.
The last part is a brief summary about the life of the last prophet. Research about his life. Look at the details of this personality. Look up the stories of his descendants (the 12 imams).
If your looking for miracles, The miracle is inside of you. (You human that was once a pile of mud)
Religion is an emotional, genetic, and social byproduct of human evolution. Human beings possess the imagination to conceive of our own mortality and insignificance, but largely lack the emotional capacity to reconcile this with our most primal genetic directive to live. We are genetically predisposed and socially conditioned to desire life to have meaning and perpetuity, and religion provides an easy justification and fulfillment of that desire. Socially, religion has also functioned to regulate populations and control behavior. There is not a rational component to religion at all, and indeed religion itself flies in the face of rationality and reason.
No reason we are here....all this just came about by random chance? Why didn't what we know happen on other planets? We are using iPads, pods on our planet and life is not sustainable on other planets? Odd isn't it?
So your world...says, no right or wrong. Rape can be good as can pedophelia as can murder. No afterlife on penalties for actions. Everything should be allowed then in your world...because there is no real meaning...no goodness.
You keep mentioning genetically predisposed.....who set us up to work that way?
No reason we are here....all this just came about by random chance?
Largely correct. We exist for no reason. We exist as we do by chance, the origin of which is random but the effects of which are causally connected.
Why didn't what we know happen on other planets? We are using iPads, pods on our planet and life is not sustainable on other planets? Odd isn't it?
No, not really. The requirements for life are complex and elements are unequally distributed across a massive universe, and this is wholly in keeping with a statistical odd favoring the absence of life on most planets. It seems far more strange to me that a God would create millions of worlds only to make one for living creatures; why bother with all the rest?
So your world...says, no right or wrong. Rape can be good as can pedophelia as can murder. No afterlife on penalties for actions. Everything should be allowed then in your world...because there is no real meaning...no goodness.
False. You conflate religion with morality, and consequentially assume that without religion there can be no morality. You assume that life must have meaning for principles of right and wrong to exist. In addition to being an atheist, I am a nihilist; I negate morality and instead adhere to a system of structural ethics. This means that right and wrong are stripped of arbitrary judgement and are instead defined in terms of function and dysfunction. Rape, pedophelia, and murder are clear cases of interpersonal and social dysfunction and thus can be codified as being wrong. Penalties are still exacted to ensure interpersonal and social function going forward. Just because my system of ethics is different from your system of morality and does not depend upon life having meaning or significance, this does not mean my worldview allows for all behavior without consequence.
You keep mentioning genetically predisposed.....who set us up to work that way?
No basis of fact for evolution/atheism either. All the evidence you use to prove there is no God could be just imagined by you... That is if there is no God. You see, if the universe evolved, it could have evolved any which way, right? So, then how do you know that the entire universe isn't just one big brain floating in space imagining a world around it? That brain could be you. So then there is no reason to believe anything...ANYTHING! Since it could all just be in your imagination, anything could change at a moment's notice. Gravity reversed, Friction ceasing to do it's job, Hey, maybe you could imagine me up a million dollars! How bout it? So, anyway why don't we just see all these weird things happening... Then again, I guess you could be just imagining this message, so it probably doesn't even exist. See how confusing everything gets without a God!
Seeing how people I know who believe in God are so close minded and refuse to even hear facts. I would totally say that Religion is an irrational belief for sure and it's sad because that's what most people believe in.
