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.
-----In the case of God, however, obviously if an intelligent being created the Universe, it would show signs of being created by an intelligent being-----
Such as DNA, the Big Bang, order from chaos, consciousness, working systems, life, the Fermi Paradox, etc
What the hell for? The Atheist kid looked like a complete donkey. Have you noticed that the atheists always come off as snobby pricks? Have you noticed that atheists start scrambling around like eggs if the theist has any substance to his train of thought? Prove otherwise. And then explain to us how Atheism gives anyone hope.
Positive evidence can come in the form of absence of evidence. It's only creationists who seem not to be able to understand this.
All known laws and precepts of physics, geology, astronomy and biology demand that if an event occurred then there should be substantial scientific evidence of that event in order to prove that it occurred. Of God, there is no such evidence. Of evolution? There is an abundance. So which view shall I take?
It's really not a difficult answer.
The oft quoted "you can't prove a negative" is also patently false. It is entirely possible to be logically confident with an affirmation to the same degree as with a negation of any affirmation. There are many instances in which we can scientifically prove that something does not exist with the same certainty as proving that something does. All things on this planet, throughout the entirety of the history of life, have been subject to the laws of physics. To assert otherwise is to completely ignore the nature of the reality of matter, space-time and energy. Which itself means any argument based on such an oblivious and untrue precedent is utterly ludicrous.
This is why Christianity fails.
The bible claims that there was a 40 year trek of hundreds of thousands of Jewish slaves across the deserts of Egypt and Sinai, yet no archeological evidence of this exists whatsoever. Regarding the burden of archeological proof, we can safely say that the Exodus never happened. If it had, there would be significant physical evidence of it. Further, anyone who argues "but God could have done this", has first to prove that God exists and that things can materially transcend the laws of physics. Failure to do so is to base an argument on an entirely abstract, untestable, unfalsifiable claim that has no place in scientific inquiry (the kind of inquiry which has in fact led us to the ungodly advances of our species in the last few hundred years).
Likewise, the bible claims the construction of a wooden ark big enough to house a pair of specimens from every species of animal on Earth, merely a few thousand years ago. Not only would finding lengths of wood sufficient for the planks for a ship of this capacity, in the Middle Eastern desert lands, be a near impossible task on its own, but cutting these trees down by hand-tools and then shaping them would be likewise nearly impossible. And even if the mythical Noah were real (of which we have no proof) and even if he were somehow able to find trees big enough, and then to be able to fell them and shape them, the dimensions of the ark, at the most conservative estimate, would be far too large for the wooden structure to remain intact on the sea. It is noted in the bible that this structure was 137 metres long (this measurement is given in cubits). Despite the utter physical impossibility of sourcing the wood and constructing the ark, it would break apart on the sea in no time at all.
These are just two claims, but they are sufficient to show that these are nothing but myths and legends.
-----all known laws and precepts of physics, geology, astronomy and biology demand that if an event occurred then there should be substantial scientific evidence of that event in order to prove that it occurred.-----
The infinite regress of causality paradox, DNA, the Fermi Paradox, order from chaos, the big bang, consciousness....
"Positive evidence can come in the form of absence of evidence. It's only creationists who seem not to be able to understand this."
I assume you're referring to circumstances in which evidence should be abundant (due to the significant nature of the claim), yet isn't? In what way does this contradict my point? What evidence of (presumably you were referring to) God should exist, yet doesn't?
"The oft quoted "you can't prove a negative" is also patently false. It is entirely possible to be logically confident with an affirmation to the same degree as with a negation of any affirmation."
Of course.
"There are many instances in which we can scientifically prove that something does not exist with the same certainty as proving that something does."
...And, like that, you've lost me. You can't "prove" anything with science; it's just a tool for explaining observed phenomena. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've stated this in a past discussion already.
" All things on this planet, throughout the entirety of the history of life, have been subject to the laws of physics. To assert otherwise is to completely ignore the nature of the reality of matter, space-time and energy. Which itself means any argument based on such an oblivious and untrue precedent is utterly ludicrous."
It's possible I may not have understood your statement correctly, but are you claiming that to be proof of God's nonexistence? If so, I think there's a disparity between our definitions of "God". My definition (as do many, I hear) includes the trait of non-physicality, meaning not restrained by the laws of physics. If you'd like to believe otherwise, feel free to do so, but don't go calling this concept of yours "God".
"The bible claims that there was a 40 year trek of hundreds of thousands of Jewish slaves across the deserts of Egypt and Sinai, yet no archeological evidence of this exists whatsoever."
These arguments are beginning to sound awfully familiar... But why not? I refuted them last time, and, from what I remember, you ignored my rebuttal, so why not now?
"Further, anyone who argues "but God could have done this", has first to prove that God exists and that things can materially transcend the laws of physics."
I'm fine with repeating arguments, but please not my formal proof. It's so tedious, and unnecessarily lengthens my post.
"Failure to do so is to base an argument on an entirely abstract, untestable, unfalsifiable claim that has no place in scientific inquiry (the kind of inquiry which has in fact led us to the ungodly advances of our species in the last few hundred years)."
You can slap on as many accusations as you want; it'll work for you no better than when you did so with the legitimacy of the Bible (if I remember correctly, once I pointed out that you had no basis for any of your statements, you dropped it).
"Not only would finding lengths of wood sufficient for the planks for a ship of this capacity, in the Middle Eastern desert lands, be a near impossible task on its own, but cutting these trees down by hand-tools and then shaping them would be likewise nearly impossible. And even if the mythical Noah were real (of which we have no proof) and even if he were somehow able to find trees big enough, and then to be able to fell them and shape them, the dimensions of the ark, at the most conservative estimate, would be far too large for the wooden structure to remain intact on the sea. It is noted in the bible that this structure was 137 metres long (this measurement is given in cubits). Despite the utter physical impossibility of sourcing the wood and constructing the ark, it would break apart on the sea in no time at all."
You ignore the argument you presented in your previous point: God. One would think an omnipotent entity would be capable of allowing a family to create a physically improbable vessel, no?
In this instance, absence of (specifically archaeological) evidence is not, in of itself, positive (perhaps "definite" would be a more accurate term) evidence.
"These are just two claims, but they are sufficient to show that these are nothing but myths and legends."
So, starting with the assumption God doesn't exist, you've proven that God doesn't exist, and, further, that the Bible is not the word of God. Congratulations: you've just committed the exact fallacy many of your kin use when attempting to disprove the Bible's legitimacy, that being circular reasoning. Obviously, if you begin with the conclusion that God doesn't exist, you can reasonably prove that God doesn't exist.
But what do you base that assumption on? Surely, a remarkable claim such as that (that God or gods demonstrably do(es) not exist) requires remarkable evidence.
Scientific evidence is obviously a more accurate determiner for reality than baseless faith is. That's why religions fervently oppose scientific inquiry. That's why rather than accept inquiry and skepticism theocracies rather torture, execute and oppress people. That's why not a single metaphysical claim has ever been backed up by proof. It's why astronauts, engineers, architects, mathematicians, astrophysicists, cosmologists -- people of science -- have improved the world immeasurably, while "faith" has never achieved anything of comparable worth to man.
Seen through the prism of what can be known for certain, God looks overwhelmingly to be a creation of man and not the other way around. This is why religions are constantly pushing against scientific inquiry, and it's also why religions constantly are having to be updated to fit within the narratives of reality that science has shown us. From heliocentrism, through to evolution (which the Catholic Church now concedes to be true), science has pushed the dominion of faith beyond the realm of the rational and out toward the obtuse. Case in point: you deny science has any ability to prove anything. That is obtuse, it's crazy. If you really think science can't prove anything, then you are completely delusional. Scientific methodology has proven, is proving, and will continue to prove things.
All you have left to argue against this with is nothing more than "I am a total solipsist: I believe it is possible for there to be a God and you can't prove me wrong: I refuse to acknowledge that any derivable reality exists, because then anything and everything is possible". You refuse to acknowledge the complete ipseity on which all your arguments for the existence of a God are based. There's no reason or logic in any of it. That a God can exist in your mind does not form a basis to assert that there is one; using logical process to say there could, might or possibly might be a God is to undermine the very nature of logical inquiry.
My claim, by comparison, is not remarkable nor radical. It does not require proof, because it is self-evidently true. My claim is that no scientific evidence of God of any of the supernatural events of the bible exists. That is true. I don't require evidence of this, because I don't assert any of the supernatural events to be true. Do I need to find proof of something that has no proof, in order to prove it not to have proof? But you, you do require evidence to assert that they are true, at least if you want to make any plausible case. If you're happy to admit that you base your beliefs on nothing but faith and have no evidence of any of it, then this argument can end. Because at the moment, the only "evidence" you seem to be able to muster is "I believe in supernatural occurrences though none have ever been recorded and proven. Prove me wrong".
Ludicrous.
What is shown to exist, exists. The sky exists. The rain exists. I exist. You exist. This website exists. The sun exists. The planets exist. Atoms exist. Electromagnetic forces exist. Gravity exists. Electricity exists. Animals exist. Plants exist. Matter and energy exist. All logical, largely self-evident. Seeable, provable, testable, quantifiable.
But when JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter do you think she believed in the existence of Hogwarts, Dumbledore, and magic? Or do you think she was writing a fantasy novel with a set of moral messages? When the Addasian Norsewomen paid the tantfee to their slumbering children do you think they really believed that a metaphysical entity came and deposited currency in their children's beds?
The point being, just because it is possible to conceive of some ostensible original entity or concept, does not mean that it is logical to apply logical precedents to it to conclude its reality. In fact, it is logical to recognise that it is a creative manifestation with no bearing upon the objective reality, UNLESS it can be shown to work within the confines and manifestations of that reality. Mathematics, for instance, is a concept used to ascribe order and meaning to the universe, and because it works, it can be used to derive order and meaning through predictions about phenomena; it can be used to draw conclusions about the cosmos; it has worth in its symbiotic, tangible relation to nature and our understanding of it. Faith has no such relationship with nature; it never has.
Not necessarily, no. But absence of evidence for a touted event or construct of which we should reasonably expect to find evidence, is evidence of absence. The absence of pottery, bones, clothing or housing in the Egyptian and Sinai deserts despite decades of searching, can reasonably be considered compelling evidence of the absence of any Exodus as described in the bible. The absence of evidence that it is possible to build a wooden Ark of biblical proportions (the complete absence of evidence, in fact, as illustrated in mathematical calculations regarding the maximum stress-bearing potential of gofer-wood) are conclusive evidence of the absence of any such ark, as well.
-----The absence of pottery, bones, clothing or housing in the Egyptian and Sinai deserts despite decades of searching, can reasonably be considered compelling evidence of the absence of any Exodus as described in the bible-----
This is an example of unreasonable demands. There are Exoduses that we know happened in recent years, that cannot be proven with artifacts alone, such as the Hurricane Katrina Exodus. We can't even prove the last Superbowl happened without video or pictures, of which can't be obtained for ancient Israelites, obviously.
Maybe, but, when you can't prove something DOES exist it is just a theory. It's something to talk about, to think about, but it really does exist only in theory. After centuries of trying to prove something there are, many times, those that keep trying, but, most lose the passion the theory had in the beginning.
Sure thing. Prove that Russell's teapot isn't real. Really, that's the proof that you can't prove something not existing, and unless it was recorded in a religious sermon, it's terrible. It's terrible even if it was, but then it isn't completely his fault.
I'd like to see what deductive argument he talked about.
The only reason Russell's teapot cannot be disproven is that no evidence can be associated with it; it is claimed to be impervious to observation, therefore nothing about it can be known, therefore no evidence can be associated with it.
In the case of God, however, obviously if an intelligent being created the Universe, it would show signs of being created by an intelligent being. Either it was created by an intelligent being or it wasn't, therefore if the prerequisites of it being created by an intelligent being weren't met (for example, the aforementioned signs of intelligent design), it follows that it was not, in fact, created by an intelligent being. In short, one can most certainly prove the existence or nonexistence of a being, phenomenon, etc., assuming evidence can be associated with it.
Take, for example, a hypothetical car in my possession. How could one prove whether it exists or not? To simply state "you can't" is doing logic a disservice; it's really quite simple:
Most obviously, have I ever been in a position where I was capable of acquiring a car? The only possible situations in which this could occur would be, first, that I possess some means of acquiring the money to purchase one, second, that I possess an acquaintance willing to acquire one for me, or third, that I am willing to acquire one through illegitimate means (I.E. theft). As I have never been in any of the three situations, it follows that I have never been in a position where I could acquire a car, therefore my car doesn't exist.
Claiming that, because a hypothetical object with no possible evidence associated with it cannot be disproven, nothing can be disproven, is an egregious violation of reason; specifically, it falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization/composition.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention; logic is fundamentally capable of disproving a claim. For example, the logical statement "P v ~P" (P or not P) is tautological (true because of its structure), and if one half can be proven, it follows the other must be disproven. Therefore, if one can say that the claim P is definitely false, it follows that its opposite must be true. It can, therefore, prove a negative. The only reason Russell's teapot can't be disproven is because logic requires truth to produce further truth; in essence, because no truths can be associated with the teapot, no extrapolation can be made of it.
Ah, yes, the contradiction with reality criteria. Though it's simple for facts, as he showed in the video, for theories it checks their prediction.
And anything with a seemingly effective probability of 1 is accepted as a scientific theory.
An arbitrary intelligent designer represents Deism and can not be disproved for it makes no predictions from its nature. So unless you have a specific religion in mind that boasts of an omnipotent, eternally perfect deity, or something with comparable richness of dogma to make predictions from, I'd like to see how you can potentially disprove it.
1)In an infinite set, all things yhat can exist do exist.
2)If infinity does not exist you must explain how an object can exist inside of nothing. "Nothing" being defined by the Dictionary. "Not a thing, no properties of any kind".
1) That's not what an infinite set is, I'm afraid to inform.
2) That's simple. Such a "nothing" can never exist. Though it isn't the only possible solution, for there's the one that fanatics invoke, namely that omnipotent entities can come from nothing, but that's good enough, and true for our universe.
But infinite sets are only those which contain an infinite amount of elements. What you want to say is called a universal set, which is an impossibility just like reaching to infinite by counting.
But still, considering the omnipotent characteristics of God, your proof would be definitive if you can show that he can come about by information (and be real). In fact, that'd mean that there is an infinite amount of omnipotent Gods.
It was an edit, and since you've replied, I'm repeating it.
But still, considering the omnipotent characteristics of God, your proof would be definitive if you can show that he can come about by information (and be real). In fact, that'd mean that there is an infinite amount of omnipotent Gods.
-----the one that fanatics invoke, namely that omnipotent entities can come from nothing, but that's good enough, and true for our universe.-----
1)Atheists need a naturalistic or material answer.
A)This cannot satisfy an infinite regress of causes, creating a paradox.
2)Theists aren't bound to a naturalistic or material answer. We invoke a "supernatural" answer.
A)God would have created our material reality, space, and time and would not be bound by it. (Much like a computer programmer is not bound by the laws of Sim City.)
B)We don't need to know where God comes from or if there is even such a thing as "where it comes from" where He is. We don't need an answer for the answer because time as we know it didn't exist until after creation. Not knowing where "painter Bob" is from doesn't mean he isn't the painter.
-----It does mean that you can never prove that he is even real, unless you can summon him-----
We can prove the greatest possible being exists and in either a finite existence or an infinite existence. It just depends on how you want him, her, it, or they.
You're putting up a strawman by implying we atheists require a solution to the infinite regress of causality within a theological paradigm. We don't. But you do. Who created God? In a naturalistic paradigm, no solution is necessary, because we don't think of energy and the constituents of existence as having been created or expounded from nothing. We have a law to the contrary, in fact: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.
Your cheap mutation of the transcendental argument is utterly impotent.
As for Bob the Painter, nobody gives a shit about Bob the Painter, nor your pathetic excuse for a comparison between religious deistic concepts and Bob the Painter. Not knowing where the spaghetti monster who crafts bolognese is from does not mean that spaghetti monster doesn't craft the hypothetical bolognese: what it does mean is that spaghetti monster is a completely hypothetical entity that exists only in my head, just like Bob the Painter, and indeed God.
People can make up all sorts of crazy shit like that: no amount of applying logical mechanics to an entirely conceptual precedent -- devoid of a sufficient material correlate -- can make the crazy shit logical. Your God, like the tooth-fairy, He-Man, Superman, the Hobgoblin, the Green Lanterns, Thor, Loki, the spaghetti monster and Santa Claus, are made up: hypothetical, existent entirely abstract from reality. We as beings capable of fantasy have the ability to make shit like that up -- but it is still just made up shit.
------You're putting up a strawman by implying we atheists require a solution to the infinite regress of causality within a theological paradigm.------
Nope. You need the solution to satisfy common sense, and if you can't, and Atheism provides your nothing, it's illogical to not take some type of theistic view, if for nothing more than positive mental health.
1)It doesn't matter "who created God". If he is the creator, you still have the same problem.
2)We don't know that in his reality there are any causes. In our reality there are, thus you have a live grenade in your hand waiting to go off intellectually.
"Ah, yes, the contradiction with reality criteria. Though it's simple for facts, as he showed in the video, for theories it checks their prediction.
And anything with a seemingly effective probability of 1 is accepted as a scientific theory."
In what way does this contradict my statements?
Further, what do Scientific Theories have to do with truth derived from logical extrapolation?
"An arbitrary intelligent designer represents Deism and can not be disproved for it makes no predictions from its nature."
What exactly do you mean by an "arbitrary intelligent designer"? Is that not an oxymoron?
"So unless you have a specific religion in mind that boasts of an omnipotent, eternally perfect deity, or something with comparable richness of dogma to make predictions from, I'd like to see how you can potentially disprove it."
Defining "God" solely as "the intelligent, omnipotent creator of the Universe", as agreed upon between the various Monotheistic religions, allows for fairly simple disproval: if the design (or lack thereof) of the Universe is indicative of lack of intelligence on the part of its creator (containing no structured information or regular design), it follows that the creator of the Universe is not God. As structured information does naturally exist (a great example being DNA), and the laws governing physical existence are indeed regular, it follows that God does exist.
One can only reasonably disprove the existence of something if that thing indeed does not exist.
It began with a yes, so unless you expect those to be sarcasm, there isn't much reason to believe that I was disagreeing.
What exactly do you mean by an "arbitrary intelligent designer"? Is that not an oxymoron?
It isn't. That means just what the next lines didn't talk about.
As structured information does naturally exist (a great example being DNA), and the laws governing physical existence are indeed regular, it follows that God does exist.
Your premises being that uniformity and complexity wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That's a bolder claim than I've generally seen theists put with reason.
How much does this premise apply to your designer himself?
"Your premises being that uniformity and complexity wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That's a bolder claim than I've generally seen theists put with reason."
Structured information, from what we've directly observed, has only ever been created by an intelligent entity (being, in this case, a person or group of people). The physical laws have never once shown themselves capable of creating structured information, nor is there any conceivable way for them to do so.
Furthermore, the information contained in biological structures is far beyond us as a species, implying that its designer is both more intelligent and powerful than us. I fail to see how random chance can fit that bill.
"How much does this premise apply to your designer himself?"
All that implies is that the creator of the Universe is both intelligent and powerful. One could theorize them to be an "arbitrary designer", but said theory (if I understand your meaning of it correctly; you never explicitly defined it) holds as much water as the Universe being created by happenstance.
I fail to see how random chance can fit that bill.
It doesn't "just happen" instantaneously, or in 7 days. Almost all animations you might see of the universe are accelerated.
Furthermore, the information contained in biological structures is far beyond us as a species,
It had to be, anyway. If the information was simpler, we couldn't be smart enough to understand even that. Universe isn't centered around humans, and that should dismiss any anthropocentric models rather than this.
implying that its designer is both more intelligent and powerful than us
And that the universe was designed for us. Which is clearly not the case.
Structured information, from what we've directly observed, has only ever been created by an intelligent entity (
Entropy increases with time. I don't see what are your qualifiers for "structured" information such that it couldn't otherwise happen. You mean to say that humans are uniquely designed to violate physics?
(if I understand your meaning of it correctly
No, you don't. It means a deity that we can not know about, in contrast to religions, like the Russell's teapot. Its most significant segment is Deism.
All that implies is that the creator of the Universe is both intelligent and powerful.
And organised, and complex, among other things, which you claim must need a designer.
"It doesn't "just happen" instantaneously, or in 7 days. Almost all animations you might see of the universe are accelerated."
An impossibility is still an impossibility, regardless of how much time you allow for it to occur.
"And that the universe was designed for us. Which is clearly not the case."
In what way does my statement imply this? Further, what's your basis for this claim?
"I don't see what are your qualifiers for "structured" information such that it couldn't otherwise happen."
Structured information is data inscribed into or onto materials: writing, a hard drive's storage, and DNA are all examples of structured information.
My previous point in this regard was that, as the laws of physics themselves are incapable of creating structured information (I.E. it's impossible for the Universe itself, being an unguided entity, to create it), it follows that biological structured information (to reiterate, DNA) exists due to an intelligent designer.
"You mean to say that humans are uniquely designed to violate physics?"
I must admit, I'm confused. From what line of thinking did that statement come?
"No, you don't. It means a deity that we can not know about, in contrast to religions, like the Russell's teapot. Its most significant segment is Deism."
That's true; through observation and logical extrapolation, there's indeed very little one can determine of such an alien being.
However, the question the becomes, has this being ever communicated with Man? That is the basis of Monotheism, no?
"And organised, and complex, among other things, which you claim must need a designer."
One way to look at it would be this: what do you suppose our chances of finding a celestial body with the entirety of Shakespeare's works randomly engraved upon its surface? None, right? Ah, but what if you keep looking, for even billions of years? Still no. Why? Because the chance of this happening would be so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero.
If that's the case, why should you expect DNA, which is orders of magnitude more complex and structured than simple writing, to be capable of creation by random chance? Not to mention the fact that Abiogenesis has never been shown to occur, nor does any evidence exists of the possibility of it occurring.
To reiterate, regardless of how long you wait, an impossibility is still an impossibility.
An impossibility is still an impossibility, regardless of how much time you allow for it to occur.
Under pure chance, there are no impossibilities as long as something can come about. With a lot of time, life becomes likely. It evolves through mutation and selection if the planet remains hospitable enough. Though those might seem unlikely, there's no shortage of attempts (and even if there was, it wouldn't matter, since we wouldn't be).
In what way does my statement imply this? Further, what's your basis for this claim?
That the complexity and organisation were intended. If they weren't, nothing you said makes any sense. Further, as you can see, things could have been a lot better. But since humans don't occupy any special place in the universe, they aren't.
(I.E. it's impossible for the Universe itself, being an unguided entity, to create it
Really, it isn't hard to see why your radical anthropocentrism seems so obvious. Though I'd generally expect it from mysticists...
From what line of thinking did that statement come?
From this one (though it's a reply right now)
the laws of physics themselves are incapable of creating structured information
Also, self sustaining reactions such as life cause a much greater net increase in entropy than simple diffusion. Therefore, laws of physics prefer life, just as they prefer stars.
However, the question the becomes, has this being ever communicated with Man? That is the basis of Monotheism, no?
Yes, now you understand what it meant. Somewhat... For religions hold some sacred knowledge, so if you have a very specific religion in mind, and not an arbitrary intelligent designer... the things I said.
One way to look at it would be this: what do you suppose our chances of finding a celestial body with the entirety of Shakespeare's works randomly engraved upon its surface?
Well, evolution does not have to lead to enough diversity that some species might become intelligent enough.
Ah, but what if you keep looking, for even billions of years?
That affects things. You're severely underestimating what billions of years are. Not exact Shakespeare, anyway, but equally significant things.
why should you expect DNA,
Because the "simple writing" does not evolve in many steps under selection as DNA does.
Not to mention the fact that Abiogenesis has never been shown to occur,
Well, it's a complex thing and doesn't work great in labs, as of now.
"Under pure chance, there are no impossibilities as long as something can come about."
I agree; your statement does not, in any way, contradict mine.
"With a lot of time, life becomes likely."
As previously implied, the possibility of life coming into existence by happenstance is impossible; the laws of physics are not capable of creating structured information, a prerequisite of life, not to mention the absurdity of even the idea that a soup of chemicals could randomly spew forth life itself.
" It evolves through mutation and selection if the planet remains hospitable enough."
No evidence has ever been shown that significant, beneficial mutations are capable of building up over time within a species. In fact, the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful to a creature's survivability. Even if this were the case, natural selection has only ever been shown capable of increasing certain pre-existing characteristics within a species, not creating new ones. In short, it's a conservative phenomenon, rather than a creative one.
"Though those might seem unlikely, there's no shortage of attempts (and even if there was, it wouldn't matter, since we wouldn't be)."
To reiterate, regardless of how many chances a hypothetical scenario has to occur, if its fulfillment requires a violation of reality, it will never happen.
"But since humans don't occupy any special place in the universe, they aren't."
This based on...? I wasn't aware you've observed the entirety of the Universe to be able to proclaim our insignificance.
"Therefore, laws of physics prefer life, just as they prefer stars."
I also wasn't aware an unguided force could "prefer" a particular course of action over another.
"if you have a very specific religion in mind, and not an arbitrary intelligent designer..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you've yet specified exactly what you mean by "arbitrary intelligent designer". From context, I assume you mean a generalized Creationist concept, rather than that of a particular religion?
"That affects things. You're severely underestimating what billions of years are. Not exact Shakespeare, anyway, but equally significant things."
I feel my assessment of the Universe's unguided capabilities (being that it's not guided, and thus not capable of producing that which requires intelligence) are fair. To what "equally significant things" are you referring?
"Because the "simple writing" does not evolve in many steps under selection as DNA does."
I was referring specifically to Abiogenesis, which is most certainly claimed to have created a great deal of structured information (vastly more, in fact, than the hypothetical celestial body), though I'd argue that DNA being capable of fundamentally altering itself in a stable manner due to natural selection is equally laughable.
"Well, it's a complex thing and doesn't work great in labs, as of now."
Thanks for bringing that point up; with decades of experimentation, under ideal circumstances, scientists have been unable to recreate Abiogenesis. We even have the advantage of intelligence, yet for some reason "nature", being completely arbitrary, is credited with having massive creative power.
absurdity of even the idea that a soup of chemicals could randomly spew forth life itself.
You mean that life requires a "soul"?
In fact, the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful to a creature's survivability.
That's clearly wrong. I'd guess you want to call it "adaptation". Selection is efficient at removing bad mutations from gene pool, but needs variety for that - the reason behind science discouraging incest.
Even if this were the case, natural selection has only ever been shown capable of increasing certain pre-existing characteristics within a species, not creating new ones.
Selection removes the undesirable mutations, and it, therefore, isn't a creative phenomenon. The creative one is the addition, modification or removal of proteins, known as mutations.
if its fulfillment requires a violation of reality, it will never happen.
So you mean to say that humans have been specially created to violate the laws of physics?
This based on...? I wasn't aware you've observed the entirety of the Universe to be able to proclaim our insignificance.
I've seen enough to say that the universe isn't very hospitable for life, which wouldn't be the case if it were designed.
I also wasn't aware an unguided force could "prefer" a particular course of action over another.
You weren't? That's crazy.
From context, I assume you mean a generalized Creationist concept, rather than that of a particular religion?
Yes, that seems to be right.
To what "equally significant things" are you referring?
Other... traces of life. Though galaxies would be very far apart, I'd guess we're ignoring that right now.
was referring specifically to Abiogenesis, which is most certainly claimed to have created a great deal of structured information
Not really - it's just some materials coming together to react in hot pond, which were common, and using rock pores as the membrane. After that, the reactions grew more complex, and it became a prokaryotic cell. With billions of years, here we are.
scientists have been unable to recreate Abiogenesis.
The only thing that remains is how the proteins can naturally come together.
Where did that come from? What does intelligent design have to do with an abstract metaphysical concept?
"That's clearly wrong. I'd guess you want to call it "adaptation". Selection is efficient at removing bad mutations from gene pool, but needs variety for that - the reason behind science discouraging incest."
Just because harmful mutations are reduced in a gene pool doesn't mean they don't occur. How does this contradict my statement?
"The creative one is the addition, modification or removal of proteins, known as mutations."
Which is neither significant nor truly creative.
"So you mean to say that humans have been specially created to violate the laws of physics?"
No. My implication was that (as I've explicitly stated multiple times) life being created from random chance is a violation of reality, and therefore incapable of occurring.
"I've seen enough to say that the universe isn't very hospitable for life, which wouldn't be the case if it were designed."
Earth certainly is. Is that not itself special, being so dramatically contrasted with the rest of the Universe? Further, are you claiming that, in order for us to be "special", the entirety of the Universe must be specifically designed for hospitality?
"You weren't? That's crazy."
Given the quite frankly absurd nature of your statement (implying that I should be aware that unguided forces are capable of deliberate guidance), along with your childish repetition of statements and blatant strawman arguments, I can't help but wonder whether you're trolling or not. If so, I must express my disappointment, for such an endeavor is wholly inappropriate on a platform for legitimate discussion.
"Other... traces of life. Though galaxies would be very far apart, I'd guess we're ignoring that right now."
So, you acknowledge the absurdity of the hypothetical celestial body, yet simply assume, with no basis, the existence of extraterrestrial life?
"Not really - it's just some materials coming together to react in hot pond, which were common, and using rock pores as the membrane. After that, the reactions grew more complex, and it became a prokaryotic cell. With billions of years, here we are."
Just how simple can a conceptual life form be? Further, no evidence of this single-cell organism has ever been observed, nor, as previously stated, have any such organisms been artificially developed, despite "ideal" conditions.
"The only thing that remains is how the proteins can naturally come together."
Is that so? First of all, when have all the proteins required for life been inorganically created in an environment where they were not hindered by other damaging proteins? Second, what component(s) of Abiogenesis have been proven, that only this final facet remains?
You said that life arising from chemicals is impossible. I assumed that you aren't talking about it arising from inert elements, so that's what remains.
How does this contradict my statement?
You said that mutations are mostly harmful so evolution can not take place.
Which is neither significant nor truly creative.
Not as creative as an omnipotent designer, sure. It is only significant enough to create delicate, organic creatures. Which, apparently, is what "significant" life on earth is.
Further, are you claiming that, in order for us to be "special", the entirety of the Universe must be specifically designed for hospitality?
Obviously. If the universe is designed for us, then it must be as hospitable for us as possible.
that I should be aware that unguided forces are capable of deliberate guidance),
Everyone should be aware that impersonal laws can lead to certain results over others without something guiding them. Only some schools who claim that the world is in God's mind dispute that. If that's what you are claiming, then it's the wrong debate.
So, you acknowledge the absurdity of the hypothetical celestial body, yet simply assume, with no basis, the existence of extraterrestrial life?
Intelligent life can form. Things happening in a way that they engrave the exact works of Shakespeare is unlikely. Unless you have some special reasons as to why they might have Shakespeare, I don't see how you can mean anything with that.
First of all, when have all the proteins required for life been inorganically created in an environment where they were not hindered by other damaging proteins?
It happened first time around 6 decades ago - Internet is your friend. It shouldn't be a difficult task to look up a few things.
Really, religious fanatics have been spreading those "facts" for a long time. It doesn't matter what the wilful ignorant want to believe. If you can't counter the arguments of earth being flat, then you might as well believe that it is. And similarly for all the other things, unless there really is some need to know.
"You said that life arising from chemicals is impossible. I assumed that you aren't talking about it arising from inert elements, so that's what remains."
The next step, then, would be to define "soul".
"You said that mutations are mostly harmful so evolution can not take place."
I never claimed that that fact, in of itself, disproves Darwinian Evolution. It simply means that mutations are rarely, if ever, a positive vehicle for change.
"It is only significant enough to create delicate, organic creatures."
Darwinian Evolution through mutation is not equivalent to Abiogenesis. The former requires the latter, but they are not equivalent.
"If the universe is designed for us, then it must be as hospitable for us as possible."
But why does it have to be hospitable? In an apartment complex, are the crawlspaces and duct work as hospitable as possible? Obviously not. It's almost as if they're not meant for people to live in.
I fail to see why the entirety of the Universe must be hospitable for us if we were to be "special" within it.
"Everyone should be aware that impersonal laws can lead to certain results over others without something guiding them. Only some schools who claim that the world is in God's mind dispute that. If that's what you are claiming, then it's the wrong debate."
Your statement implied the laws to be imbued with some sort of decision-making capability. Obviously the laws of physics, being regular, will produce regular results.
"Intelligent life can form."
From non-life, according solely to the laws of physics? I think not.
"Things happening in a way that they engrave the exact works of Shakespeare is unlikely. Unless you have some special reasons as to why they might have Shakespeare, I don't see how you can mean anything with that."
It was simply an example of structured information "naturally" occurring. I see as much need to fixate on the specifics of my hypothetical scenario as that of the teapot; that is, none.
"It happened first time around 6 decades ago - Internet is your friend. It shouldn't be a difficult task to look up a few things."
It's your argument; why should I be held responsible for substantiating it?
"Really, religious fanatics have been spreading those "facts" for a long time. It doesn't matter what the wilful ignorant want to believe."
A completely baseless attack.
"If you can't counter the arguments of earth being flat, then you might as well believe that it is."
First of all, if the arguments posed by people on a particular view are irrefutable, does that not mean they're accurate?
Second, the hypothetical you're proposing (that I, or others, are incapable of rebutting the arguments supporting the Flat Earth theory) is asinine. Having thoroughly looked through those arguments, I can attest they are based on baseless assumptions and an apparent need for a massive conspiracy.
It simply means that mutations are rarely, if ever, a positive vehicle for change.
Which in turn means that you think it refutes Darwinian Evolution.
Many mutations are bad, many are good. With enough variety, the bad ones are repressed and soon eliminated.
In an apartment complex, are the crawlspaces and duct work as hospitable as possible? Obviously not.
They're still there to make it more hospitable, in some way.
fail to see why the entirety of the Universe must be hospitable for us if we were to be "special" within it.
Think it this way - What would be more intelligent for an omnipotent designer?
Your statement implied the laws to be imbued with some sort of decision-making capability.
No, just that some results have higher probability than others. I'm not personifying anything.
I see as much need to fixate on the specifics of my hypothetical scenario as that of the teapot; that is, none.
Which is, apparently, nothing like the teapot. You can prove something not existing only if it's observable, and things were different around the time of Russell. Such claims for religion have declined since then, but that isn't the case for this video.
It's your argument; why should I be held responsible for substantiating it?
You're still responsible for not being overly ignorant. Though I wouldn't argue over things like whether organic molecules have a "vital force" inside them (they don't), for now (since it's reasonable that I give some links),
Having thoroughly looked through those arguments, I can attest they are based on baseless assumptions and an apparent need for a massive conspiracy.
From the website you shared? Nope, those were clearly hoax-like, meant only for the purpose I said there - If you can't counter them, then you might as well accept them. Because then, attempting to counter them isn't of much value. Except that you might lose the argument against someone who can, anyway.
Under chance, with uniform probability distribution of many events, any of them happening is effectively impossible. Still, one of them would.
"You said that life arising from chemicals is impossible. I assumed that you aren't talking about it arising from inert elements, so that's what remains."
The next step, then, would be to define "soul".
"You said that mutations are mostly harmful so evolution can not take place."
I never claimed that that fact, in of itself, disproves Darwinian Evolution. It simply means that mutations are rarely, if ever, a positive vehicle for change.
"It is only significant enough to create delicate, organic creatures."
Darwinian Evolution through mutation is not equivalent to Abiogenesis. The former requires the latter, but they are not equivalent.
"If the universe is designed for us, then it must be as hospitable for us as possible."
But why does it have to be hospitable? In an apartment complex, are the crawlspaces and duct work as hospitable as possible? Obviously not. It's almost as if they're not meant for people to live in.
I fail to see why the entirety of the Universe must be hospitable for us if we were to be "special" within it.
"Everyone should be aware that impersonal laws can lead to certain results over others without something guiding them. Only some schools who claim that the world is in God's mind dispute that. If that's what you are claiming, then it's the wrong debate."
Your statement implied the laws to be imbued with some sort of decision-making capability. Obviously the laws of physics, being regular, will produce regular results.
"Intelligent life can form."
From non-life, according solely to the laws of physics? I think not.
"Things happening in a way that they engrave the exact works of Shakespeare is unlikely. Unless you have some special reasons as to why they might have Shakespeare, I don't see how you can mean anything with that."
It was simply an example of structured information "naturally" occurring. I see as much need to fixate on the specifics of my hypothetical scenario as that of the teapot; that is, none.
"It happened first time around 6 decades ago - Internet is your friend. It shouldn't be a difficult task to look up a few things."
It's your argument; why should I be held responsible for substantiating it?
"Really, religious fanatics have been spreading those "facts" for a long time. It doesn't matter what the wilful ignorant want to believe."
A completely baseless attack.
"If you can't counter the arguments of earth being flat, then you might as well believe that it is."
First of all, if the arguments posed by people on a particular view are irrefutable, does that not mean they're accurate?
Second, the hypothetical you're proposing (that I, or others, are incapable of rebutting the arguments supporting the Flat Earth theory) is asinine. Having thoroughly looked through those arguments, I can attest they are based on baseless assumptions and an apparent need for a massive conspiracy.
Knowing Craig, I have an idea his argument was his own spin on the Kalam, since this seems to be his go-to argument in every debate. We also don't even have to go so far as disproving Russell's teapot; prove unicorns don't exist, prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if you buy it. It's common sense.
It's only common sense in your own mind
They didn't buy half of Einstein's now proven theories either. It doesn't make them any less correct or logical.
Whether he was right is irrelevant as to whether you are.
If you can't get around infinity tosupport your position, I'm guessing you are admitting defeat?
You have yet to demonstrate this as being true. According to your own rules, if a unicorn can exist in my office, it must exist. By contrast it's also possible for a unicorn to not exist, therefore it must not. Your argument is flawed. Infinity is simply an abstract thought and cannot be proven.
Yes. I know it os hard for atheists to grasp, but if you derail off topic and create something to argue against that has nothingto do with the opposition's argument, that is? A strawman fallacy.
So you believe in Darwinism, but don't believe it ever happened in the deep confines of space?
Do I believe it is possible for it to have happened elsewhere? Yes. Do I believe it actually did happen? No, there's no evidence for it.
A unicorn would simply be a horse that evolved a horn, and a fairy would simply be a small humanesque being that evolved wings....
Thanks for wasting time giving your own definitions, but - as you are most famous for - you are avoiding the question. Do you actually believe these creatures actually do exist?
-----Thanks for wasting time giving your own definitions, but - as you are most famous for - you are avoiding the question. Do you actually believe these creatures actually do exist?-----
1)They must exist somewhere in an infinite reality by mathematical default. Otherwise I have to prove that a basketball can exist inside of nothing.
2)Do you really believe whales evolved from.hooved hyenas as Darwinists claim?
-----1)They must exist somewhere in an infinite reality by msthematical default.
So you believe in unicorns, fairies, the loch ness monster, centaurs, and every other mythical creature. You're a fool-----
Then evolition is a lie and cannot happen anywhere but Earth, making it a myth. Your claim, not mine.
If you believe in Darwinism you literally believe there were once walking whales and that males and feamales magically evolved at the exact same time in order to mate in the first place.
Then evolition is a lie and cannot happen anywhere but Earth, making it a myth. Your claim, not mine.
Has evolution ever tried to claim the existence of the aforementioned creatures? No, so this is nothing but another straw man.
If you believe in Darwinism you literally believe there were once walking whales and that males and feamales magically evolved at the exact same time in order to mate in the first place.
Darwinian evolution doesn't teach this either. For your own sake, stop talking about that which you do not know.
I don't deny it, I'm saying that according to it, unicorns and fairies are more bizarre than the life forms you talked about.
Really, unless the environment demands their existence, it is unlikely that they will ever exist. You might, in a course of generations, breed horses such that they may grow a horn. It'll be expensive and time consuming, though.
I don't deny it, I'm saying that according to it, unicorns and fairies are more bizarre than the life forms you talked about-----
The fact that we or anything intelligent exist at all is bizarre, whether you are a theist or an atheist. By probability alone, our reality shouldn't even exist..
The universe is built of information, so it being self caused is possible.
If you have any idea about the structure of a God, you can put it forward as proof of his existence. If it makes sense, and you can not put it forward, then I'll do it for you.
But if you know enough physics to guess such a structure, you won't need help to put it forward.
Science does understand it, and it doesn't involve magic; but if hypothetically they didn't know...so what? Why are religious people so afraid of not knowing something?
"If you believe in Darwinism you literally believe there were once walking whales and that males and feamales magically evolved at the exact same time in order to mate in the first place."
Darwinism isn't the fundamental, core part of my belief system. It is the fudamental part of your lack of belief system. Areyou ejecting from Darwinism?
Okay, so in the 90s it was accepted there may be a relationship to mesonychids, however later that decade it was demonstrated to not be true but instead are more closely related to hippos, or share a common ancestor.
You've provided an example that refutes your own claim...way to go.
No, you didn't mention mesonychids. You told me to look up rodhocetus as evidence that evolution believes whales and hyenas are somehow related. It was the mesonychid (wolf like ungulate) that was believed to be related to the rodhocetus and turned out to be not true. Not my fault if what you try to use as evidence refutes your claims.
You make a claim that, "whales evolved from hooved hyenas" and then provide a link that demonstrates this to not be true. Again, not my fault if you provide evidence that refutes your own claims.
My clan? I'm not a scientist so the only clan you could claim I belong to is atheists, and we are not claiming the existence of the Kraken. By the way, your clan believes evolution is true.
I never claimed or denied evolution. According to polls darwinism is the #1 reason for people's atheism. So defend your dogma or admit you've been indoctrinated with atheist fundamentalism.
First off, just because something could happen, doesn't mean it did.
Secondly, just because I don't believe something happened, doesn't mean it didn't. If you show me a jar of gumballs and ask if I believe there are an odd number of gumballs, I would have to say no. If you asked if I believed there were an even amount, I'd also have to say no. Obviously there must be either an even or odd amount, however without evidence to either, I cannot actually believe either to be true.
Mathematically, infinity can go both ways. If you claim this is true with everything else (which you still can't demonstrate, you simply make asinine claims), that too must go both ways. If it is possible for earth to exist without unicorns, there must be such a planet. By extension, if a universe can exist without a god, such a universe must exist.
If this "nothing" you're referring to is the nothing that is outside of this universe, I'm fine with that. Nothing can exist outside of the universe as "existence" requires time.
All the theists have left anymore in their tired and lane argument for their make believe God is to tell us atheists that we cannot disprove their make believe friend in the sky. LOL
But that's rubbish. For example, you can't prove I don't have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage!
