diana

Beautiful summation, Lobstrosity.

d

Tercel

And you think that a universe comprising of quintillions of atomic particles to spring into existence under it's own steam is more likely than that the ulitmate is purposeful?

Tercel

The standard completely unevidenced materialist assumption...

And an unevidenced assertion that a designer must require a designer, based on the assumption that a designer is necessarily complex...

Darth Dane

Scientist have discovered that teh universe had a beginning. God doesn't. God is infinite and forever. The universe had a beginning, and maybe an end.

Maybe teh universe is a heartbeat for God, in out, in out. it seems we are in an outbreath....who Knows?

we can only believe one way or another!

"your faith will set you free"!





DD - Love

Lobstrosity

That's the thing. That's all we have evidence for. We have tomes of evidence for it. Sadly though, this kind of materialist reduction strikes some people at a deep emotional level and causes them to unreasonably and illogically lash out against it, as you do here. You can't handle the fact that consciousness has a physical basis and thus make up your own mystery universe just to explain how you're special. That sort of reasoning just doesn't cut it. You don't get to make up new universes every time you want to explain something complex or cater to some egotistical need for superiority.

Anything that uses intelligence to design something complex is itself complex. That's a fairly simple conclusion to draw just from the nature of intelligence. This creator had to be able to plan, to envision the outcomes of every possible scenario, to interact at "will" with the physical world. That's complicated. If he still exists he's perceiving everything that goes on. He's making value judgments. He's having ideas and planning things. That's complicated. Human consciousness is more complex than that of mice. God's consciousness is much more complex than that of humans. If you remove that unnecessary consciousness, you make the world simpler. There's no need for a supernatural first cause just like there's no need for God to have a first cause. All first cause arguments are based on unevidenced assertions that something needs a designer based upon the assumption that something is necessarily complex. The second you feel it's valid to make one first cause argument, you are relegated to logically making an infinite string of them. You really just get nowhere.

If the universe is a product of simple blind laws, then its complexity is wholly emergent. You've got one complex universe and that's it. If it is the product of intelligent design, then all of its original complexity first resided in the mind of the creator in the form of plans and designs. Ergo, that creator is just as complex, if not more, than our current universe. Now you've got a complex universe and a complex creator. If the universe is so complex as to require a creator, then by definition the creator is so complex as to require a creator. You find yourself in quite a pickle. You can try to weasle your way out of this all you want, but you'll have to abandon all logic to do it, and since your original assertions that God is required to explain the existence of such a universe is founded upon "logic," that's not such a good path to take. It basically means no one can take you seriously since you are willing to make up anything to keep your foolhardy notions alive.

Jobar

Scoff all you please, Tercel- but we have vast amounts of evidence that intelligence is indeed a complex emergent phenomenon of nature, and the assumption that a designer is complex is from the believers, not from us. Or do you think that God is simple?

Darth Dane:
Scientists have discovered that the universe had a beginning. God doesn't. God is infinite and forever.

Yes, we've heard that asserted before, Darth. And if that was *all* that was asserted about God, we unbelievers would have far fewer arguments against him- but this particular one would stand, I think.

Magus55

No i don't believe in the claims of Mohammed because i believe Islam to be a false religion. Since the Qur'an is from Mohammed himself, and not disciples who would be less likely to make someone other than themselves look good, Mohammed doesn't have any credibility. Mohammed enjoyed multiple wives and sex, hence why the Islamic paradise is so because he wanted it to be that way. Mohammed also never fulfilled any prophecies.

Jesus had no self satisfying agenda, his purpose was save people and teach love and peace.

Jesus filled the role of what one would expect a righteous, perfect, holy God to be like. Mohammed showed the exact opposite. Since a holy, righteous God doesn't have need or place value in sex and sodomy - Mohammed's claims of Allah and paradise fit what Satan would want it to be like.

And Jesus Christ the person is a historical fact. There is no question of whether the person himself existed. He was as real as Ceasar and Pontius Pilate. Whether he was God or not is a different story. But this Jesus person we talk about was not a myth in terms of existing. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth, he had parents, brothers, and "friends". It is a fact.

Shadowy Man

This is false.

Does this even mean anything?

Magus55

I understand why sane and reasonable people would have questions about it, but no i see too much things leading to Jesus being who he said was, that can't possibly all be astronomical coincidences, for anyone to completely and blatantly say its absolutely not possible.

Are you saying the 2 billion Christians who believe in God and Jesus are unreasonable and insane? I don't think so. Maybe Christians just had a more open mind about it.

And its not like i don't question my beliefs alot. All Christians do because we are too inferior minded to ever understand completely. Thats where the faith comes in.

Do i think Hell is harsh? Yes from my miniscule understanding, for normal people who led seemingly good lives it is. But since i have faith and trust God, i believe he knows a heck of a lot better than me how things work and to him it is rightful justice. I accept it.

Almost no Christian accepts absolutely everything with no questions. We all get confused and misunderstand God's ways, and we don't expect to fully understand them until Heaven when He reveals it all too us, but we trust what God said and who he is, therefore, whether we understand it or not doesn't mean its not true.

Volker

I have four objections against the argument by design. I try to make it short, because most of you will know this already:

(1) (P1) Everything complex like a watch does not spring into existence on its own.
(P2) This must be true for the world, too.
(C) There must have been a designer - god.

If really everything must have been created, who created god? If you say that god was not created (because otherwise you will end in an infinite regress), than you are contradicting yourself - not everything has to be created. Why should we assume that only god is an exception? The universe itself could be this exception. And we know the universe exists. And it is possible that we do have an infinite regress going on - there is no real argument against it. But this couldn't be a god-creates-god-creates-god ...

(2) How do we know something is designed? We compare it with something that is not designed. If you find a watch, you assume it is designed because you already know this. If you find a stone, you won't assume that there was a stonemaker, because the stone looks "natural". This does not even exclude the possibility that the stone was designed, too. But anyway, you conclude by comparison.

Now how many universes do you have to compare our universe to and conclude that our universe was designed?

Because you can't compare the universe to a universe that was not designed, you are trying to assume what should be proven. Therefore, you end in circular logic.

(3) If you take the analogy of the watchmaker - why not take it further? We know watches are not made by a single person. So it is implausible to assume that a single god has made the universe. Watches are made by rearranging some material, not by creating this material from nothing. How comes that the universe was created from nothing?

(4) If we just assume for a moment that all my counterarguments are invalid, than there is no reason to assume that a single, omnipotent, omni-x personal being has created the universe. It could still be an impersonal force. So even if this argument does not fail (but it does), there is no reason to asume that it proves the existence of god.

So this argument fails on four lines of defense (one line would be enough