vovaciouslyveronic

He's saying that attributing lightning to God is stupid, because God doesn't make lightning. But crediting God with flagella makes sense, because God made flagella.

I wish there was more of substance for me to translate, but there isn't. Nothing but 20/20 hindsight.[/QUOTE]


Not necessarily, I don't have that much knowledge of molecular biology as of now. I'm just saying most god of the gap arguments that they say have been refuted are incredibly outdated examples. And as I said before, I'm not saying that abiogenical theories will never explain how chemical life became biological life. I'm saying that right now, seeing that it dosen't have the answers yet. Its stupid to say there is no evidence for an intelligent designer (in my case I don't mean literally designing biological structures, but guiding naturalistic processes to make those biological structures). Get it yet?

Vicious Love

My apologies, then. I should have typed "fine tuning".

How would you rate your knowledge of physics (especially particle physics and astrophysics) and biology and your understanding of Bayesian probability?

Which invalidates them as examples of the fallacy because...?

Right.

Non sequitur. How do you get from "we don't have the answers yet" to "it's stupid to say there's no evidence for an intelligent designer"?

Nope.

Autonemesis

Yep, because mathematics is not sand and water. Math is abstract, water and sand are real. We can measure the size of sand grains, we can measure the energy carried by a mass of water. We can't detect the number three, or measure how fast division occurs. We use different rules for math because it isn't real like sand and water are real. That is precisely my point.

It does not matter whether you are real or not for the purpose of this thread. Whether you are a natural person or a IRC bot, I can still reply to your posts if they are intelligible to me. You can still defend them, or go on vacation. Your choice. I'll reply if you do, I won't if you don't. The reality or unreality of your existence does not affect anything away from this discussion board. In that sense, you aren't real, just like God cannot perform any feats not already written in the Bible. He's real in the context of the Bible, but not real in any other context. We can talk about those feats like they were real, just like we can talk about Harry Potter's feats as if he were real. But when the book is put down, those characters and the feats they performed are unreal.

Autonemesis

My position is that you willfully assert this despite evidence to the contrary. It is you who are being dishonest by pretending to start a discussion, when nothing of the sort was actually on your mind. You think we're liars? Fine. I think you are not worth reading or replying to anymore.

Cheerful Charlie

All wrong. The Universe is not designed nor has any obvious features that can only be from design.

If science at this point in time cannot fully explain abiogensis, it only means that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, science cannot fully explain abiogenesis. It does not mean that it will not be explained in the future. And it most certainly does NOT mean that abiogenesis is in principle not explainable, which is what religion needs to do and cannot do to claim only God can explain it. We don't know if that is true, maybe there is a God but abiogenesis is a natural thing and God has nothing to do with it or creation of any universe. You cannot show God exists at all, much less what that God is, is capable of and is not capable of.

Without being able to actually prove God exists, theism has no explanation for anything, much less abiogenesis.

Fine tuning is something that has been explained. (Guth, Linde and others). The universe consists of infinite island universes of which a small, small, small percentage are so fine-tuned. But within finite numbers of island universes existing, even if small, small, small percentages of them are "fine-tuned", there are then, infinite fine-tuned universes capable of life. No God is needed. Life is not explicable or of infinitelly small chance but a dead certainty.

God is a self contradictory idea which is ruled out by these self contradictions, an impossibility.

CC

kennethamy

[QUOTE=Cheerful Charlie;4739625]Could you explain the self-contradiction? Posters keep saying that, but they never explain how the concept of God implies a contradiction.

vovaciouslyveronic

QUOTE=Cheerful Charlie;4739625]




To a certain degree I know what your saying. On the other hand you just used string theory to explain away the fine tuning of the universe. Even though I am not even close to an expert on string theory I do know that there is reasonable controversy on if its really true. Besides have we even seen these other universes? The answer is a resounding no, your theory is just as non testable as mine, again you show your dogmatic fundamentalist athiesm.


Cheers

vovaciouslyveronic

[QUOTE=Tonto Goldstein;4738005][QUOTE]"


Wow its nice to meet more nice atheists on this forum. Well Rich, even if there were other possibilites of life that were not carbon based. Lets say Nitrogen. In my opinion that would make it even worse! You would then have to explain how an immaterial force basically nothing. Developed life based off of nitrogen, you would then further have to assume that the conditions for nitrogen based life forms to exist were not exact or fine tuned. Either way we haven't gotten there yet. By the way by life forms I mean something similar to what we on earth have.

Autonemesis

The anthropic principle is atheistic. Citing it undermines your position, it does not support a designer of any intelligence, great or small, it was formulated for the purpose of answering and refuting claims of design. Furthermore, the AP is a conjecture - a hotly debated conjecture - and it is not supported by any evidence. Nor is it intended to be. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. And the philosophical basis from which it springs is a naturalistic interpretation of reality.

Cheerful Charlie

[quote=kennethamy;4741687] Omnigenesis which shows a God that is creator of all and is omnipotent and all good does not work, it is internally ccontradictory. A God that creates all and is all good and is omnipotent is internally inconsistent. A God that is all good and is outside of logic is provably impossible, the super god argument. If God is limited by logic, that means that God cannot have created logic, the universe that has logic as a basic property of that Universe and is thus not as claimed, creator of all, nor all powerful, both self contrardictory. A God that creates all and is all powerful or all knowing but not all good, that is essentially ammoral, is simply incomprehensible and cannot be the God of revelation who is claimed to be all good, righteous, merciful and just et al. Contradicting revelations like the Bible or the Quran, Vedas and others.

A God that creates all and is either omnipotent or omniscient knows the future of everything including his own relation to all parts of the actual, real state of the Universe for all time. Thus God has no free will, and never had free will, he is subject to theological hard determinism, that is all is determined for God who determines all else. If God is outside of time, since to be subject to time is to not be all powerful (Augustine, Boethius)
Then all is and all ever was as it is, there was no creation, no before and after, God makes no sense then. All ever was and its not God's doing, how did that arise? Impossible contradictions.

1. Omnigenesis - Omniscience and omnibenevolence and creatorship of all.
2. Omnigenesis - Omnipotence and omnibenevolence and creatorship.
3. Omnigenesis and omniscience but no omnibenevolence - contradicts revelation. And is nihilistically senseless.
4. Same with omnipotence.
5. A God that is outside of logic can eliminate evil. That God has no effective limits. Evil exists. That God does not.
6. A God that is subject to logic cannot have created the Universe with this logic. Contradicting all major revealed religions. An that makes logic and God a problem. (So much for TAG).
7. A God that creates all and is omniscient is subject to hard determinism and has no free will, and this contradicts claims God has free will.
8. A God that is outside of time creates a truly bizarre paradoxical universe where nothing was ever created, it always was what it is, unchanging, static, lacking free will, determined, and nihilistically senseless, pointless and unsatisfying. Contra all revelations.

There, 8 major contradictions that eliminate God as a possibility. I have mentioned all 8 here at some point or the other, I am sure people are getting tired of omnigenesis and supergod arguments despite the fact that they are very powerful arguments that gut god as a viable concept.

Bundled together, they converge on an unescapable conclusion, God as an idea just can't work. And I have another fist full of secondary arguments besides. And I am working on yet more.

9.
Example, if God is all good, just, merciful et al, he does no moral evil. He has a Good nature incapable of evil. And yet we say he has free will. We do not let his inability to not do evil to count against his free will.
So, why does not God create us with a god-like free will and a god-like good nature incapable of doing no moral evil? If he cannot do this, he is not as claimed, omnipotent. If he will not all evil is because he will not do that and he is omnimalevolent, not omnibenevolent.

10. God creates us, designed us,and thus the nature of man. Man can be designed to have a good nature, a bad nature, and indifferent nature. But we must have a nature and it can only come from God if we claim God created and designed us. If god designed our nature to do only evil God would be responsible for the evil we do. If God made our nature indifferent God is responsible for all evil we do. God can only make us with a good nature, such as he has. To not give us a good nature by design is to doom us to do evil. And thus makes God evil. If God must give us a nature and he is all good, he must give us a good nature. We have no real free will if given any of these three natures, or we must argue that a nature is not the same as being determined, we do have free will. If we have no free will, any nature is the same, no need not to give us a good nature. But we cannot be blamed for our acts. But if being made with an evil nature so we cannot do good is lacking free will, and thatseems tobe an inescapable conclusion, any of these three natures has the same lack of free will. Thus all evil is God's fault, contradicting claims of God being all good. An all good god MUST give us a good nature.
If any of these natures counts as free will, all are the same and thus we should again have a good nature as all are the same, but a good nature eliminates evil.


How many disproofs of a creator god,with maximum attributes, the God of revealed religions of 4.5 billion people, based on contradictions like these do you all want?

God's secondary attributres, transcedence, immanence or idealism/maya
all have similar problems, each of these has its own little contradictory quirks. Each has slightly different disproofs.

Plus claims of God's immutibiliy, simplicity, impassivity et al, more problems for God.

Does anybody get anything out of this stuff here or am I wasting my time posting this stuff here? It doesn't seem to stimulate any real discussion.
Or is it that people say "Well hard to argue with that?"?

I seem to note a distinct lack of curiosity about these arguments.
Do atheists care about strong atheism's disproofs of a viable God or not?
I came to IIDB for feed back, discussion, and to try out ideas and see what people like or don't like, develop rhetoric etc. Its not working well here for me.


Cheerful Charlie