To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
>>163
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
> God is not an effect.
In that case, neither are logic, morality and the physical world.
Since the law of cause and effect does not apply to the divine entity, that law can no longer be considered universal and inviolable, and thus it is foolish to demand that some phenomenon of nebulous origin must be 'accounted' for while another is not. You are attempting to use the rule to prove the exception to the rule. This does not work.
>>166
Similar to >>46, I believe logic is a reapplication of natural laws, making it at its heart part of the physical world. I think morality is a social construct, but do not discount that societies other than our human one might exist or have existed to ponder it ever since the beginning of cosmology (lol aliens.) And I do not know what took place before the Big Bang, nor does anyone else. In short, I am an agnostic concerning those matters.
>>168
I will concede morality, because I do not wish to debate it. You may consider my inclusion of it to be in error.
I did not state that natural laws caused the laws of logic. Rather, I believe the laws of logic are a subset of the laws of nature, which humans have adapted to other purposes.
I did not state that Big Bang caused the physical world. It is a singularity, which makes it impossible to postulate meaningful theories about the nature of the physical world prior to the event.
>>170
If I had to pick, it would be the physical world. However, thanks to the Big Bang essentially erasing the history of the universe prior to it, I have no grounds whatsoever on which to make that judgement and so I won't do so.
Anyway, my point was that if God is uncaused, it opens the door for all sorts of other seemingly inexplicable phenomena to be without cause as well. You can't just say "All things must be traceable back to an origin EXCEPT for God, He is Special." If you are going to prove the existence of God using scientific laws, He must obey those laws as well.
>>172
Perhaps my choice of words in >>165 was poor. I meant not to state my own beliefs, but rather propose that if God is exempt from causality, then perhaps the phenomena I listed are exempt from causality as well. You can't rule out the convenient explanation for some phenomenon and not others.
My understanding is that if God is not required to obey natural laws, such as the law of causality, it means either two things: those laws are invalid, or God is supernatural. That which is supernatural is by definition outside the bounds of science. Your argument may be true, but if you hold that God is omnipotent (making him exempt from every natural and scientific law), it is neither scientific nor a proof and is an inadequate rebuttal to the opening argument of this thread: "God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed."
> My argument is that one cannot make sense of ANYTHING let alone causality, without God (a personal, omnipotent, immaterial, timeless being) as the first cause.
You know, there's a funny pattern throughout history. All sorts of phenomena (though particularly the dramatic) that contemporary scientific knowledge was unable to adequately explain - rain, lightning, earthquakes, life itself - was thought to be the work of gods or of God. As scientific explanations for these phenomena were developed, tested, and refined, the belief in a divine origin of these phenomena slowly faded away and in many cases disappeared entirely.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell.
I don't see that ever happening. At best/worst the believers still around would be either theists or deists. There will always be stones left unturned.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform.
wrong
> random, chance world
your view, not science
> You base your faith in a science
semantics
> that is only possible because God exists
prove it
> You see the problem with such a position is that you cannot account for the science that you have faith in.
I account for it with my own senses.
All science is based on facts; all facts can be verified with the senses. And if you cast doubt upon our own senses, demanding that they need accountability, then we have no business debating the nature of reality at all (also, we are probably Buddhists.)
If there's one thing we must be certain of for science to work, it is that we exist, we percieve, and we percieve correctly.
Is there any knowledge that isn't gained through either taste, smell, sight, hearing or touch?
You have been proved wrong several times already and you keep pretending it didn't happen. Please leave now!.
> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform
And you have zero basis for believing in your god. What else is new?
> You would never put someone in a rocket and send them to space unless you were able to predict exactly what would happen when you lit the rockets.
I think you misunderstand science. Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure. Those who sent a man to space were taking a risk - a risk well calculated and considered extremely minute, but for all they knew Ahura Mazda might have been waiting invisibly above the stratosphere with his hammer of smiting for the first human foolish enough to try and escape his domain. They literally did choose to brave the unknown, and thanks to them, now we have definite facts about space instead of inductions which we're pretty confident about but that might, somehow, be in error.
> You have no basis for such an assumption.
I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption. Theories with no known exceptions to them are called laws or principles; this one is the 'principle of uniformity.' They are no more rock-solid then the rest of science, but when we observe something that seems to violate a law, we start to examine the anomaly very closely rather then immediately cast our suspicions on the law.
> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?
Sounds like more semantic games.
Well, I would say that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge not gained through the senses, thus it has no business in science.
Then the answer is yes. Now you answer mine.
Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure.
I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption.
Then the answer is yes.
> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?
No, sometimes we have hallucinations of a 900-foot tall Jesus that picks up an office building and then brags about it.
> Maybe you could tell me by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses
Well, it wasn't from an oral tradition invented by tribesmen that stoned people for believing in the wrong god and thought the world was ending at every solar eclipse.
> asking by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses.
Irrelevant.
Senses are our means of gathering information about the world. The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.
Whether through textbooks or tomes, the words of a preacher or the words of a teacher, everything we learn comes through our senses.
You have the same senses I do. Whatever conclusions we come to both use the same imperfect senses.
If you have any other mysticism you'd like to share... please don't.
> Aside form that flip-flop
I'm not the poster you think I am, so there was no "flip-flop" since I am not that poster.
Either way, demanding an immediate answer then balking when clarification is presented is not a "flip-flop", and does not reveal a weakness in any argument or capacity for reason.
As for the substance of this loaded political implication (that the ability to change ones mind is a weakness of character), it couldn't be further from the truth.
> The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.
I question this statement. I assume you are referring to animal instinct, but can reactions programmed into our mind on an unconscious level really be described as 'knowledge'?
I suppose we should ask proofthatgodexists.org to define 'knowledge' to his satisfaction.
Whoops, somehow I became terminally confused while writing that reply. Ignore the mixed-up post references.
Now will you answer what knowledge isn't acquired through senses?
>>198
I am pretty sure the answer is going to be along the lines of spiritual knowledge.
If so, I'll save us a post and inquire in advance how he is able to verify the truthfulness of such. Or perhaps more importantly, how others are able to verify the truthfulness of such.
Truth is sort of a nebulous concept, but I think the best benchmark we've got for it - so far as it pertains to the nature of reality - is near-unanimous opinion. The chief reason we place our trust in our senses and the natural world it reveals is that everyone (barring physical weakness or disability) perceives it in the same way, whereas it is blatantly obvious that the six billion of us on this planet perceive God, Allah, Buddha or whatever name you prefer to call him/her/it in some very different ways.
> We'll talk about my basis later
No, we won't. You'll just drag out that old chestnut about how your god somehow "accounts for" something else, and you'll dodge the question, never admitting that your belief is entirely irrational and on much shakier ground that anybody else's.
> Not to mention the fact that 'changing one's mind' flies in the face of any evolutionary model.
Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.
Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.
Man, you're so incredibly confused about different philosophies here, it's not even funny. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. You're just grouping together everything you disagree with under one label. All you manage to do is look incredibly ignorant.
Hey, look, man. If you want to argue against something, how about you first go out and learn what the hell it is.
> You happen to 'fizz' atheism
No, I don't. I 'fizz' ignorance. From ignorance I can 'fizz' anything I want.
Doug Wilson? Are you referring to the hockey player, the interior designer or the Christian Theologian?
Interesting how your post does not include any refutation. Tell me how free choice comports with any evolutionary model?
>>205
Interesting that you think I'd bother discussing anything with one such as yourself.
Go and finish high school so I can explain it to you and you'll understand it.
On a side note, wasn't christianity the responsible for burning Galileo for defending heliocentrism? Tell me, has your retarded religion changed its mind already or are you so retarded that still believe the world is flat and square and the middle of everything?
Please leave and stop making an ass of yourself, do it for your kids: it must be shameful for them to have you as a parent.
The correct description of your statement is "not even wrong". It is so non-sensical, it cannot be refuted. It's like trying to refute a statement like "an apple is five".
>>210
Because it was a reproductive advantage.
> no one here can tell me
How Insightful
You are missing the point. Explain how biochemistry = choice.
>>213
Evolution itself does not purport to explain how biological traits function, it merely describes the process by which they became more commonplace in a given population.
However, choice seems pretty easy to account for. Many types of insects and other simple organisms are unable to interrupt preprogrammed patterns of behavior in response to rapidly changing environments; for instance, a digger wasp that is eating its prey and is then caught by a predator will not flee, but will continue to eat until it is itself eaten. The ability to interrupt instinctive behaviors in response to emergencies would obviously be a survival advantage in this case, thus it was selected for in more complex forms of life. "Choice" is a far more refined version of this ability to adapt mental processes to the situation at hand.
We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice, but it's thought to take place primarily in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain.
> We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice
So you don't really know ANYTHING AT ALL? Nice Flip-Flop.
[Insert mystic escapism to defend lack of valid response and failure to address post >>1]
proofthatgodexists.org = unable to learn.
Please, make the tiniest effort to understand that what you're asking is like asking how economics can explain the taste of oranges. Evolution has never pretended to have anything to do with the question of choice. It makes no statements about it. That's the domain of philosophy.
http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_5/ts205f.html
The evidence for evolution goes beyond the scope of philosophy (and beyond your comprehension as well).
(FYI, >>221 ain't the same Anonymous Scientist as me. I'm not sure why he/she directed that post to >>220 instead of >>218.)
> Um, evolution IS philosophy.
This is why people keep telling you to go back to school before trying to make an argument. This is a ridiculous statement, and just shows that you are either a) a complete fool or b) blindly parroting fundamentalist dogma with no basis in reality.
Possibly "and" instead of "or".
I typed "proof of macroevolution" into Google, and the first hit was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. You know how to use Google, don't you? You could have done it yourself, if you had actually wanted to learn anything.
Somehow, I'm thinking you're not really interested in learning.
>>224
c) a troll
Here's a summary of a proof stated by Ian Johnston at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
1) All living things come from living parents. (Evidence: Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. Apart from that, lack of opposing evidence or alternate theories.)
2) There are many species alive today that are very different from each other. (Self-evident, I would hope.)
3) Very long ago, fewer and simpler organisms existed than exist now. (Evidence: Fossil record.)
Conclusion: Unless God is constantly creating new species out of nothing, "macroevolution" has to have occurred. Darwin's theory is the best naturalistic explanation of how that has happened.
Addendum in Ian Johnson's words: "To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation."
> timeline is spurious
Your post is a little hard to understand, but I'm guessing this is your main counterargument.
Why do you say the timeline of the fossil record is spurious? For the most part it's based on a very simple principle of geology, the law of superposition - in layman's terms, this law states "new dirt is deposited on top of older dirt." Extrapolated, the meaning is "new dirt containing new fossils is deposited on top of old dirt containing older fossils." Do you disagree with this?
There's a bit of radiometric dating involved, but carbon-14 decays to undetectable levels at around 60,000 years, and there are few other isotopes suitable for dating fossils and sediments. Geological evidence is the primary tool for constructing the timeline of the fossil record.
> Which new species are you talking about?
Those species that are present today, but are not present in the fossil record. Where did they come from?
Evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6548719.stm
Will you say that god just happened to have recycled a protein from his protein database?
Oh, did that site have too much proof for you, so you had to ignore it? Ok, just pretend I copy-pasted all the contents on that site, and start refuting.
It is more reliable than the belief of a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as youy master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> the god of atheism
Strawman. Atheism rejects all gods. This is the very definition of the atheism. Whether it's logical or scientific is up for debate. But we're not debating the validity of Atheism, we're debate the existence of God. (Yes, there is a large difference)
The comparison is invalid because time is not a god in any scientific sense. It's finite, limited in 'power', has no worshippers, and likely will one day cease to exist. We can also see it's effects, so we know it's real or 'real enough'.
You may be confusing atheism with science. They are not mutually exclusive, but are not the same.
> a dinosaur became a chicken?
Strawman. This is the same argument as monkeys 'becoming' humans. Not even creationists use this long-dead fallacious argument.
> Your proof relies on the assumption that God DID NOT create the different species. This is 'question begging.'
False. We also make the assumption that:
All these are reasonable assumptions. If any of these were true, we'd have to prove it was true. The same goes for any god(s) and/or goddess(es).
By making these assumptions, we have a foundation to base our beliefs on (all of science, religion, and philosophy). If you wish to reject these assumptions and invalidate all human knowledge, then we can further discuss our collective course of action here:
http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1165280951/
In other words, the hypothesis that God is constantly creating new species without anyone noticing - like the other assumptions that >>237 listed - is (as far as I'm aware) completely devoid of factual evidence for and factual evidence against it, and thus beyond the domain of science altogether. It is not inherently false, but it's plain silly to try to disprove a scientific law by proposing it as an alternative.
Even if it were assumed to be true, I think it would be awfully curious how God created the various species in such a way that the fossil record shows us a clear evolutionary path of descent for nearly every one of them. Either that or He fabricated the fossil record completely. Is it all a divine joke, or some sort of test of our faith?
Once again, "proofthatgodexists.org" ignores arguments he can't answer. That's pretty immature.
You were given a list of proofs of macroevolution. Start refuting, or admit that you can't.
>>239
If you mean http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, actually, it is a summary of evidence supporting macroevolution - not proofs of macroevolution. Many of the evidences are conveniently packaged with criticisms and alternate explanations, so proofthatgodexists.org wouldn't even have to do any extra research arguing against them; he can just parrot those which appeal to him most.
Not quite what we were looking for, I think. It's nice to see a fair, balanced and well-referenced webpage on the subject, though.
>Your proof relies on the assumption that God DID NOT create the different species. This is 'question begging
your proof relies on the assumption that the bible is completely true...yet you cant prove that either
I think ptgeorg has given up, let's not all pile-on and invite further recycled debate.
more importantly why is god constantly proofing new species into existence only to kill them off a short time later
i can only think of 3 explanations
god doesn't exist
god does exist but doesn't actively maintain the universe and most of the scientific view of the universes origin is correct
the creationist view is correct and the Christian god is just one sick fuck
I vote for permasage
what i believe is god only exist in your heart not any kind of physical form. i've read somewhere, that the power of thought of many people if they think as one, eventually can make it come true... so maybe thats the thing with god, he came true because many people believe he's exist.
Heart is a muscle. If you have something living in there then it is an infection. See a doctor.
We created God, he didn't create us. He is the sum of all unknowns.
>>245
Whenever people have no Idea how something happened, like how universe was created, or how something which seems impossible becomes possible for no apparent reason, it is called God.
People and societies are flat out assholes who never admit that they are clueless of the workings of the universe and cling to God to give them meaning to what they can find no meaning in.
Religion is like this set of instruction on top of millions of people's minds. Of course this will have uncontrolled effects which looks like have been a miracle or someshit, but are actually are done by the people as a whole. Only because they are a mass that believe the same thing.
/245
Another thing: why is it that we believe that logic can explain everything. Logic can be inherently flawed. Its just a system of thought that we regard as perfect and follow it. In other words, you can prove god exists with logic, and you can prove that it doesn't exist, hell, you can probably prove anyshit to anyone using logic , but either side of the argument you wont know you are right or wrong.
God did not create humans, humans created god.
If it's a belief then it is a thought. The organ you use for that is the brain. Therefore, not the heart. The heart pumps blood.
>The organ you use for that is the brain.
Some people use instead their gonads for that. :)
>>250
dude, you're not going to say to your girlfriend "i love you with all my brain". you're gonna say "i love you with all my heart", i want to see you said option no.1 to a girl, i want to see what she thinks about you.
the same with belief, if you "think" that you want to believe something then. you gonna say that "im gonna believe you with all my heart" not "im gonna belief you with all my brain"....
my friend just ask a similar question: which came first, chicken or egg?
Egg of course, evolutionarily chicken was not the first egg-laying animal.
In the sentence "which came first, chicken or egg?", the word "chicken" comes first. :)
>>252
That is a phrase left over from older times. It is obviously not correct in a biological sense, but it is so commonly used to convey a message that it is still being used.
Back on the topic though, I do not know whether God is real or not. I do not know what religion is the "proper" one to follow. No matter if God is real or not, I try to live my life in a morally positive way.
The whole thread "Is God real?" is flawed, because the OP has not defined "God".
>will you still gonna ask a girl "i love you with all my brain" ??
It's none of your business but I'll reply anyway. I've never told anyone "love you". And if were to say it I'd say just "I love you" without any cliché attached to it.
Let this thread die already.
Language is but a collection of clichés,... So if you wand to express your love without clichés, keep your mouth shut and do things ;-)
Sounds good to me, I'll do it as soon as I find the object of my love.
I said "I love you" to a few girls but I never felt the need to append anything to it. YMMV.