A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

Evidence of the formation of Stars and Planets and how Life Evolved from very simple forms to the complex forms we have today.

FWIW, I honestly think you're intelligent and don't mind discussing this with you.

Formation of stars, though, prove that stars form on their own. This doesn't disprove that someone out there (God) was smart enough to create the elements used in stars, and fine-tuned the cosmos in a such a way that life can form and live, and thus, thrive and reproduce.

I am not disputing what science has found. But I don't believe that we simply were "lucky" enough to be here -- all the right conditions for life didn't just fall into place.

Simple is misleading. What's "simple' about an atom or cell? Nothing. Those things are complex.

Neither requires a god, so where is the evidence for this god?

How do you know? Were you here when the Big Bang took place?

 

[sandorski]

FWIW, I honestly think you're intelligent and don't mind discussing this with you.

Formation of stars, though, prove that stars form on their own. This doesn't disprove that someone out there (God) was smart enough to create the elements used in stars, and fine-tuned the cosmos in a such a way that life can form and live, and thus, thrive and reproduce.

I am not disputing what science has found. But I don't believe that we simply were "lucky" enough to be here -- all the right conditions for life didn't just fall into place.

Simple is misleading. What's "simple' about an atom or cell? Nothing. Those things are complex.




How do you know? Were you here when the Big Bang took place?

Even as we have been discussing this today, the Goddidit list has shrunk.

No one was here when the Big Bang occurred. If you think otherwise, explain how you Know.

 

[Retro Rob]

False. What is the Christian rule about bearing false witness?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35953206&postcount=81

I admit, I wasn't completely accurate because I didn't quite remember the conversation, but I wasn't intentionally lying on you.

The link above demonstrates how, when backed into a corner, you play semantic games. Obviously, you know what's meant by "outside of time" without me having to define it.

You've become known for this. Can't defend yourself, accuse your opponent of not "defining" something properly.

Pathetic.

 

[Retro Rob]

No one was here when the Big Bang occurred. If you think otherwise, explain how you Know.

I didn't say "I know". I said the evidence brought me to my conclusion of a Creator...and also, I believe that God is the ultimate reason why we exists.

Conditions for intelligent life isn't an aberration, or the "luck of the draw". These conditions are highly specific, and throughout recorded history, we've always worshipped something and have always looked to a higher being of some sort.

I take that as circumstantial evidence at the very least. If God didn't exist, we wouldn't even think about a God, or higher power, in my opinion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35953206&postcount=81

I admit, I wasn't completely accurate because I didn't quite remember the conversation, but I wasn't intentionally lying on you.

You were negligent. The truth was readily discovered, as you've just shown, but you were not concerned about saying something true. You just wanted to say something negative about me, whether it was true or not.

The link above demonstrates how, when backed into a corner, you play semantic games. Obviously, you know what's meant by "outside of time" without me having to define it.

No, I do not know what "outside of time" means, and I contend now, as much as I did then, that you do not either. It was your term. You introduced it. It is perfectly legitimate to demand that you demonstrate that it is something more than just made up nonsense. To this day, you have failed to do so.

You've become known for this.

Yes, and I will continue to be known for it. Every time you construct a silly argument with terms you don't understand, I will be there to point out that you're just talking out of your ass. I repeat my earlier suggestion: if you do not like being taken to task for the dumb things you say, stop saying dumb things.

Can't defend yourself...

"Defend" myself from what, pray tell?

...accuse your opponent of not "defining" something properly.

It is a perfectly legitimate facet of debate. If you're going to employ certain terms to assemble your argument, you damn sure better know what they mean. I don't pick words out of your arguments at random, you know. I know precisely which terms lack meaningful definition in your arguments because you have not put together a single argument that I haven't seen before. You're just pissy that you're not getting away with it.

Pathetic.

Indeed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is plenty of evidence. Shoe prints are evdience humans are/have been in the area, creation and the Universe points to a designer being there.

Simple logic and reality at work.

What "creation"?

More importantly, you should answer these questions: is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God? What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

Questions that demand answers.

 

[Retro Rob]

You were negligent. The truth was readily discovered, as you've just shown, but you were not concerned about saying something true. You just wanted to say something negative about me, whether it was true or not.

Quite honestly, no I didn't. I gain nothing from intentionally spreading false information about you. Why do you think I admitted my error and posted the link to show my mistake?

Use your head. OOPS! Do I have to define "use your head"?

No, I do not know what "outside of time" means, and I contend now, as much as I did then, that you do not either. It was your term. You introduced it. It is perfectly legitimate to demand that you demonstrate that it is something more than just made up nonsense. To this day, you have failed to do so.

Whatever, you're at it again. Its all in an attempt to stay in the right. You never think you're wrong, when you often are more than you think.

This is a fancy way of hiding it.

Yes, and I will continue to be known for it. Every time you construct a silly argument with terms you don't understand, I will be there to point out that you're just talking out of your ass. I repeat my earlier suggestion: if you do not like being taken to task for the dumb things you say, stop saying dumb things.

Likewise.

It is a perfectly legitimate facet of debate. If you're going to employ certain terms to assemble your argument, you damn sure better know what they mean. I don't pick words out of your arguments at random, you know. I know precisely which terms lack meaningful definition in your arguments because you have not put together a single argument that I haven't seen before. You're just pissy that you're not getting away with it.

You're at it again. Stop.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Quite honestly, no I didn't. I gain nothing from intentionally spreading false information about you. Why do you think I admitted my error and posted the link to show my mistake?

Because you got caught lying and couldn't lie your way out of it.

Whatever, you're at it again. Its all in an attempt to stay in the right. You never think you're wrong, when you're often are more than you think.

If there are things that I am wrong about, I can be sure about one thing: you have never demonstrated them.

This is a fancy way of hiding it.

I have nothing to hide.

I entreat you, again, to show us what "outside of time" means. If you do not know what it means, then we can only conclude that when you post you have no compunction about simply making things up with absolutely no basis in reality. Don't you have a concern for your own credibility?

Likewise.

Oh, that's clever.

You're at it again. Stop.

I'll stop pointing out that you're bullshitting all over the forum when you stop bullshitting all over the forum.

Notice how this has wandered away from the actual argument, and has become about you throwing wild accusations at me about my style of argument? You are absolutely loathe to respond to my criticisms because you do not have the rational arguments to rebut them, so instead you attack me. Don't you have any self-respect?

 

[Retro Rob]

Because you got caught lying and couldn't lie your way out of it.

I took the time to find and post the link, Sherlock...I basically told on myself. If I wanted a way "out if it", I wouldn't have done any of that.

The hell is wrong with you?

You think I'm dying to discredit you when it isn't warranted? I can publicly admit my mistakes, unlike a certain someone.

If there are things that I am wrong about, I can be sure about one thing: you have never demonstrated them.

You do it for me.

Secondly, you're just going to dodge, parse, demand "definitions" anyway. I, most times, don't want to argue.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In attempt to get this discussion back on track, let's review how we got here.

SlowSpyder said this in post #274:

Isn't it kind of ironic that this omnipotent god created the universe in one day (though it took three days for the earth I believe... lol) and is very clear that he wants us to worship him and only him is unable to get more than about two out of every seven people on this planet to recognize that he even exists? For an all powerful god who is very jealous and wants us to worship him and only him, it seems odd that he can't even get a simple majority.

(empahsis added)

In response to the bolded part above, Rob said this in post #276:

This is a contradictory statement. He cannot be "all powerful", but "can't" do something at the same time...like get a majority.

If he's all-powerful, he *can* get a majority, but won't violate our ability to choose.

Forced worship isn't sincere worship. I'm glad I can choose to believe in God or not.

And finally in response to Rob, I said this in post #282:

Rational belief is a cognitive act, not a volitional one. I didn't "choose" to believe the pythagorean theorem. I followed the proof of the theorem and recognized its validity and soundness.

The point being that convincing a person through the presentation of persuasive evidence is not "forcing a choice" or "forcing belief." Your excuses do not sufficiently explain the widespread disbelief in an alleged being that 1.) knows what evidence would be persuasive, 2.) has the unlimited power to produce that evidence, and 3.) wants people to believe it exists.

Now, in light of the bolded statement above, does anyone want to guess without looking whether or not Rob addressed the explicitly stated point of my argument?

Anyone?

Here's a clue: his response to my post is in #283. I'll leave that as an exercise for the readers.

Rob does claim in post #283

I am not attempting to explain this "widespread disbelief".

Now, consider his claim from post #276:

If he's all-powerful, he *can* get a majority, but won't violate our ability to choose.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason purported to explain the fact that there isn't a majority of believers among the earth's population is that God "won't violate our ability to choose." If I had said "I was going to go to the market, but the battery in my car was dead," wouldn't a reasonable person interpret the 2nd half of that statement to explain why the 1st part did not obtain?

If the reason that there is widespread disbelief is not that God "won't violate our ability to choose," then what is the reason? It seems clear that when SlowSpyder noted that "it seems odd that he can't even get a simple majority," he was implying that it was a fact that warranted explanation. What is it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Secondly, you're just going to dodge, parse, demand "definitions" anyway. I, most times, don't want to argue.

It comes as no surprise that you would be so averse to defend statements that are assembled from words whose meanings you yourself do not understand. The real question is why do you so frequently make claims that are easily revealed to be nothing more than unsubstantial nonsense?

 

[sao123]

The point being that convincing a person through the presentation of persuasive evidence is not "forcing a choice" or "forcing belief." Your excuses do not sufficiently explain the widespread disbelief in an alleged being that 1.) knows what evidence would be persuasive, 2.) has the unlimited power to produce that evidence, and 3.) wants people to believe it exists.

Simply misconception here... If Christianity is to be taken at face value, #3 should read... 3)wants People to Believe it exists without the need for any such evidence.

The fundamental concept is that

Faith itself is the substance of things hoped for.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Without Faith it is impossible to please God.


these 2 sides are fundamentally irreconcilable.
1)I wont believe in God without Evidence.
2)The Christian must exercise unconditional blind faith.

Simple. As. That.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Simply misconception here... If Christianity is to be taken at face value, #3 should read... 3)wants People to Believe it exists without the need for any such evidence.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." ~Galileo Galilei

The fundamental concept is that

Faith itself is the substance of things hoped for.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

It seems I've discovered another theist that does not understand how evidence works.

Without Faith it is impossible to please God.

Do you speak for God?

these 2 sides are fundamentally irreconcilable.
1)I wont believe in God without Evidence.
2)The Christian must exercise unconditional blind faith.

Simple. As. That.

If you want to stipulate that the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational, I will have no dispute for you. Is that your stipulation?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Conditions for intelligent life isn't an aberration, or the "luck of the draw".

If the conditions aren't an aberration, then they are to be expected.

These conditions are highly specific, and throughout recorded history, we've always worshipped something and have always looked to a higher being of some sort.

There was a person on the forum who said recently, "widespread disbelief no more disproves that God exists than widespread belief proves that God does exists."

Do you know who that was?

I take that as circumstantial evidence at the very least. If God didn't exist, we wouldn't even think about a God, or higher power, in my opinion.

If Santa Claus didn't exist, we wouldn't even think about him. If leprechauns didn't exist, we wouldn't even know what they are.

Yeah, great reasoning.

 

[sao123]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." ~Galileo Galilei

The quote offers no factual evidence pertaining to any matter relevant in this discussion. I can provide my own:

"Tell them I am, that I am!"
~God

It seems I've discovered another theist that does not understand how evidence works.

Do you speak for God?

I quote what God has already said, in his book.
What is written in this book is the evidence that God exists.

If you want to stipulate that the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational, I will have no dispute for you. Is that your stipulation?

On the contrary, Blind faith is not irrational.
The existence of such a being is independent of whether any belief occurs. The existence of such a being is independent of whether it is logical or necessary for such a being to exist.

The question of Is there a God has its own uncertainty principal. It is impossible to know the answer to this question at this time.
However there is a logical provable solvable scientific test which will in the future will provide a verifiable answer to "is there a God? to every person."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The quote offers no factual evidence pertaining to any matter relevant in this discussion.

What would you know about "factual evidence"?

The purpose of the quote was to express the idea that it is absurd to suggest a rational person could arrive at a belief in a god's existence without evidence.

I can provide my own:

"Tell them I am, that I am!"
~God

Galileo was a real person.

I quote what God has already said, in his book.

No, you didn't. That is a flat-out lie. Have some integrity.

What is written in this book is the evidence that God exists.

No more than what is written in the Illiad is evidence that the Cyclops exists.

On the contrary, Blind faith is not irrational.

I submit that you do not know what "rational" means -- which explains a lot.

The existence of such a being is independent of whether any belief occurs.

Name one thing for which this is not true.

The existence of such a being is independent of whether it is logical or necessary for such a being to exist.

False. Incoherent propositions are not logical, but impossible.

The question of Is there a God has its own uncertainty principal. It is impossible to know the answer to this question at this time.

Tell that to Rob M.

However there is a logical provable solvable scientific test which will in the future will provide a verifiable answer to "is there a God? to every person."

This would be, y'know, a great place to tell everyone what that test is. Christ almighty, are Christians allergic to telling the truth, or what?

 

[soulcougher73]

The quote offers no factual evidence pertaining to any matter relevant in this discussion. I can provide my own:

"Tell them I am, that I am!"
~God



I quote what God has already said, in his book.
What is written in this book is the evidence that God exists.




On the contrary, Blind faith is not irrational.
The existence of such a being is independent of whether any belief occurs. The existence of such a being is independent of whether it is logical or necessary for such a being to exist.

The question of Is there a God has its own uncertainty principal. It is impossible to know the answer to this question at this time.
However there is a logical provable solvable scientific test which will in the future will provide a verifiable answer to "is there a God? to every person."

LOL

 

[sao123]

What would you know about "factual evidence"?

The purpose of the quote was to express the idea that it is absurd to suggest a rational person could arrive at a belief in a god's existence without evidence.

What is written in the bible is the only firsthand factual evidence needed.
It stands alone, uncontested in reliability, accuracy, and truth.

No, you didn't. That is a flat-out lie. Have some integrity.

Do you even know what is in the Bible?

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. " Hebrews 11:6

This would be, y'know, a great place to tell everyone what that test is. Christ almighty, are Christians allergic to telling the truth, or what?

Die.

You either will meet God. (true)
or
you simply cease to exist, and do not meet God. (false)

 

[soulcougher73]

What is written in the bible is the only firsthand factual evidence needed.
It stands alone, uncontested in reliability, accuracy, and truth.





Do you even know what is in the Bible?

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. " Hebrews 11:6






Die.

You either will meet God. (true)
or
you simply cease to exist, and do not meet God. (false)

LOL again. This guy isn't even worth debating with.

 

[Retro Rob]

If the conditions aren't an aberration, then they are to be expected.

You've made my point. These conditions are to be expected from higher-intelligence.

Thank you.

/thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What is written in the bible is the only firsthand factual evidence needed.

So I was right, you don't know the first thing about factual evidence.

It stands alone, uncontested in reliability, accuracy, and truth.

Now that's just silly.

Do you even know what is in the Bible?

Very well.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. " Hebrews 11:6

But those are the writings of men, not "what God has already said." Moreover, it is in the first instance patently absurd, refuting your earlier claim that it "stands alone, uncontested in reliability, accuracy, and truth."

Die.

No, you said there was a "logical provable scientific test." You either don't know what logic is or what science is, or both. Or you're just lying.

You either will meet God. (true)
or
you simply cease to exist, and do not meet God. (false)

Why is it impossible that I will be reincarnated?

More generally, why is it apparently impossible for Christians to be forthright about the truth?

 

[dphantom]

LOL again. This guy isn't even worth debating with.

yes he is because he is quite articulate in his responses. You on the other hand are not evidenced by your complete dismissal and refusal to engage with your own arguments you purport to be stronger. that indicates you have a weakness you fail to admit to yourself, a doubt that what you profess to believe is true.

You are lost and do not know it. But there is a path for you and everyone. You simply need to open your heart.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You've made my point. These conditions are to be expected from higher-intelligence.

Thank you.

/thread.

The point has soared so far over your head you didn't even hear the whooshing.

If the conditions for life are what are to be expected, then they do not require a special explanation. It isn't an aberration that approximately 50% of coin flips come up heads, and that is precisely why we don't need to invoke any special "higher-intelligence" explanations for it. It isn't an aberration that the sun came up this morning. It does that every morning. Naturally, and therefore, we do not need to invoke a "higher-intelligence" explanation for it.

Now, got any responses to the plethora of points awaiting your attention above?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

These conditions are to be expected from higher-intelligence.

A different criticism of this claim of yours:

Let's assume for a moment a "higher-intelligence" exists (and why is that hyphenated?).

Show me how "these conditions are to be expected" follows logically from that premise. Why not some other conditions? Why these conditions in particular?

 

[Retro Rob]

If the conditions for life are what are to be expected, then they do not require a special explanation.

Expected by whom? We weren't always here. If you cannot explain why these conditions are the way they are, just say so and stop trying to avoid this obvious question.

That's the issue with your "logic"...it doesn't explain anything -- it only reaffirms our existence.

A 2 year-old can reaffirm the existence of something.

It isn't an aberration that approximately 50% of coin flips come up heads, and that is precisely why we don't need to invoke any special "higher-intelligence" explanations for it.

Coins are still flipped by someone or some thing. You cannot escape that simple truth.

It isn't an aberration that the sun came up this morning.

Marvelous. Who said it was?

Naturally, and therefore, we do not need to invoke a "higher-intelligence" explanation for it.

Who's trying to invoke a higher intelligence to explain the Sun coming up?