Arguments for and against the existence of God

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
HepCat
Posts: 753
Joined: 10 Sep 2016
Location: England

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby HepCat » 20 Apr 2017



Hi, l skipped the Pascal's Wager article as l feel familiar enough with that. I see it as part of a Swiss Army knife of arguments for belief in a God. Of course it can easily be attacked if it's the sole argument. The Huffington Post article was excellent. 51% of scientists believe in a higher power. And as the article also says, modern science was an innovation of a religious person (not Francis Bacon as the article suggests). Carl Sagan's agnostic spirituality in that article was interesting too.

Stephen Hawking's quote about science explaining the universe better than God, echoes something Neil Tyson said, about how the more things that are explained by science, the less things are attributable to God. These are very compelling arguments. Counter-arguments:

1) God isn't necessarily there to explain the universe
2) Science doesn't necessarily run counter to the concept of God, but it does necessarily fall short of completely explaining God. Mystically, there's a point where the mind must fail and words run out.
3) For science to ultimately fall short of explaining God does not mean that science has pushed God into a corner and science can go no further but is happy for God to be pushed into some sort of cave and be left there. Frankly l don't see how a working scientist can say that the more science explains, the less can be attributable to God, because at the end of almost every research paper, more questions are raised - i.e. the more we find out, the less we know. Also, consider that knowledge might be infinite, then the "God of Gaps" is an infinite actual God, versus "Science" as an infinite potential i.e. we could potentially discover an infinite amount of things. In other words, infinite Science requires a greater leap of faith than a "God of Gaps", as the former is potential, the latter is actual.
4) HepCat's Paradox / HepCat's Schroedinger: HepCat puts Schroedinger inside a replicator, presses the button, Schroedinger now has a perfect double, perfect in every way, right down to quarks etc. When Duplicate Schroedinger thinks to himself "I am me", does he refer to Original Schroedinger or Duplicate Schroedinger? If he refers to himself (Duplicate Schroedinger) then something failed to be copied over into Duplicate Schroedinger, from Original Schroedinger - what is that? It is definitely something that will never be explained by science, because Duplicate Schroedinger is a perfect copy. If you say Duplicate Schroedinger thinking "I am me" means he is both Original and Duplicate Schroedinger, then are you saying there's a psychic bridge established between the two guys? That sounds kinda New Agey not sciencey.
5) The Big Bang Theory was suggested by a Belgian Catholic priest - Georges Lemaitre, who also first discovered "Hubble's" Law and approximated the "Hubble" Constant. I guess he got the inspiration from "Fiat Lux". As for the 10 or 11 dimensions physicists speak of today, consider the 10 Intelligences / 10 Emanations of Avicenna and the 10 Sephirot of the Tree of Life of the Kabbalah.



Gorgon wrote:I don't think if you look at the moon a lot, or not. But I do, and I can honestly say that sometimes the moon appears almost double the size, when it's closer to the earth, as opposed as when it's further away. The so called "Supermoon". I've seen it several times and well, it's kind of scary really. Makes you think that it gets closer every year. Which could entirely be possible, and it's probably part of a cycle, which will pull it away from the earth again, because of the gravity of other planets/entities in our small galaxy.

Apologies, my error - the variation is as great as 14%, not 5%.

Gorgon wrote:Therefore, I think can all be explained by rules that we know as humans. If this was some sort of god thingy, it could be entirely erratic, no rules would be necessary because god could do whatever he wanted, right?

I think No-God = only Chaos possible (Second Law of Thermodynamics - entropy only increases in an isolated system), whereas God = Chaos and Order both possible. Some religions teach that God wanted to be discovered, so, l guess creating Order would be way to do it, just like a pentagon appearing on Mars or something like that, implies an intelligence at work. Also, Integer sequence = basis of Order. Prime numbers = at the heart of the Integer sequence = basis of Chaos?

(Also, maybe Chaos to you = undiscovered Scientific law?)



Marco Raaphorst wrote:I don't believe in god. I grew up with religious parents going to church every Sunday.

I wouldn't make any specific religion the focus of the discussion because the question is about God, rather than various religions.



Marco Raaphorst wrote:Enjoy live now and trust your morals. God does not exist for sure.

Where do morals come from? What's wrong with a 21 year-old man sexually abusing his cancer-patient father while his father is dying? Surely if the man gets an orgasm from it, then, the orgasm being the greatest good, what can be wrong with that?

You could say that it's illegal - but that avoids the question of why it is wrong, i.e. why is it illegal?
You could say that the other person won't enjoy it and you wouldn't like it done to yourself, so why do it to another - but that is Social Contract, and the contract doesn't exist, it was never signed, it was never even verbally agreed, it is not a contract.
You could say it's a crime against Love. You would be right, but that's not scientific.
You could say that you just aint that kind of person. You would be right, but saying it's something innate is not scientific.
It seems to me that morals are written into our hearts and as we grow older we give expression to what had in infancy been wordless. There is no way that can be coded for by genes. This is therefore beyond science.

If we do bad things and never say sorry, then our hearts become all clogged up and like a buzzing neon sign outside a sleazy bar, the energy can barely flow through the heart and eventually the heart becomes like a globule of tar and that's when we get a psychopathic personality.

So, without a concept of the supernatural, l don't see how you can explain universal morality - and you know for sure that some things are indeed universally immoral. How do you explain universal concepts of morality that are innate to us, through science?

If you want to get upset about the example of the man and his cancer-patient father, how about: a Mother and her 4 children, 2 sons + 2 daughters. Mother has been dating Son #1, but things didn't work out because he wanted too much anal. She did the right thing and dumped him and is now dating Daughter #2, who is much more gentle during lovemaking and awakens a lost femininity in 55-year old mother. Do you think family get-togethers at Christmas (or "25 Dec Holiday" if you prefer) would be awkward? Would that be your only objection? Some here have flatly told me they have no problem with incest (which is becoming increasingly legal / tolerated), so l'm wondering, where does it all end? Who says what is right and what is wrong?



QVprod wrote:Ultimately there's too many systems in this world that work together perfectly for it to have not been designed. In the human body alone, there's the pulmonary system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the reproductive system, the digestive system...etc... All of these systems that work together to allow a human to function normally.

... Faith only comes in when defining who you believe God to be.

avasopht wrote:Nervous system: susceptible to a range of dysfunctions ranging from cognitive biases to severe mental illnesses.
General biology: capable of producing cancers, various genetic disorders, sarcoidosis, lupus, etc.

Interactive interdependent systems naturally self balance. This is evidenced in economies and eco-systems. DNA naturally mutates when copied, and as a result performs a sort of trial and error, which can tweak systems to produce and sustain cooperative systems, so the claim that an intelligent external designer is required is redundant, because the natural processes are more than capable.

There is actually a great deal of poor design in nature, and actually requires a significant bias to perceive it as perfect.

Still I don't consider those disproofs of a higher power. Those observations merely correct the presumptuous interpretation.

Fact is, you're a few decades old, you're able to write these posts, you have a firm grip on music technology and doubtless you've got some pretty amazing programming skills. Something went right, no?

Also, what would you prefer, a perfect world? In a perfect world, we would be in heaven. Or better, there would only be God. Religions pretty much all teach that life is a test. Therefore there must be doubt, imperfections, even moral imperfections, not just structural imperfections, right?

Also, don't you praise "imperfect" genetic mutations as the vector of progress in Neo-Darwinism? Here:
avasopht wrote:Evolution isn't about a "belief in chance," it's understanding how unpredictable mutations inevitably result in gradual improvements and the creation of new features.

^^^ Neo-Darwinism is a belief in chance.



normen wrote:Well its not "chance", its evolution and it demonstrably works fine to create such complexity. One can even take your argument in the other direction: Theres SO MANY stupid things in evolution that its obvious nobody had a master plan here. The spine is one example, it developed in the sea, then was used in land creatures that went on all fours, now we use it to stand upright and guess what - we get back pain because its an exquisitely shitty "design" to be used upright. Or take the laryngeal nerve which takes an immense detour though the neck because it evolved on the "wrong side" of the arteries ... If this was created by an "intelligent designer" which supposedly created the whole universe then he must be some kind of alcoholic or something to constantly fuck up his designs this way :)

1) Please can you cite proof that life is here by chance?
2) Please can you show other examples of chance, unrelated to nature (which is already all covered under abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinian evolution)? For example, something relatively simple like a car factory appearing on the moon and manufacturing ever more complex cars?
3) Please can you give examples of genetic mutations ever producing anything good? Most cancers are caused by genetic mutations. I think the only other causes of cancer are mutagenic agents / radiation directly messing up an important protein that has already been manufactured by gene transcription.
4) Please can you give examples of evolution today. With the millions of species all over the world, and the many, many genes per species, we should be seeing Neo-Darwinian evolution occurring every week if not every day. I reckon we'd be seeing weekly mutations in the human race alone.

I think a few months ago l read an article about some micro-organism like E. coli, it was bred through thousands of life cycles until one day it began metabolising citric acid, which apparently it had not done before.

I'm not against evolution per se, but Neo-Darwinism seems like a dodo. We need a better theory of evolution.
5) Seems to me that Neo-Darwinism gives rise to backstories that are like Marvel comics or Tolkien's more obscure tales, like the curved spine? That was the when the king of Numenor carried the green gemstone of Illuvatar on his back, and he swam through the oceans but then he was forgiven and allowed to live on land again, but his spine was forever curved, and this was to help him remember his past sins and this is what makes us human.

The amount of rubbish backstories l've heard from Neo-Darwinists is embarrassing, like, cats flatten their ears and hiss in order to impersonate snakes hissing? LMAO how would a cat know what it looks like when it hisses? How would that behaviour, a whim, be inherited, via genes? How does a cat flattening its ears and baring its teeth even resemble a snake, apart from the fangs and the hiss? Do cats even know how damn cute they look when they hiss? Why didn't the cat also get wings? Like the Balrog in lost mines of Moriah. Never mind that walking upright had no advantage to primates and the human baby has no means of self-defence unlike other animals, yet we're supposedly a logical progression from other animals.



avasopht wrote:I think chance is an oversimplification and misleading summary.

Me winning the lottery is chance. Having more than a winner per week on average is inevitable.

100 billion stars per galaxy. 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe gives you 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 galaxies over the period of 13 000 000 000 years.

Sadly there is not a theory of life, and particularly life capable of evolution that can even produce an abstract model to begin to calculate the momentary likelihoods of life occuring in different conditions.

Well, the Drake Equation went the way of the dodo when they realised you needed many tens of more variables in the equation (and counting).

I don't know why you're calculating the number of stars ("galaxies" sic.) that ever existed. Sure, it's a big number but the chances of basic proteins (e.g. Haem - a 1 in 10^750 chance of forming) in the human body coming into existence are far greater than the number of fundamental particles in the universe (1 x 10^80). So, however large the number of stars that ever existed, there will never be enough to account for life cropping up through chance (setting aside the Second Law of Thermodynamics too).

In fact l vaguely recall reading somewhere that there weren't even enough actual events in the universe to account for a human forming from fundamental particles. Counter-argument: however, enzymes could take short cuts in the number of steps required.



avasopht wrote:For all we know, life may be inevitable during particular temperatures with a set of available compounds, such that like the presence of a lottery winner each week, you would look at it as a natural and inevitable product of the universe. So I'm not a fan of reducing abiogenesis to "believing in chance."

The lottery has an overseer, a master controller who pulls the lever which servers him. If the lottery machine were left unattended, how many winners do you think there would be?

Coming to think of it, what do you base any of your theories on? Hope? Faith? Care to summarise a scientific citation that shows Neo-Darwinian evolution occurring, regularly, throughout nature?



avasopht wrote:There is always the question of, but where does the universe come from? Some would say, it must be a creator. But where did the creator come from? It was always there. So why could the same not be said for the universe? And at the same time a universe that naturally produces life doesn't exclude a creator. Maybe the creator only needed to spawn the universe, and the rest inevitably happened on its own.

What if: The creator was so called because he creates, and therefore is uncreated.

Could the same be said of the universe? I don't know, but an infinite universe goes against scientific observations, e.g. the calculation of the age of the universe from red shift values, which shows the universe had a starting point and is expanding. Also note that an infinite universe could mean a planet shaped like a kitten's head. Are you saying a planet shaped like a kitten's head is possible? Do you think that is scientific?



normen wrote:Organisms, the brain, all that can be explained aaaaaalllll the way back until the laws that govern our world don't make sense anymore. And it could all look very different and people like you would then argue that that was the will of some creator then.

I look forward to receiving your explanation going "aaaaaalllll the way back". Considering that there's probably a 700-page book just on on Ribosomes, organelles within a cell, your explanation will break somebody's bandwidth, so perhaps give it installments, like 10,000 pages at a time. Better get typing :) Peace.
*** Reason 6.5 for now *** 3.3GHz i7-5820k / 32GB / 480GB PNY SSD
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7496848 Clone > Multiply > Destroy
Apocalypse of the Music Industry & all other Arts, via computers, NOW
User avatar
normen
Posts: 2212
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby normen » 20 Apr 2017

HepCat wrote:
normen wrote:Well its not "chance", its evolution and it demonstrably works fine to create such complexity. One can even take your argument in the other direction: Theres SO MANY stupid things in evolution that its obvious nobody had a master plan here. The spine is one example, it developed in the sea, then was used in land creatures that went on all fours, now we use it to stand upright and guess what - we get back pain because its an exquisitely shitty "design" to be used upright. Or take the laryngeal nerve which takes an immense detour though the neck because it evolved on the "wrong side" of the arteries ... If this was created by an "intelligent designer" which supposedly created the whole universe then he must be some kind of alcoholic or something to constantly fuck up his designs this way :)

1) Please can you cite proof that life is here by chance?
2) Please can you show other examples of chance, unrelated to nature (which is already all covered under abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinian evolution)? For example, something relatively simple like a car factory appearing on the moon and manufacturing ever more complex cars?
3) Please can you give examples of genetic mutations ever producing anything good? Most cancers are caused by genetic mutations. I think the only other causes of cancer are mutagenic agents / radiation directly messing up an important protein that has already been manufactured by gene transcription.
4) Please can you give examples of evolution today. With the millions of species all over the world, and the many, many genes per species, we should be seeing Neo-Darwinian evolution occurring every week if not every day. I reckon we'd be seeing weekly mutations in the human race alone.

I think a few months ago l read an article about some micro-organism like E. coli, it was bred through thousands of life cycles until one day it began metabolising citric acid, which apparently it had not done before.

I'm not against evolution per se, but Neo-Darwinism seems like a dodo. We need a better theory of evolution.
5) Seems to me that Neo-Darwinism gives rise to backstories that are like Marvel comics or Tolkien's more obscure tales, like the curved spine? That was the when the monkey-ape king of Numenor carried the green gemstone of Illuvatar on his back, and he swam through the oceans but then he was forgiven and allowed to live on land again, but his spine was forever curved, and this was to help him remember his past sins and this is what makes us human.

The amount of rubbish backstories l've heard from Neo-Darwinists is embarrassing, like, cats flatten their ears and hiss in order to impersonate snakes hissing? LMAO how would a cat know what it looks like when it hisses? How would that behaviour, a whim, be inherited, via genes? How does a cat flattening its ears and baring its teeth even resemble a snake, apart from the fangs and the his? Do cats even know how damn cute they look when they hiss? Why didn't the cat also get wings? Like the Balrog in lost mines of Moriah.


1) Why would I? I said its here because of evolution. (Logical Fallacy #1)
2) Sure, all around you all kinds of particles defy 99.9999999% chances of going in a certain direction and go in another instead.
3) Sure, in that video I posted. You don't see all the cripples that didn't make it. Which by the way is also true of nature around you. You don't see all the failures because they died out. And to go completely off track thats also why animals seem to be so proficient in "living in harmony with nature". Its because we can only see those that can, the others died out. Us humans managed to defy that until now with our technical abilities.
4) Sure, MRSA etc.
5) Its indeed quite awe-inspiring to think about the fact that some of our predecessors which were really not much different than us actually dealt with other hominids. This might be a reason for the deep feelings strange "humans" seem to cause in us. From elves and dwarves to aliens.

As for the last paragraph - you're referencing anecdotal information and make a mock argument from your own conclusions, dunno what much to say about that. The fact that there isn't really conclusive or waterproof explanations for every little bit is pretty much irrelevant. Its like people asking about how the pyramids were built - theres lots of possible explanations that don't involve aliens and fit for the time and age, but it doesn't matter how exactly they did it because we know they did, the pyramids are standing there.
Plugin latency issues? Phasing on parallel channels? Want to know the real latency of your audio interface? Try the VMG-01!
Professional Audio Engineer, Germany / Part Time Programmer
User avatar
HepCat
Posts: 753
Joined: 10 Sep 2016
Location: England

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby HepCat » 20 Apr 2017

HepCat wrote:1) Please can you cite proof that life is here by chance?
2) Please can you show other examples of chance, unrelated to nature (which is already all covered under abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinian evolution)? For example, something relatively simple like a car factory appearing on the moon and manufacturing ever more complex cars?
3) Please can you give examples of genetic mutations ever producing anything good? Most cancers are caused by genetic mutations. I think the only other causes of cancer are mutagenic agents / radiation directly messing up an important protein that has already been manufactured by gene transcription.
4) Please can you give examples of evolution today. With the millions of species all over the world, and the many, many genes per species, we should be seeing Neo-Darwinian evolution occurring every week if not every day. I reckon we'd be seeing weekly mutations in the human race alone.

I think a few months ago l read an article about some micro-organism like E. coli, it was bred through thousands of life cycles until one day it began metabolising citric acid, which apparently it had not done before.


normen wrote:1) Why would I? I said its here because of evolution. (Logical Fallacy #1)

OK that was a mistake, l got people's comments mixed up, hence it was not a logical fallacy, it was not deliberate.

What you actually wrote was that life is not here by chance, it is here by evolution. However, evolution relies on chance mutations, with negative traits also forming and then dying out.

normen wrote:2) Sure, all around you all kinds of particles defy 99.9999999% chances of going in a certain direction and go in another instead.

No, what l mean is: please give other examples of change leading to increased and desirable structural complexity. By the way, you are now saying that the chance movement of particles is homologous to the process of evolution, even while vehemently denying evolution is based on chance ...

normen wrote:3) Sure, in that video I posted. You don't see all the cripples that didn't make it. Which by the way is also true of nature around you. You don't see all the failures because they died out. And to go completely off track thats also why animals seem to be so proficient in "living in harmony with nature". Its because we can only see those that can, the others died out. Us humans managed to defy that until now with our technical abilities.

Sorry, l didn't watch the video because there are too many videos being posted for me to watch them. Please could you summarise an example of genetic mutations producing anything good? Your position is strong and therefore you would have no problem paraphrasing.

normen wrote:4) Sure, MRSA etc.

Please can you explain how MRSA is an example of Neo-Darwinian evolution, and moreover, please can you explain why we don't see helpful genetic mutations every day / every week from all life on earth in toto, and why don't we see them in humans every week?

normen wrote:5) Its indeed quite awe-inspiring to think about the fact that some of our predecessors which were really not much different than us actually dealt with other hominids. This might be a reason for the deep feelings "strange" hominids seem to cause in us. From elves and dwarves to aliens.

As for the last paragraph - you're referencing anecdotal information and make a mock argument from your own conclusions, dunno what much to say about that. The fact that there isn't really conclusive or waterproof explanations for every little bit is pretty much irrelevant. Its like people asking about how the pyramids were built - theres lots of possible explanations that don't involve aliens and fit for the time and age, but it doesn't matter how exactly they did it because we know they did, the pyramids are standing there.

The entire point was that the backstories of Neo-Darwinism are precisely that: backstories that are frivolous, hard to prove / disprove, except when they are just plain ridiculous, and l've given a few examples of them being ridiculous (cats hissing, human babies having no defences), and as a control group, l've given my own ridiculous backstories of the fall of Numenor and Balrogs.
*** Reason 6.5 for now *** 3.3GHz i7-5820k / 32GB / 480GB PNY SSD
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7496848 Clone > Multiply > Destroy
Apocalypse of the Music Industry & all other Arts, via computers, NOW
pskovacs
Posts: 18
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby pskovacs » 20 Apr 2017

Lots of philosophers in this forum! Considering myself to be a pragmatic scientist (as I'm currently wrapping up my Masters in Psychology, focusing on Music Cognition), I tend to say that any belief structure that points toward the existence of one or multiple deities is impractical and not falsifiable. Both of these qualities makes the idea of little to no use to me, and as such don't care to put more thought into it.
User avatar
normen
Posts: 2212
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby normen » 20 Apr 2017

HepCat wrote:OK that was a mistake, l got people's comments mixed up, hence it was not a logical fallacy, it was not deliberate.

Okie.

HepCat wrote:What you actually wrote was that life is not here by chance, it is here by evolution. However, evolution relies on chance mutations, with negative traits also forming and then dying out.

Yep.

HepCat wrote:No, what l mean is: please give other examples of change leading to increased and desirable structural complexity. By the way, you are now saying that the chance movement of particles is homologous to the process of evolution, even while vehemently denying evolution is based on chance ...

Well idk exactly what kind of example you mean then given your previous constraints plus these comments. Of course its "a thing" that life seemingly defies entropy but many other things do too, like the atoms that form in the sun or in supernovae. They could have all stayed at the Hydrogen or Helium state or even earlier. Each step of a more complex stable molecule kind of represents the result of chance that these wave/particle configurations happen, so kind of a "species" that works. All other wave/particle configurations might have come close but they couldn't "survive". They "evolve" from there based on chances like stars colliding and whatnot. If thats "desirable" needs to be determined by a god ;) I guess its desirable for us that the atoms that make us up exist in the first place :)

Some even argue that the laws of physics themselves are a result of evolution with sets that "didn't work" and some that did like in our universe.

Also I didn't deny that chance is a part of evolution but not that evolution equals chance.

HepCat wrote:Sorry, l didn't watch the video because there are too many videos being posted for me to watch them. Please could you summarise an example of genetic mutations producing anything good? Your position is strong and therefore you would have no problem paraphrasing.


Well we can even simulate it on a computer and make videos from it. Plus MRSA isn't good for us but for the MRSA genome :)

HepCat wrote:Please can you explain how MRSA is an example of Neo-Darwinian evolution, and moreover, please can you explain why we don't see helpful genetic mutations every day / every week from all life on earth in toto, and why don't we see them in humans every week?

Well these bacteria evolved from genetic mutations that were "by chance" resistant to antibiotics. Because theres so many bacteria and they have such a short lifespan the chances are much higher that a random mutation quickly gains traction. We don't use antibiotics for very long, in fact we use it for nano or even femto or whatnotseconds in terms of the history of the evolution we're talking about. Thats also the answer to "why don't we see it in humans"? Its simply unimaginably long timespans.

Though in fact we might possibly see it here and there, for example the head size of humans seems to rise due to c-sections being performed more often. Maybe in some hundred thousand years we have even larger heads and always get born by a surgery :o

HepCat wrote:The entire point was that the backstories of Neo-Darwinism are precisely that: backstories that are frivolous, hard to prove / disprove, except when they are just plain ridiculous, and l've given a few examples of them being ridiculous (cats hissing, human babies having no defences), and as a control group, l've given my own ridiculous backstories of the fall of Numenor and Balrogs.


Well no. Evolution can be simulated on a computer, mumbo-jumbo and creatures with their heads on fire can't be properly described with reproducible ways or even tested.

Of course I can say theres magic people infused by higher spirits that control us all and that obviously concludes that these higher spirits are probably where to look at when it comes to how the universe was created and that they probably had some thoughts about it beforehand.. Problem is if I can't even prove that theres magic that theory probably doesn't hold too much water. (Kind of referencing people like Jesus here but really I mean everything it encompasses :))
Plugin latency issues? Phasing on parallel channels? Want to know the real latency of your audio interface? Try the VMG-01!
Professional Audio Engineer, Germany / Part Time Programmer
User avatar
gak
Posts: 2624
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby gak » 20 Apr 2017

...
Last edited by gak on 21 Apr 2017, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby bxbrkrz » 20 Apr 2017

Before asking if God exist I ask myself why is there a need to evolve from nothingness to a consciousness. Why all the trouble, then ask if we are alone in the universe, most of it missing from us anyway.
User avatar
gak
Posts: 2624
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby gak » 20 Apr 2017

...
Last edited by gak on 21 Apr 2017, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gak
Posts: 2624
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby gak » 21 Apr 2017

...
Last edited by gak on 21 Apr 2017, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 1249
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Marco Raaphorst » 21 Apr 2017

Heaven, a place where everything is perfect.

Doesn't work. We need tension and release.

Perfect is super boring.
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware http://melodiefabriek.com. Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: http://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen-refill-available/
User avatar
gak
Posts: 2624
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby gak » 21 Apr 2017

I don't agree with that. I was cursed with the mindset of 2+2=4. I think people should treat each other much better. Unfortunately, trump is what people want, not being better towards each other.
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 1249
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Marco Raaphorst » 21 Apr 2017

we need bad stuff to enjoy the good stuff
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware http://melodiefabriek.com. Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: http://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen-refill-available/
User avatar
Kenni
Site Admin
Posts: 880
Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Kenni » 21 Apr 2017

bxbrkrz wrote:Before asking if God exist I ask myself why is there a need to evolve from nothingness to a consciousness. Why all the trouble, then ask if we are alone in the universe, most of it missing from us anyway.

What about James Randi who had a $1 million paranormal challenge prize for any single person who could show, "under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power." - Including healing, moving things with the mind, etc. Thousands of people have been through proper testing and so far, nobody has claimed the prize. I repeat, 100% of the claims of allegded supernatural or paranormal abilities has been refuted.

I don't get the whole sciene delusion thing. We subscribe to science because it works. Planes fly, computers compute, people getting medical treatment that are based on science gets cured. It works. It's a huge problem that we can't talk about facts in public without offending 90% of the population. I mean, there are trees older than what creationists thinks the earth is.

Arguments against the existence of God depends on what angle you want people to take in their argumentation. If we're talking about purpose, and the purpose of life, God's purpose was to create us so he/she could be worshipped. What's our purpose in this? If we're talking about the lack in understanding nothingness and infinity, God had to come from something as well, religion doesn't solve this problem. Another argument against God is that the only means to prove his or her existence is by quoting the bible.
Kenni Andruszkow
SoundCloud
User avatar
normen
Posts: 2212
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby normen » 21 Apr 2017

Kenni wrote:I don't get the whole sciene delusion thing. We subscribe to science because it works. Planes fly, computers compute, people getting medical treatment that are based on science gets cured. It works. It's a huge problem that we can't talk about facts in public without offending 90% of the population. I mean, there are trees older than what creationists thinks the earth is.


This +10000000000000000000

gak wrote:2) Criminals have faith in god often. Well, unfortunately, there isn't a god I'm aware of that thinks criminals (and we know what the definition of a criminal is) should be given the golden ticket to the big hammock in the sky. Contradiction and hypocrisy just there alone.


Actually theres many gods for criminals - Hermes, Laverna etc. :)

Having worked in a theater I dealt with the greek pantheon for quite a while and I had to ask myself if the greek people saw these "gods" quite differently. They all seem to stand for these "mechanisms" that happen in the human realm that seem to be larger than humans themselves. For example the "gods of war" like Ares/Mars - people say war is always the same, it creates the same feelings and - lets say unusual - human behavior. Something larger than the single person takes hold of people in war. Maybe that is Ares. Or Dionysos, god of hedonism - most humans seem to tap into the same thing when they binge on hedonism, they trigger the same mechanisms, are controlled by the same forces.

That is the only sense in which I can accept talking about gods because it gives us a way to deal with these things intellectually. You can look at the "problems" from a different angle. "What if the god of war had children? How would they look and act? Does that give me new insight?"

Having to resort to ignore pure logic to defend magic people from holy books for which theres no evidence is about as low as humans can get imo. Except of course its about Spider Mans first issue :)
Plugin latency issues? Phasing on parallel channels? Want to know the real latency of your audio interface? Try the VMG-01!
Professional Audio Engineer, Germany / Part Time Programmer
User avatar
Ostermilk
Posts: 902
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Ostermilk » 21 Apr 2017

It's all semantics one way or another.

All I know is that I wasn't the first cause of everything that currently surrounds me. People that have looked into it tell me that nonetheless there's some pretty clever shit happening that's beyond the total comprehension of all the best minds that have ever been applied to understanding it all.

Theology is bollocks, people have been arguing the toss ever since there's been people. I shouldn't therefore think that another forum thread is going to shed much light.

However I'm grateful there is much to this existence that is greater than my understanding as it would be bloody boring if I'd managed to suss it all out in a few years.

Should I believe in a power greater than myself? Well I reckon I'd be daft not to given the evidence all around me. Do I believe in the God of my childhood teaching, that punishes me if I don't please him? Nah, that's a construct (religion) of a regime parental or political that is trying to get me to behave to their specification. Do I believe there are laws of cause and effect in play that none of us were able to define or bring into being? Absolutely, if I jump from a plane I'm likely to end up spread out over several miles.

I don't care what, or who anyone calls it, there's surely something at play that if far beyond anything we can currently concieve or understand.

In almost a nutshell that is the basis of my 'belief'.
:reason: :record: :refill: :re: :essentials: :rt:
User avatar
Ostermilk
Posts: 902
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Ostermilk » 21 Apr 2017

normen wrote:
Having to resort to ignore pure logic to defend magic people from holy books for which theres no evidence is about as low as humans can get imo.


You are speaking (somwhat understably, I'll agree) of a 'type' of believer here. It's the kind of blinkered concept of what a believer is that leads to the assumption that Catholics must all be child molestors or that Muslims must all be terrorists.

Not everyone that believes in a power bigger than them uses that belief to justify all kinds of clap trap and fairy stories. 'Science' itself has been as guilty as the religious over the years for perpetuating fallacy, these are exciting times where belief and proof are moving ever closer, IMO.
:reason: :record: :refill: :re: :essentials: :rt:
User avatar
normen
Posts: 2212
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby normen » 21 Apr 2017

Ostermilk wrote:You are speaking (somwhat understably, I'll agree) of a 'type' of believer here. It's the kind of blinkered concept of what a believer is that leads to the assumption that Catholics must all be child molestors or that Muslims must all be terrorists.

Not everyone that believes in a power bigger than them uses that belief to justify all kinds of clap trap and fairy stories. 'Science' itself has been as guilty as the religious over the years for perpetuating fallacy, these are exciting times where belief and proof are moving ever closer, IMO.


As I said, "all that it encompasses". That includes scientists that consider their books as holy and their theories as magic :) I think the Dalai Lama once said that if science proves Buddhism wrong then it will have to adapt (not that I support everything he represents or said). I don't follow when you say speaking of a specific type leads to prejudice. I won't tell anybody "there is no god, idiot" because I can't possibly prove that and I also don't think that people who believe in a god are idiots but I WILL say "yes there friggin‘ is evolution you ignorant twat".
Plugin latency issues? Phasing on parallel channels? Want to know the real latency of your audio interface? Try the VMG-01!
Professional Audio Engineer, Germany / Part Time Programmer
User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1221
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby avasopht » 21 Apr 2017

I've never thought evolution was incompatible with religion.

Even when I was religious I could not deny evolution, abiogenesis or any scientific explanation for the universe.

I think that when you have to deny reality there is a certain amount of deception and also a fragile belief.
User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1221
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby avasopht » 21 Apr 2017

hepcat wrote:The lottery has an overseer, a master controller who pulls the lever which servers him. If the lottery machine were left unattended, how many winners do you think there would be?

I don't get what that gets at.

hepcat wrote:Coming to think of it, what do you base any of your theories on? Hope? Faith? Care to summarise a scientific citation that shows Neo-Darwinian evolution occurring, regularly, throughout nature?

1. Mutations are measurable. They do happen.
2. Genetic mutations allow for small and large changes in expression.
3. Fossils show adaptation
4. Genes show descent of species
5. Genetic mutations in #2 produce "trial and error function"
6. Environment provides fitness function to reject bad expressions more than good expressions
7. Fitness function (#6) and trial and error function (#5) produces inevitable evolution
8. Speciation (incompatibility of mating between two families of genes with a near common ancestor) occurs naturally (demonstrated in the lab with wasps)
9. Speciation is determined genetically.

Speciation is typically the one that those who deny evolution tend to demand, which is the one factor that cannot be observed live in the lifespan of a human being. That does not mean however that it does not occur and is a cheap copout. Fossil records and DNA show clear evidence of natural speciation. We can all accept the fact that features of species are determined entirely by genes, so given that DNA mutations occur measurably often, it requires insane levels of denialism given the vast amounts of information we now have.

HepCat wrote:Sure, it's a big number but the chances of basic proteins (e.g. Haem - a 1 in 10^750 chance of forming) in the human body coming into existence are far greater than the number of fundamental particles in the universe (1 x 10^80).

You wouldn't look for the likelihood of forming proteins, but self replicating life.

HepCat wrote:In fact l vaguely recall reading somewhere that there weren't even enough actual events in the universe to account for a human forming from fundamental particles

That's not what you would be looking for.

HepCat wrote:What if: The creator was so called because he creates, and therefore is uncreated.

It's a logical copout, which basically says, the finite was created by {rules-don't-apply-and-insert-my-religion}.

HepCat wrote:Also note that an infinite universe could mean a planet shaped like a kitten's head

No it doesn't. Common misconception. Every possibility is still a subset of actually possible events. Though any such occurrence could still happen in a single finite universe. In short, executing all possibilities infinitely will produce all possibilities eventually, but only the possibilities. There just may not be any possible path that creates a kitten head shaped planet.
Last edited by avasopht on 21 Apr 2017, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
demt
Posts: 54
Joined: 16 Sep 2016

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby demt » 21 Apr 2017

ive got friendly electron syndrome,the multiverse exists, without it were stuck on 1 planet
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 1249
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Marco Raaphorst » 21 Apr 2017

If no one ever found ever prove that it existed, it simply doesn't exist.

Many people have said the weirdest stuff. Scientology people for example.

And the bible if full of stuff which simply is weird shit. Can't happen. Never happened. Walking on water? Come on.

That's why I ran away from church. Thinking: these people are insane! Never regret doing that. Staying sane is important!
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware http://melodiefabriek.com. Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: http://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen-refill-available/
User avatar
Ostermilk
Posts: 902
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Ostermilk » 21 Apr 2017

normen wrote:but I WILL say "yes there friggin‘ is evolution you ignorant twat".


:mrgreen:

Nature AND nurture...I reckon both are true.

Some people are of the nature that will ultimately evolve into thinking that the world is indeed flat... :puf_smile:
:reason: :record: :refill: :re: :essentials: :rt:
User avatar
Kenni
Site Admin
Posts: 880
Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby Kenni » 21 Apr 2017

Another argument against the existence of God, to me personally, is the way religious people somehow deem atheists (agnostics) to be roaming our global society without any means of limitations when it comes to respecting casual moral and ethics. I'd rather have every single living person base their views on morals and ethics on rational thought rather than man-written doctrines. Especially since all studies show that the opposite is in fact true.

I seldom agree with Reza Aslan, except on one thing: A religious belief is 100% individual. How you interpret the writings and scriptures must be 100% individual. As such, I have no problem with people believing in God, at all. I have a problem with religion as an institution.

It beats me how adult, should-have-been-rational thinking people consider themselfs to be lucky enough to be born into the only true religion, and their deity is the only true deity among the other ~4200 known deities. Then they spend a lot of energy mocking the "ignorant atheists", even though the only difference between the atheist and the religious person is that the atheist questions the existence of just 1 more deity. To him or her, all 4200 deities are made-belief, whereas the religious person "only" denounce 4199 of them.

If people just didn't give a f***, we'd all be in a better place. It's the entitlement and pretty often the ignorance at display that makes this whole thread a subject for debate.
Kenni Andruszkow
SoundCloud
User avatar
gullum
Posts: 204
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Faroe Islands
Contact:

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby gullum » 21 Apr 2017

I don't believe in God. Do I need prof he/she/it does not exist? no because I'm not trying to change anyones mind
Motu 828x, Icon Qcon Pro + EX,CME xKey 25,Millennium MPS-600 Jackson, Yamaha, Harley Benton, Marline Guitars/Bass's
https://www.facebook.com/humanrestored
http://soundcloud.com/humanrestored
User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1221
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Re: Arguments for and against the existence of God

Postby avasopht » 21 Apr 2017

HepCat wrote:If he refers to himself (Duplicate Schroedinger) then something failed to be copied over into Duplicate Schroedinger, from Original Schroedinger - what is that?

I don't follow, what exactly has failed to copy over if he claims to be himself (as the duplicate)?

HepCat wrote:"God of Gaps" is an infinite actual God

The "God of Gaps" refers to the tendency of religion to explain what it doesn't understand with god. So when we didn't understand why there were different species - it was ascribed to god until we discovered the natural process of evolution and genetics. When we didn't know what held the stars in the sky and moon orbiting the Earth - it was ascribed to god until we discovered the law of gravity.

When we say "god of the gaps," we refer not to an entity that fills in the gaps, but the use of the philosophical wildcard used to intellectually fill in the gaps.

HepCat wrote:only Chaos possible (Second Law of Thermodynamics - entropy only increases in an isolated system)

Yes, not to be confused with the notion that order does not arise, because it does. So in a system of 10 000, the entropy could be increasing while a system of 42 decreases in entropy (but adds more entropy than it itself loses to the system of 10 000). This is what life does. Life (which is not an enclosed system because it interacts with and depends on the outer environment) causes a greater increase in entropy outside compared to the order it maintains.

HepCat wrote:Also, Integer sequence = basis of Order. Prime numbers = at the heart of the Integer sequence = basis of Chaos?

Prime numbers aren't at the heart of the integer sequence. It's a relation that humans deliberately produce in formulas and algorithms and is independent entirely of the universe - as are integers.

HepCat wrote:Where do morals come from?

They come from our own subjective interpretations of good and bad based on empathy, which derives from the benefits afforded by pro-social emotions, personal experience and the social norms of the day.

Everyone, by virtue of pain being unpleasurable, considers painful acts inflicted upon themselves as bad, as do we other thoughtless acts that cause us pain. Our perception of pleasure, pain and consequences combined with our pro-social emotions causes a sense of morality to form naturally, developed through contemplation, discussion with others and reading about moral arguments.

Return to “The Kitchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests