A complex case against intelligent design

[rrobs]

Scriptures are written by humans so they are a part of the natural world. How do you know god is real? Your belief in a god is a physiologic process which is a part of nature. Your decision making is based on natural processes. There is no evidence a supernatural world. The natural world is all we know unless you know a way of demonstrating the supernatural world.

I've never actually said I believe anything. I just keep telling you what the book says. I think I've been pretty objective. None of f the scriptures I quoted are complicated or need "interpretation," any more than the Daily News. They just say what they say. We understand each other's replies without having to strain our brains. I've found the scriptures, discarding tradition or what people say about them, are pretty simple.

 

[rrobs]

Actually you were the one that called people as dysfunctional. "Bottom line, God did not create people with all the flaws you mentioned. He created them completely functional and they made themselves dysfunctional." So you started the "internet bashing". It was you statement in which I responded to because you referred to people as dysfunctional. As I see it using the bible to draw that conclusion is dysfunctional and not intended directly at you personally.

But I called all people dysfunctional which is what the OP alluded to. I was just saying how the scriptures say they became that way. I understood you to say that only people who believe the scriptures were dysfunctional. Given that you assume I believe them, I concluded you did mean it personally. No big deal though, no offense taken, I'm just saying...

 

[Bear Wild]

I've never actually said I believe anything. I just keep telling you what the book says. I think I've been pretty objective. None of f the scriptures I quoted are complicated or need "interpretation," any more than the Daily News. They just say what they say. We understand each other's replies without having to strain our brains. I've found the scriptures, discarding tradition or what people say about them, are pretty simple.

I am sorry thinking you believed the scriptures. The book and I am assuming again that you are referring to the bible with the information you have given is created by humans just as daily news is although the daily news is full of interpretation and represents the viewpoint of the one reporting/writing the news. If you find the scriptures simple that is great. They are after all written by people to be understood by other people but like other books written by humans and not by a god or goddess and they are of the individuals perspective who wrote them.

 

[rrobs]

You are right knowledge is a good thing. Scriptures are man-made and nature is our reality. Knowledge is definitely a good thing. Thankfully the natural world gives us the natural processes in the brain which allows for different beliefs including the belief in a god or goddess or for that matter many gods and goddesses.

I couldn't agree more with you on that point. Freedom to think what one wants to think is a good thing. I'd hate to have lived under Chairman Mao where everyone had to think the same way or else. Come to think of it, I'd hate to have lived under the Roman Catholic domination where I'd have been killed for not believing in the trinity. But that's a whole other topic.

 

[Bear Wild]

But I called all people dysfunctional which is what the OP alluded to. I was just saying how the scriptures say they became that way. I understood you to say that only people who believe the scriptures were dysfunctional. Given that you assume I believe them, I concluded you did mean it personally. No big deal though, no offense taken, I'm just saying...

So you do not believe the scriptures or do you? I do not want to make any further incorrect assumptions.

 

[Bear Wild]

I couldn't agree more with you on that point. Freedom to think what one wants to think is a good thing. I'd hate to have lived under Chairman Mao where everyone had to think the same way or else. Come to think of it, I'd hate to have lived under the Roman Catholic domination where I'd have been killed for not believing in the trinity. But that's a whole other topic.

The natural world is amazing in that way.

 

[rrobs]

I am sorry thinking you believed the scriptures. The book and I am assuming again that you are referring to the bible with the information you have given is created by humans just as daily news is although the daily news is full of interpretation and represents the viewpoint of the one reporting/writing the news. If you find the scriptures simple that is great. They are after all written by people to be understood by other people but like other books written by humans and not by a god or goddess and they are of the individuals perspective who wrote them.

Well, I've not said I don't believe them. But my belief or unbelief is irrelevant anyway. The scriptures stand on their own, just like the newspaper. You are right about the finer points of any written material. Nobody sees anything exactly alike. That is the nature of reality. We are victims of quantum mechanics which dooms each of us to live in our own separate little world. Fortunately we get the big parts right. That's why bus schedules work.

 

[rrobs]

So you do not believe the scriptures or do you? I do not want to make any further incorrect assumptions.

I do. Sorry about being vague, but my point was that they say what they say regardless of who believes and who doesn't.

 

[rrobs]

The natural world is amazing in that way.

Right! How did it get that way, by design or chance?

Personally, I think free will is the best thing God (or whoever or whatever) gave us. I'm free to stick my hand in the fire if that's what I want to do. Not recommended, but permissible.

 

[Axe Elf]

Could it be that what you think is logical, isn't?

It's possible, but the evidence would suggest that it's highly unlikely.

By "evidence," I mean the fact that I have consistently tested in the 94th to 99th percentile range on every standardized measure of intelligence and scholastic aptitude I have taken in my life--the ASVAB, the SAT, the GRE, the Stanford-Binet, the Weschler, etc.--and in the two years that my class was tested by subject, I placed among the top 3 individuals in the State of Kansas in Math, Science and Spelling for both years. Further, in addition to my Psychology major in college, I also minored in Philosophy, receiving straight As for every course I took in that discipline, including a course on formal logic. All of which points to the conclusion that my skills in rational thought, processing information, and formal reasoning are in close alignment to the established standards of excellence in those disciplines.

In short, I'm right an awful lot of the time.

Still, even given the unlikelihood of it, there's always the possibility that I could be wrong. Therefore I do enjoy a rational dialogue and the evaluation of legitimate objections to my positions. What I don't enjoy is having the same objections regurgitated ad infinitum even after they have been evaluated and shown to be lacking--or being challenged to respond to objections that aren't relevant to the point I'm making.

For instance, in this thread, I've made the point that "If the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes." A lot of the objections to this are along the lines of, "But you can't prove that God exists!" or "That's not evidence for the existence of God!" Of course I can't and of course it's not; I would never suggest such a thing, nor would I attempt to prove that God exists. What I can prove is that "If the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes." And yet people still scream that I haven't conclusively established the existence of God, as if that somehow nullifies my claim. After a while, what am I supposed to do?

Another poster has raised the objection that we could improve on this universe, so it can't be the best of all possible universes, and therefore, the omni-God does not exist. I evaluated this claim with him, and provided him with the logical response:

A. If we cannot exhaustively foresee every possible consequence that would result from a change to the existing universe, then we cannot conclusively say that the change would make the existing universe better.
B. We cannot exhaustively foresee every possible consequence that would result from a change to the existing universe.
C. Therefore, we cannot conclusively say that the change would make the existing universe better.

Is it POSSIBLE that the universe could be better than it is? Of course it is possible. It's possible that the omni-God does not exist. But it's also possible that the universe is as good as it can possibly be--even if it does contain some aspects that we personally find inconvenient or distasteful. We cannot say with certainty that it could be better, so it's possible that it is the best of all possible universes--and it's possible that God exists.

But this particular poster just wants to keep insisting that he can know with certainty that the universe could be better than it is, and therefore the omni-God cannot possibly exist. After a while of his refusal to acknowledge logic, what am I supposed to do?

Similarly, a poster has raised the Problem of Evil as an objection to God's omnibenevolence--because God created evil, God cannot be wholly good. They refuse to accept the logical response, that maybe the greater good was to include good AND evil in the universe, rather than not allowing us to know goodness at all (since things can only exist in contrast to their opposite).

Is it POSSIBLE that God is evil? Sure. It's also possible that God doesn't exist at all. But it's also possible that the omni-God does exist; the Problem of Evil is not a conclusive proof that God is not omnibenevolent--because his benevolence could be expressed through allowing us to know goodness, even if it also means that we have to know evil.

And yet they continue to insist that the Problem of Evil is a conclusive proof. After a while of abdicating reason in favor of their faith (the very thing they like to accuse Xians of doing), what am I supposed to do?

As I said when I cut off this nonsense, by the time it gets to that fingers-in-the-ears stage, anyone who can utilize the information for their benefit has already done so, and anyone who has failed to do so by that point probably never will. I'd rather move on to a topic that presents the opportunity for productive discourse than to continue explaining the same errors over and over.

 

[Axe Elf]

If what you have to say is important, then it is worth finding a new approach to explain it. If it is true simple logic then it can be made clear.

Not necessarily. Some people have built up quite an immunity to logic.

See my response above to tas8831.

 

[Segev Moran]

dis·ease
/dəˈzēz/
noun

1. a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

Tell that to the millions who died of the Black Plague or Malaria.

An external cause doesn't have to do to the perfection of your body.
This is a whole other question like why God created things that can harm you.

Perhaps you should notify the CDC that you have discovered the cause of breast cancer.

I Assure you they know.

What do you suppose is "humans purpose on earth"?

I do not suppose anything. You can decide your own purpose here.
As far as i am concerned my purpose in life is to be able to live peaceful and fruitful life with other humans.
I can only hope this is shared with most humans.
Immortality will render our earth the worst place to live in in a few years!

Nonsense.

Lol. if you say so.
I guess you believe humans awareness for their body is amazing Its enough to go to the local grocery store to understand how bad we treat it.

 

[Axe Elf]

I am going to challenge you on that. How do you come to the conclusion that there cannot be possibly be more than one omni-god?

Fair enough.

The terms "omnipotence," "omniscience" and "omnipresence" mean "all-powerful," "all-knowing," and "existing everywhere at once."

If a being is all-powerful, how could another being have all the power (or any power, for that matter)? Who would win if two all-powerful beings got into a fight? It's not logical for more than one being to have all the power.

If more than one being was all-knowing, it would result in an endless series of "I know that you know that I know that you know that I know... that you know that I know... that you know..." and so on. It's not logical for more than one being to have access to all knowledge.

If more than one being existed everywhere at once--especially ones that shared all power and all knowledge--how would that be distinguishable from a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being? It's not logical for more than one being to exist everywhere at once.

Therefore, it is not logical for there to be more than one omni-God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For those who DO believe in the omni-God, though, they cannot rationally believe that we live in anything other than the best of all possible universes.

If you start with a false premise, all that follows from it is equally flawed.

The fact remains that if the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes.

I haven't seen anybody dispute that. The dispute arises when you try to argue that this IS the best of all possible worlds because you choose to believe that this tri-omni god does exist, and we can clearly see that it isn't.

Incidentally, the corollary of your comment is that if this is not the best of all possible worlds, no tri-omni deity exists, which is really more to the point considering the world that we live in that has already been improved by man.

If you try to take the Garden of Eden story literally, you'll miss the point

It's not a very good point, which is that humans are to be submissive and obedient to authority figures, such as priests speaking for an unseen god. It's a recurring theme in scripture - subjects must submit to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands. If they don't they will suffer the wrath of God. These are values that secular humanism rejects.

For starters? OmniMax beings 100% eliminate Free Will. If Free Will is removed, then all the Evil we observe daily, was Designed, and Deliberate.

The main error you're committing here is that you seem to be presenting this information as if it was news to Xians--like some kind of "gotcha" argument you got from an Atheism 101 class. If I were you, I'd ask for my money back.

That's your rebuttal? I have to give this one to Bob. His argument is plausible and still stands unrebutted.

You might want to look into what's called ethos in the arena of rhetoric and the art of persuasion. Arrogance and condescension aren't helping you any here.

goodness can't exist except in contrast to evil,

Sure it can. That's like saying that light can't exist without darkness. Remove all of the evil in the world, and the good is still there. We can have charity without selfishness. We can have courage without cowardice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it's better to have good than to not have good--even if that means that we have to have evil too.

But we don't have to have evil to have good. You simply assert it, but offer no mechanism for removing evil from the world taking good with it.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you start by believing a false premise by faith. You end up saying that an obviously suboptimal world might be the best of all possible worlds even as many of those around you are making it better, and that evil is helpful so that we can also have good.

All of these problematic issues for the believer evaporate away when one removes the god from the analysis. Of course the world is suboptimal if there is no god. Of course good and bad things happen because there is nobody to prevent it.

Don't forget the omni-God; we haven't been able to rule Him out yet.

You haven't ruled that god out, but others have.

It is simply not possible to assert with any certainty whatsoever that any given change to the universe as it exists will absolutely, positively result in a better universe.

Actually, it is possible, and easily done, although apparently not in your case. But that is because you have hitched your wagon to the faith star, and are forced to defend the ideas that derive from a false premise however preposterous they are.

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense"- Edward Abbey"

I think we're done. I could continue to try to educate you on what my assertion ("if the omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes") axually means

You aren't educating anybody. You're telling people what you've chosen to believe on faith and what you think must be true because of that. As I've explained before, very few people are interested in what others have chosen to believe by faith. They are interested in that which others know and can demonstrate. That's education..

and even some of the epistemological details that you seem to be struggling with (like how all facts are based in faith)

Sorry, but you're wrong again. You're confusing your kind of religious faith (unjustified belief) with belief based in experience.

I explained the difference between the two definitions of faith that you are conflating. You offered no rebuttal, then repeated the refuted claim. I generally assume that to mean that the other poster has no counterargument.

As far as finding truth in nature, I offer the following: Quantum mechanics is certainly part of nature. One of the main things about QM is that everyone has their own view of reality. Therefore, thare are no two people who see nature in the exact same light. Doesn't seem like a good yardstick for truth, does it? Maybe trying to come up with another source for truth would be in order.

There is no other source for truth than reason applied to evidence, and that method has been spectacularly successful. Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict that.

 

[viole]

Fair enough.

The terms "omnipotence," "omniscience" and "omnipresence" mean "all-powerful," "all-knowing," and "existing everywhere at once."

If a being is all-powerful, how could another being have all the power (or any power, for that matter)? Who would win if two all-powerful beings got into a fight? It's not logical for more than one being to have all the power.

If more than one being was all-knowing, it would result in an endless series of "I know that you know that I know that you know that I know... that you know that I know... that you know..." and so on. It's not logical for more than one being to have access to all knowledge.

If more than one being existed everywhere at once--especially ones that shared all power and all knowledge--how would that be distinguishable from a single omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being? It's not logical for more than one being to exist everywhere at once.

Therefore, it is not logical for there to be more than one omni-God.

First point first, the possibility of a fight.

How could two omni perfect beings disagree on anything to have a fight? That would entail that one of the two, at least, think that things should be different than the other think, but that is absurd since the other is perfect and can only create the best of all possible worlds, as you said.

And viceversa.

So, the two, or more, could coexist without any possibility of a disagreement that would defeat the omni attribute of one of them, which is absurd, by the initial hypothesis.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Axe Elf]

First point first, the possibility of a fight.

How could two omni perfect beings disagree on anything to have a fight? That would entail that one of the two, at least, think that things should be different than the other think, but that is absurd since the other is perfect and can only create the best of all possible worlds, as you said.

And viceversa.

So, the two, or more, could coexist without any possibility of a disagreement that would defeat the omni attribute of one of them, which is absurd, by the initial hypothesis.

Who said anything about "omni perfect"? As far as I know, that has never been postulated as an attribute of God. There is omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence--but no omniperfection.

Secondly, the idea of a fight was a thought experiment, meant to illustrate the underlying point that if one being is omipotent--has all the power--then there is no power left for another being, let alone for another being to have ALL the power too.

As another thought experiment, consider the possibility of two omnipotent beings, neither of which is also omniscient nor omnibenevolent. NOW they can get into a fight--who wins?

But ok, let's say you want to insist on multiple identical omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent beings--now we're back to there being no difference between that and a single omni-being.

Hey, maybe you just described the Trinity!

 

[wellwisher]

But we don't live in a Universe governed by random chance. We live in a Universe governed by physical laws, so this analogy doesn't really work.


But how is it evidence of a God?


It's not a mythology, it's the natural result of looking at all currently available evidence.


Evolution is a result of random mutation filtered through a process of natural selection. Evolution is selective, not random.


Um... No. Statistics is a mathematical model.


This sentence doesn't really make any sense. Would you care to explain what "quantum energy" is?


Statistic is a mathematical method used to approximate reality in places that it gets complicated and where data, there and reasoning is lacking. It uses a black box approach were you look at inputs and outputs, but don't need to know what goes on in the black box. The method has limitations. However, it can also be useful in cases where the phenomena is too complicated to open. It can allow you to make an educated guess even in the dark.

We can apply statistics to gambling such as with dice and cards. Like I said before, these are man made things which are not designed like natural things. Dice are manufactured to weigh the same on all sides. There is no physical potential used to differentiate the various sides like the energy level of hydrogen. The distinction for sides of dice is based on a subjective convention of dots. The problem I have is the combination of black box and its use to predict the behavior of subjective veneers does not make it a fully rational system. It turns science into a type of casino, where you have winners, but the House wins over time.

In the 1950's, it was discovered that enzymes fold with exact and repeatable folds. This was observed as a fact of nature. The statistical models of that time predicted random folding of protein due to thermal vibrations and other random assumptions. One would think science would have modernized with this discovery, but it decided to stay with random assumptions and plays down this deterministic observation, even though after 50 plus years, there is still no good statistical explanation for the determinism. It is more political than rational.

This has to due with statistics being a practical method that is easier use compare to relying only on sound reasoning. Industry needs bodies and statistics allows more people to participate since the method is redundant. This practical preference of science has extrapolated into a misunderstanding of the limitations of random arguments.

Before statistics is taught it should have a disclaimer that says this is an approximation method that is very powerful, however, its assumptions may not reflect actual reality and any science that uses it should be considered half baked, until an intelligent rational explanation can be offered. However it is still good for getting goods to market since goods have subjectivity added.

Reality can get very complicated. As we add more and more things into complex arrangements it becomes harder to reason and solve all the equations. Science cam cup with approximation methods that allow us to approximate a solution. However, this short cut does not have to be real to work.

 

[rrobs]

There is no other source for truth than reason applied to evidence, and that method has been spectacularly successful. Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict that.

I got the following from the number one result on a Google search for "quantum mechanics and objectivity"

"Quantum mechanics has raised in an acute form three problems which go to the heart of man's relationship with nature through experimental science: (r) the public objectivity of science, that is, its value as a universal science for all investigators; (2) the empirical objectivity of scientific objects, that is, man's ability to construct a precise or causal spatio-temporal model of microscopic systems; and finally (3), the formal objectivity of science, that is, its value as an expression of what nature is independently of its being an object of human knowledge. These are three aspects of what is generally called the "crisis of objectivity" or the "crisis of realism" in modern physics."​

You'd be hard pressed to find any reputable scientist who would dispute that.

 

[Axe Elf]

If you start with a false premise, all that follows from it is equally flawed.

Hey, you found some new topics on which to be educated. Let's hope it goes better for you this time.

Your statement here is false. A conclusion can be true, even if the premise is false. Consider the conditional, "If I have three arms, then the sky is blue." The sky is indeed blue, even though I don't have three arms.

I haven't seen anybody dispute that. The dispute arises when you try to argue that this IS the best of all possible worlds...

You and Bob have been disputing it for some time now, until I cut you off. At least, that must be what you are disputing, since I have never tried to argue that this IS the best of all possible universes--only that it's POSSIBLE that this is the best of all possible universes (since we can't say with any certainty that a change to it would result in a better universe), and that if the omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

It's also possible that this is not the best of all possible universes, and it's possible that God doesn't exist. None of these possibilities can be established conclusively, and I have never claimed otherwise. I can only claim that if it were established conclusively that the omni-God exists, then logic constrains us to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes. I have never claimed anything else.

That's like saying that light can't exist without darkness. Remove all of the evil in the world, and the good is still there. We can have charity without selfishness. We can have courage without cowardice.

One pole of a spectrum can exist without the other, but it can't be recognized as such except in contrast to its negation. Everything could be good (as it will be in heaven), but we wouldn't know it was good unless we had also experienced evil. It would be like a fish in water--it's all they know, they have nothing to compare it to, so they don't know that they live their whole lives underwater. Light can exist without darkness, but if there was never any darkness, any shadow, any night--everywhere you went and everywhere you looked (under the bed, in the closet, down the cellar stairs) was always a consistent 10,000 lumens per square foot like a bright sunshiney summer day (and there were never any clouds to darken the days)--then it would make no sense to talk about "light." EVERYTHING would be light.

If I told you that everything in the universe was blart, you'd ask me what blart was, and I'd tell you it's everything. Is that useful to you? Of course not. You'd continue on with your life in complete ignorance to the total blartness of the universe. The contribution of evil is to allow us to know, understand and appreciate goodness. And that is why the Problem of Evil fails.


The rest of this nonsense is just repetition of defeated objections from previous posts or objections against points I haven't made, so again, I won't waste my time.