A Challenge

[darkendless]

Ah, you are recommending that I read comic books, aren’t you?

No i think broadening your knowledge on how this world works might be benficial to you. Its actually a book.
I remember a while back you thought the theory of evolution was all wrong, we can't have people in this day and age believing that because its simply not true at all.

 

[Kathryn]

btw, completelly offtopic and not a debate, but last time I checked it was Luxembourg who was the richest acre. I can't help it, just had to shout it out

I live in what was actually the world's richest acre in the 1930s - a little town in East Texas in the very middle of the oil patch. In the Oil Boom the concentration of oil wells and oil derricks in this town was unbelievable!

It's still the world's richest acre to me because my husband shares it with me, and we are rich in love!

 

[cristheseeker]

It isn't the physical universe that requires a source. Though the "big bang" certainly does lead us to question why the "bang" at all. It's the order expressed by that universe that implies purpose, that leads us to contemplate the source of that order and purpose.

so in other words you are saying that the actual existence of the universe does not require a source or imply purpose. but the ORDER of the universe does.

then how do you explain the need for us humans to come up with the big bang or the intelligent design theory?

obviously both, the existence of the universe and the order within it could demand an explanation.

but that explanation does not have to be supernatural, though it could, it can also be natural.

"God" does not lead us to contemplate it's source because most people view "God" as self-aware. And therefor able to choose it's own beginning, and it's own limitations, if it has any.

with that statement you have just shown that you are not a true free thinker willing to contemplate anything and everything....you have shown that you base, and limit your thoughts to statistics based on other people's concepts and beliefs.

basically you have just admitted that you are not compelled to contemplate the god mystery/theory, because a majority of people in the society you live in have already made up their minds on the basic concepts of god, and well, you just take their word for it, call it FACT, and dismiss it as not needing, or deserving your own thoughts.

CLEARLY YOU ARE A FOLLOWER AND NOT A LEADER/INNOVATOR, because you limit your "free thought" to the boundaries set by a consensus of the people around you.

just like "most" people in today's society view god as self aware and therefore able to choose his own beginning, and his own limitations, i along with many other people view nature/universe/cosmos as self aware and therefore able to choose its own beginning, and its own limitations....

so, if the percentage of people in my camp reaches 51%, will you change your mind and say: "nature/universe/cosmos" does not lead us to contemplate it's source because most(or a majority of) people view "nature/universe/cosmos" as self-aware. And therefor able to choose it's own beginning, and it's own limitations, if it has any."?????


most people in today's secular society believe in the concept of evolution. does that mean you dont even give it a thought and see wether it actually makes sense to you? going by your logic one would think "oh, well all these decorated scientists are in agreement, and a majority of the general public believes it too, i guess it must be true then ".

stop limiting yourself to the concepts a majority of people agree on, pureX. man up and do your own thinking.

Dan Barker is simply wrong. He is not taking into account the fact that very often the "answer" is "I don't know". He also doesn't seem to realize that simply broadening the context is not necessarily an "answer" to anything, either. .

dan barker does not have a belief he promotes in this case. he is merely combatting the ignorance of religionists, by pointing out that just because we dont have an answer to something now. does not automatically mean we never will, and does not give you a legitimate reason to answer it with "god".

just look at the ancient times, greeks and romans. they had gods(mystery answers) for everything they could not explain(thunder, fertility, etc.), then science came and explained everything away, and what happened? all the greek and roman god's miraculously disappeared.

all dan barker is doing is trying to open people's eyes to all possibilities, which is exactly what im trying to do, especially since i have now come to find out that you are not actually a true free thinker, but rather dependent on consensuses.



not too long ago a majority of people believed in the concept/theory that the earth was flat. IT WAS A KNOWN TRUTH BACK IN THOSE DAYS. VERY FEW PEOPLE BELIEVED IN THE POSSIBILITY OF A ROUND OR SPHERICAL EARTH. and it was people like you who willingly limited their thoughts to the most popular view. and reasoned: " we dont need to prove the shape of the earth because most people view earth as flat. And therefore not needing to prove otherwise."

so it is very ignorant of you to say that the complex order of nature needs(or points to) a source because most people agree it does, while god himself in his own order and complexity does not need a source because most people agree he doesnt.

That was never my argument. I was never offering proof of the existence of God. I was only offering logical evidence supporting the existence of God.

you were not offering logical evidence but merely suggesting a possibility at best. there is nothing logical in answering something you dont understand with something else you dont understand. or at least not in my book of logic, maybe in yours.

I can, and I did.

fine, go celebrate.

Ultimately, we have no "answers" and we never will. Our "logic" operates in a limited and relative capacity. Once we get to the scale of existence, or of the universe, we lose the ability to relate one thing to another, because we're talking about all things at once. And our logic/reason cannot function in that realm....

again, you are blocking out other possibilities by buing in to the belief that just because we do not have certain answers now, automatically means we never will.
well, what if one day we do find some of those answers you so conveniently dismissed as impossible. what will you do then? besides look like a fool......again, remain open to the possibilities, otherwise you are not a true agnostic.

Yet in the realm in which it does still function, it DOES lead us TO the possibility of the existence of God, rather than away from that possibility.

youve got it backwards. the more science evolves, the more people move away from the possibility of the existence of god and abandon their religions.

just look at the stats (which i know you love to do), the secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist community is currently the third largest "belief" in the world, right behind christianity, and islam beating out hinduism.

Major Religions Ranked by Size

look at religious growth stats and you will see that religious "de-conversion" is leading by far.(heres an article)

Non-religious ranks growing in every state | jacksonsun.com |

now granted, the possibility for god is was and will always be a popular one. and i dont reject it. i merely point out that it is decreasing, not increasing.

 

[cristheseeker]

I never argued that it didn't exist as part of nature... It is a natural system, the result of weak interactions between atoms.
Is there any instance where nature does not follow gravitation?

nature DOES NOT FOLLOW gravitation! nature IS gravitation, along with a whole lot more.

Irrelevant... you are arguing that Gravity is an abstract human concept. If so, how is it that we can measure minute fluctuations in this abstraction?

i dont appreciate baseless accusations. please show me where i said gravity is an abstract human concept, period. without following up with some further explanation.

Forgive me, but when discussing science I assume a basic level of competence in the subject on the part of my fellow debater.

ad hominem attacks wont get you anywhere.


and my example stands. it is actually a pretty good example in setting a parallel between nature and the human body.

i have used it to prove that just like in nature, some parts of the body (the medulla oblongata/heart in my example) are uncontrollable and therefore not requiring a law/ source/governor etc. and i even took it one step further and made the point that even if the rest of my brain could control/influence/persuade/order/force the medulla oblongata into stopping the heart, or making it pump to my favorite beat., it would still be internal as part of a closed circuit, or self governing. just like nature.

but you have conveniently ignored that part of my post, hmm, i wonder why.

 

[PureX]

so in other words you are saying that the actual existence of the universe does not require a source or imply purpose. but the ORDER of the universe does.

then how do you explain the need for us humans to come up with the big bang or the intelligent design theory?

The evidence leads us to the 'big bang', and bias leads us to 'intelligent design'.

obviously both, the existence of the universe and the order within it could demand an explanation.

The latter will explain the former. Not so, the other way round.

but that explanation does not have to be supernatural, though it could, it can also be natural.

I don't believe in a "supernatural" realm. It's just the unknown.

with that statement you have just shown that you are not a true free thinker willing to contemplate anything and everything....you have shown that you base, and limit your thoughts to statistics based on other people's concepts and beliefs.

basically you have just admitted that you are not compelled to contemplate the god mystery/theory, because a majority of people in the society you live in have already made up their minds on the basic concepts of god, and well, you just take their word for it, call it FACT, and dismiss it as not needing, or deserving your own thoughts.

CLEARLY YOU ARE A FOLLOWER AND NOT A LEADER/INNOVATOR, because you limit your "free thought" to the boundaries set by a consensus of the people around you.

Oh, come now. I am simply content to let the mystery be a mystery. I have accepted no one's characterizations of "God".

just like "most" people in today's society view god as self aware and therefore able to choose his own beginning, and his own limitations, i along with many other people view nature/universe/cosmos as self aware and therefore able to choose its own beginning, and its own limitations....

I see no difference between these two images. If you consider the universe to be self aware, than you consider the universe to be "God". Many religionists consider the universe to be the physical expression of God's will. What's the difference?

most people in today's secular society believe in the concept of evolution. does that mean you dont even give it a thought and see wether it actually makes sense to you? going by your logic one would think "oh, well all these decorated scientists are in agreement, and a majority of the general public believes it too, i guess it must be true then ".

I am not the decider of truth. I don't possess that capability. I can only assess a probability of truthfulness, and then choose to live by it or not to.

dan barker does not have a belief he promotes in this case. he is merely combatting the ignorance of religionists, by pointing out that just because we dont have an answer to something now. does not automatically mean we never will, and does not give you a legitimate reason to answer it with "god".

I was simply responding to his quote. Dan doesn't have a clue whether or not "God" exists. And he is just as incapable of the perspective necessary to find out as any other human being is. So he has no right to be calling theists "ignorant" when he is exactly as ignorant in this instance as they are. And as long as he remains human, he will remain ignorant. Science is never going to answer this question.

just look at the ancient times, greeks and romans. they had gods(mystery answers) for everything they could not explain(thunder, fertility, etc.), then science came and explained everything away, and what happened? all the greek and roman god's miraculously disappeared.

You couldn't be more mistaken. If you actually understood the ancient Greeks view of the "divine realm" in relation to the natural world you'd be astonished how well and precisely they defined what science "discovered" centuries later. Before you disparage religions, you should learn more about them. Like any human endeavor, they appear silly at their most elementary level. But when you dig behind the images and myths to the real meat of the endeavor, you will find that the whole collection of human consciousness and history and experience melds together. Religion just uses a different language to express it.

all dan barker is doing is trying to open people's eyes to all possibilities, which is exactly what im trying to do, especially since i have now come to find out that you are not actually a true free thinker, but rather dependent on consensuses.

I think all Dan Barker is interested in doing is puffing up his idea of himself as a "free thinker" by promoting a negative idea of others. I see nothing transcendent in that.

not too long ago a majority of people believed in the concept/theory that the earth was flat. IT WAS A KNOWN TRUTH BACK IN THOSE DAYS. VERY FEW PEOPLE BELIEVED IN THE POSSIBILITY OF A ROUND OR SPHERICAL EARTH. and it was people like you who willingly limited their thoughts to the most popular view. and reasoned: " we dont need to prove the shape of the earth because most people view earth as flat. And therefore not needing to prove otherwise."

"People like me" would have said "I don't know if it's flat or not, but I do know that most of the world thinks so, and so I will have to consider their view carefully.

so it is very ignorant of you to say that the complex order of nature needs(or points to) a source because most people agree it does, while god himself in his own order and complexity does not need a source because most people agree he doesnt.

I think it's very ignorant of you to keep disparaging me for stating the obvious when you don't have a clue one way or the other.

you were not offering logical evidence but merely suggesting a possibility at best. there is nothing logical in answering something you dont understand with something else you dont understand. or at least not in my book of logic, maybe in yours.

You don't seem to understand what logic is.

 

[Kathryn]

I am noticing a big difference between the responses of PureX and Christheseeker.

Christheseeker continues to make the debate personal, with insults and sarcasm, while PureX sticks to discussing the actual topic.

Just an observation.

 

[painted wolf]

nature DOES NOT FOLLOW gravitation! nature IS gravitation, along with a whole lot more.

First.... calm down, take a deep breath and realize that this is just teh intarwebs for a sec.
Second, I never said gravitation wasn't part of nature. Quite obviously it is.
What I did say, was that it isn't simply a human idea.

Perhaps the problem comes with how we both define "law" in Natural law. Natural laws are not the authoritarian laws of socieity, they are accurate consistent properties of natural systems that can be modeled mathmatically.

i dont appreciate baseless accusations. please show me where i said gravity is an abstract human concept, period. without following up with some further explanation.

i do not deny the existence of natural laws. i simply believe they only exist in our minds, to help us make sense of nature, in the sense that nature does not follow these laws but rather IS these laws along with a whole lot more

Anything that exists only in the mind is an abstraction.

ad hominem attacks wont get you anywhere.

No attack was intended... I'm just letting you know to be careful of what you say, because I will point out where you are wrong.

and my example stands. it is actually a pretty good example in setting a parallel between nature and the human body.

Seeing as the human body is well.... natrural, I'm still not sure its a good example.

i have used it to prove that just like in nature, some parts of the body (the medulla oblongata/heart in my example) are uncontrollable and therefore not requiring a law/ source/governor etc. and i even took it one step further and made the point that even if the rest of my brain could control/influence/persuade/order/force the medulla oblongata into stopping the heart, or making it pump to my favorite beat., it would still be internal as part of a closed circuit, or self governing. just like nature.

Pacemaker.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Major Religions Ranked by Size

look at religious growth stats and you will see that religious "de-conversion" is leading by far.(heres an article)

Non-religious ranks growing in every state | jacksonsun.com |

now granted, the possibility for god is was and will always be a popular one. and i dont reject it. i merely point out that it is decreasing, not increasing.

This does not surprise in the least, it is as it was prophesied 2Pe 3:3 First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
2Pe 3:4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God,

 

[Seven]

I was simply responding to his quote. Dan doesn't have a clue whether or not "God" exists. And he is just as incapable of the perspective necessary to find out as any other human being is. So he has no right to be calling theists "ignorant" when he is exactly as ignorant in this instance as they are. And as long as he remains human, he will remain ignorant. Science is never going to answer this question.

Sorry, but I can't say I agree with you here, PuerX. It's incorrect to equate belief and disbelief in this way. Science may never answer this question, but It doesn't have to. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim of god's existence. so until such proof can be presented, belief is a leap of faith, while disbelief is really the default position for a person to take.

 

[Seven]

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
This does not surprise in the least, it is as it was prophesied 2Pe 3:3 First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
2Pe 3:4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God,

This doesn't surprise in the least either. The Bible is a long book. You can cherry pick passages to prove whatever you like.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but I can't say I agree with you here, PuerX. It's incorrect to equate belief and disbelief in this way. Science may never answer this question, but It doesn't have to. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim of god's existence. so until such proof can be presented, belief is a leap of faith, while disbelief is really the default position for a person to take.

The burden of proof is irrelevant when it remains impossible for a human being to gain the perspective necessary to resolve the question of the existence of "God".

"We don't know" means we don't know. It doesn't mean that we assume the negative until the positive is proven.

 

[Alceste]

This doesn't surprise in the least either. The Bible is a long book. You can cherry pick passages to prove whatever you like.

Shush! You will ruin the careers of countless preachers and televangelists if you let THAT cat out of the bag. These people count on none of their followers reading any part of the Bible they haven't been instructed to look at, and just to be extra-safe (and powerful), they only instruct their followers to look at one or two sentences at a time, completely out of context. :run:

 

[Falvlun]

The burden of proof is irrelevant when it remains impossible for a human being to gain the perspective necessary to resolve the question of the existence of "God".

"We don't know" means we don't know. It doesn't mean that we assume the negative until the positive is proven.

I do agree with you in that the burden of proof should not fall solely upon the theist. However, if we were to follow your last sentence, I don't see how we would ever be able to claim knowledge about anything. We would not be able to say conclusively that fairy godmothers don't exist because we have not yet checked the far reaches of the universe for them. I think it is safe to assume that fairy godmothers don't exist, due to the current lack of evidence for them. Basically, I assume the negative, until further evidence changes my mind.

 

[emiliano]

This doesn't surprise in the least either. The Bible is a long book. You can cherry pick passages to prove whatever you like.

I am not sure what is the point that you want to make with the cherry picking thing. Just in case I’ll give you another scripture that prophesies about the start of the end days Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man.
So is a matter of finding the characteristic of those days were and we know.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, having been warned by God of things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
This is better cherry, what do you think?
And this: 1Pe 3:20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);
2Pe 2:5 And He did not spare the old world, but saved Noah the eighth one, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.
What were the men of old doing? Gen 6:5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Here we see that man is in a path that gradually will get it into that state, that the day will come when every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart will be only evil continually. It seems to me that God really knows the heart of every man and his long-suffering of sin is great, but we are certainly travelling on the path that lead to destruction till the day that He has mercy on us, and that we a living in the days of Grace, pray for the lost and may the Lord God have mercy on them.

 

[Seven]

The burden of proof is irrelevant when it remains impossible for a human being to gain the perspective necessary to resolve the question of the existence of "God".

"We don't know" means we don't know. It doesn't mean that we assume the negative until the positive is proven.

I disagree. The fact that God may be an unprovable concept makes the burden of proof even mere relevant.

Imagine if you were raised in another culture in which there is no concept of a god. Would you eventually develop a belief in god on your own? If so, what would lead you to that conclusion? If you were then to try to tell the rest of your community about god, wouldn't you expect them to remain skeptical of this new idea until you were able to prove it to them?

 

[Seven]

I am not sure what is the point that you want to make with the cherry picking thing. Just in case I’ll give you another scripture that prophesies about the start of the end days Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man.
So is a matter of finding the characteristic of those days were and we know.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, having been warned by God of things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
This is better cherry, what do you think?
And this: 1Pe 3:20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);
2Pe 2:5 And He did not spare the old world, but saved Noah the eighth one, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.
What were the men of old doing? Gen 6:5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Here we see that man is in a path that gradually will get it into that state, that the day will come when every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart will be only evil continually. It seems to me that God really knows the heart of every man and his long-suffering of sin is great, but we are certainly travelling on the path that lead to destruction till the day that He has mercy on us, and that we a living in the days of Grace, pray for the lost and may the Lord God have mercy on them.

The bible, like any literary work, is open to interpretation. None of these scriptures clearly say that "during the start of the 21st century there will be a decline of religiosity amongst the populations of several developed countries."

Rather, they give vague open predictions that can be applied to any number of circumstances. For example, during the enlightenment in America there was a shift away from religion. During those times I'll bet there were people quoting these very same scriptures.

 

[Seven]

Here we see that man is in a path that gradually will get it into that state, that the day will come when every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart will be only evil continually.

Wow, that's grim. I think mankind is slowly becoming less evil actually. We view slavery as immoral now. Women's rights have vastly improved (in most societies). Racial bigotry is no longer the norm.

Of course we still have a way to go, but I don't think preaching the end of the world is very helpful.

 

[PureX]

I do agree with you in that the burden of proof should not fall solely upon the theist. However, if we were to follow your last sentence, I don't see how we would ever be able to claim knowledge about anything. We would not be able to say conclusively that fairy godmothers don't exist because we have not yet checked the far reaches of the universe for them. I think it is safe to assume that fairy godmothers don't exist, due to the current lack of evidence for them. Basically, I assume the negative, until further evidence changes my mind.

The reality is that we don't get to know anything for certain; because to do so would require omniscience. The best we can get is relative certainty, or a probability of certitude based on what appears to be true to us in our limited experience of "truth" (what is). It's because our ability to assess truthfulness is relative that we will never be able to assess the truthfulness of the existence of "God". The concept of "God" is such that there is no relative perspective we could take that would allow us to assess any sort of accurate probability. This is also why science will never establish the existence of "God", either. "God" is to science what infinity is to mathematics.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. The fact that God may be an unprovable concept makes the burden of proof even mere relevant.

Imagine if you were raised in another culture in which there is no concept of a god. Would you eventually develop a belief in god on your own? If so, what would lead you to that conclusion? If you were then to try to tell the rest of your community about god, wouldn't you expect them to remain skeptical of this new idea until you were able to prove it to them?

Every culture on Earth, that I am aware of, has developed a god-concept. And they've done so very early on in their development timeline. So clearly, something in the way we humans experience existence leads us to develop this concept. Whether "God" is real or not, clearly, the experience of God is real to us. One could argue that the weight of all this personal experience of "God" puts the burden on the few disclaimers, rather than on the theists.

 

[Seven]

Every culture on Earth, that I am aware of, has developed a god-concept. And they've done so very early on in their development timeline. So clearly, something in the way we humans experience existence leads us to develop this concept. Whether "God" is real or not, clearly, the experience of God is real to us. One could argue that the weight of all this personal experience of "God" puts the burden on the few disclaimers, rather than on the theists.

I'll admit that the god-concept is very common but it's not universal. Several schools of Buddhism are atheistic, for example.

I also agree that we tend towards superstition as a species. We are a species that thrives on our ability to model our world. But our superstitions are always seeded in uncertainty and ignorance.
So far the best tool we have for unraveling the mysteries of our universe is science, and it doesn't see the slightest reason to suppose that there is a god.

As for an abundance of personal experience, well, people throughout the world would say they have paranormal abilities, but the burden of proof still rests with them.
The burden of proof doesn't go away just because most people agree with you, it goes away when you've proved your claim.