An Atheist Defends the Design Argument, by Toby Wardman

[gaijin]

Toby Wardman in his article "An Atheist Defends the Design Argument" states:

If the theist's reply is that God can exist uniquely without the need for any further explanation, then the theist is admitting that unusual and significant things can exist unexplained, and if this is admitted, then we don't need to postulate a Designer for the universe after all.

As a theist, I’m going to throw an analogy in here.

Let’s say Antonio Banderas is walking along the road one day when he stumbles upon an apple pie, sitting there on a table next to the footpath. Now, as we all know, Antonio just loves apple pie and as an avid philosopher he begins to wonder, as he eats the pie, whether or not somebody made the pie, or if it just happened to appear there because of some random sequence of events.

The probability of a pie just appearing on a table next to the footpath, however, is negligible, so Antonio could reasonably conclude that the manifestation of the pie requires the existence of the maker of the pie.

Antonio, however, is a deep thinker, so he begins to wonder how the maker of the pie came into existence. But, unfortunately for Antonio, he was a somewhat shy and introverted child and is therefore not well versed in the field of procreation. Even though he knows how to make a pie, he does not know how to make a person because they are two completely different things.

The fact that he does not know how to make a person, however, does not invalidate his conclusion that the manifestation of the pie requires the existence of the pie maker.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding An Atheist Defends the Design Argument (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=297) by Toby Wardman (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=636). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Toby Wardman]

Thanks for your feedback, gaijin.

I see your point, but I think there’s a slip in your argument. Here’s where I reckon you go astray:

Antonio, however, is a deep thinker, so he begins to wonder how the maker of the pie came into existence. But, unfortunately for Antonio, he was a somewhat shy and introverted child and is therefore not well versed in the field of procreation. Even though he knows how to make a pie, he does not know how to make a person because they are two completely different things. The fact that he does not know how to make a person, however, does not invalidate his conclusion that the manifestation of the pie requires the existence of the pie maker.

Hang on a sec. I agree with that argument, but it isn’t equivalent to the design argument objection that I alluded to briefly at the end of my article. There’s an important distinction to be drawn which makes all the difference. The distinction is between (1) not knowing how a thing’s existence can be explained (but being sure that there is such an explanation), and (2) asserting that the thing’s existence actually can’t be explained.

The apple pie exists; veteran pie-maker Antonio concludes that the existence of this pie is best explained by reference to a pie-maker. (The implicit reasoning is that, if something exists, there must be an explanation for its existence.)
People exist; poor naïve Antonio doesn’t know how the existence of people is explained, but by the same logic he knows that the existence of everything must have some explanation or other – people, like pies, don’t exist unexplained. So Antonio is entitled to say, “I can say what explains the existence of the pie, and I know that something explains the existence of people, but I can’t say what”.

The universe exists; veteran theist Anthony concludes that the existence of the universe is best explained by reference to a universe-maker. (Again, the implicit reasoning is that, if something exists, there must be an explanation for its existence.)
The universe-maker exists; but here Anthony doesn’t apply the same logic. Although he previously held that everything’s existence has an explanation – which was a necessary premise in his argument about the universe – he now goes back on that premise and says that it’s actually OK for something’s existence to go unexplained. He is NOT saying that the universe-maker’s existence has an explanation which he doesn’t know. He’s saying that it DOESN’T have an explanation. It’s that fact which makes the apple pie analogy inappropriate.

And the problem is that, if it’s OK after all for things to exist unexplained – as perhaps something must do, somewhere back along the chain – why should that be God? Why not just the universe, stopping the regress one step earlier with no loss of explanatory power?

I must dash, anyway – all this talk of apple pies has made me rather hungry…

[Pushback]

Having a little trouble following your argument. You said,

"The probability of a pie just appearing on a table next to the footpath, however, is negligible"

But if you can't accept that a pie could just appear on a table, how can you accept that a pie-maker can just appear? I mean, it's as difficult to accept one as another. So if you accept that

"the manifestation of the pie requires the existence of the pie maker"

then wouldn't the existance of a pie-maker require the existance of a pie-maker Maker? This is a bottomless argument until you reach a point where you are willing to accept the sudden manifestation of a pie (or pie-maker). Since either one is unknowable, why not simplify to the lowest common denominator, and accept that the pie was always there on the table?

[-DM-]

Wardman and Pushback both make good points in response to the "pie-maker argument." I'll add a quick comment or two:

1) We know with almost 100% certainty at this point in our "evolution" (meant in the most general sense of the word) that any apple pie is an artifact. We do not know that human beings or other animal species are artifacts. Explaining an unknown (such as the existence of animal life) with another unknown (such as "God") is nothing more than a mind game (in my opinion).

2) gaijin's apple pie analogy includes this: "he begins to wonder, as he eats the pie, whether or not somebody made the pie, or if it just happened to appear there because of some random sequence of events." That is a bit presumptuous in that, even if we believe that animal life occurred in the absence of "God," that does not necessarily mean that it occurred because of "some random sequence of events." Those events, whatever they might have been, could probably not be thought of as strictly random for the reason that they would necessarily have occurred according to whatever "laws of nature" existed at the time. (And no, the "lawgiver argument" isn't any better here than is the "apple pie maker argument" in the previous instance.)

--

The ideas from which my comments derive are not original. They, and many other ideas regarding this issue, are covered in more detail in the articles referenced on the Argument to Design (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html) page in the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml).

-Don-

[gaijin]

I regret using the pie analogy because there are no ovens in Okinawa and now I'd really like to bake some pie. This is an interesting discussion though. I would like to respond to a couple of points, and this is going to be quite painful because it means I'll have to think about the pie I can't have (or create) while doing it. I think that's irony isn't it...?

Wardman: And the problem is that, if it’s OK after all for things to exist unexplained ... why should that be God? Why not just the universe, stopping the regress one step earlier with no loss of explanatory power?

I think it's because, just like Antonio's footpath pie, the universe bears the hallmarks of intelligent design and it therefore makes sense to conclude that it was designed and did not just manifest itself by chance. If you found a pie by the footpath then you would not suggest that it just appeared would you? If the laws of nature allowed the universe to just appear without God, then what is to stop stuff appearing all over the place all the time? Why won't pie just appear on my desk right now?

I do understand your point, but I don't think that one's ability or inability to explain something necessarily affirms or negates its existence. I think that if the evidence points convincingly towards a given conclusion then, regardless of whether or not you understand the conclusion, the logically sound (I'm going to get into trouble for saying that aren't I) thing to do would be to accept the conclusion. The issue of how the "cook" came into existence is then a separate issue to be discussed, not a counterarguement for the existence of the "pie".

Anyway, if you say there is no God then you have to say that the universe exists unexplained, but if you say that then you agree that things can exist unexplained and therefore God can exist unexplained. The issue then becomes one of which makes more logical sense according to the evidence available, and I believe the evidence points towards intelligent design.

Pushback: ...wouldn't the existance of a pie-maker require the existance of a pie-maker Maker? This is a bottomless argument until you reach a point where you are willing to accept the sudden manifestation of a pie (or pie-maker). Since either one is unknowable, why not simplify to the lowest common denominator, and accept that the pie was always there on the table?

My point was that the pie maker didn't necessarily come into existence in the same way as the pie. If their manner of manifestation was different then it's not a bottomless arguement because you are discussing different issues with regard to their manifestation. You can't map the creation of the pie onto the creation of the pie maker.

Dungeon Master: Explaining an unknown (such as the existence of animal life) with another unknown (such as "God") is nothing more than a mind game (in my opinion).

But you have to explain it with something. Both the non-theistic method of the creation of the universe and the theistic creation are unknowns, so you have to pick one right? Again, you look at the evidence and decide which option looks more probable. If you have a pie, then the probability that there is a pie maker is higher than the probability that there isn't.

Dungeon Master: That is a bit presumptuous in that, even if we believe that animal life occurred in the absence of "God," that does not necessarily mean that it occurred because of "some random sequence of events."

I take back my "random sequence of events" and replace it with "chance" then. Sorry, should be more careful with my terminology.

So, how does that look then? How is my pie standing up to pressure? :)

[-DM-]

Originally posted by gaijin
But you have to explain it with something.As far as I am concerned, no explanation at all is better than "God did it" considering that the evidence for the existence of "God" is far less convincing (to me) than is the evidence that "God" does not exist.

Both the non-theistic method of the creation of the universe and the theistic creation are unknowns, so you have to pick one right?As far as I am concerned, we can wait, even if indefinitely, for science to provide the answer. As Oscar Wilde put it, "Science is the record of dead religions."

I take back my "random sequence of events" and replace it with "chance" then."Chance" is no better than "random sequence of events." The so-called laws of nature govern.

One thing that the known existence of both apple pies and watches proves beyond the shadow of a doubt is that "well-designed 'creations' can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required."

How is my pie standing up to pressure? Not well, in my opinion.

The "apple pie" scenario is a variation on the watch in the desert (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm) scenario. Just as watches are obviously artifacts which have evolved over time, so are apple pies. If you want to believe that there is a supernatural piemaker/watchmaker behind the evolution of pies and watches, so be it, but then you are faced with the problem of deciding which of the alleged-to-exist gods is behind it all.

-Don-

P.S. I am moving this thread to the Evolution/Creation forum in order to facilitate open discussion on the part of those who are much more well-versed on this issue than I am.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by gaijin
I think it's because, just like Antonio's footpath pie, the universe bears the hallmarks of intelligent design and it therefore makes sense to conclude that it was designed and did not just manifest itself by chance.
Well I don't know about the universe in general, but if you mean living things, then no, they do not bear the hallmarks of intelligent design. Not unless the designer was, on occasion, a drunken and sadistic idiot.

TTFN, Oolon

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by gaijin
DM:
Explaining an unknown (such as the existence of animal life) with another unknown (such as "God") is nothing more than a mind game (in my opinion).

gaijin:
I take back my "random sequence of events" and replace it with "chance" then. Sorry, should be more careful with my terminology.
Ah, so you do mean living things. Yes, you should be more careful with your terminology. Because living things have not come about by random chance. So you've got a straw man there...

Oolon

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by gaijin
I think it's because, just like Antonio's footpath pie, the universe bears the hallmarks of intelligent design and it therefore makes sense to conclude that it was designed and did not just manifest itself by chance. If you found a pie by the footpath then you would not suggest that it just appeared would you? If the laws of nature allowed the universe to just appear without God, then what is to stop stuff appearing all over the place all the time? Why won't pie just appear on my desk right now?

To my eye, as an amateur astronomer, the universe looks anything but designed. I believe that the “hallmarks of intelligent design” are entirely within your perception.

Quantum mechanics allows for quantum scale events to be random and uncaused, but only when looking at a single event. As soon as you expand your perceptions, you can’t see single events, you can only see the statistical summation of literally billions of events. A single proton can suddenly jump three feet to the left, but an entire chair never will. Similarly, a single particle/antiparticle pair can be spontaneously created from raw vacuum, but an intact apple pie is so improbable as to be impossible.

Current theories of universe formation all start with an extremely simple and potentially uncaused quantum event, which then expands and cools into the universe we see now. Everything after that appears to be the simple results of time and thermodynamics.

Complexity is created at the chemical level all the time, witness the perfect crystals of snowflakes, generated by nothing but air, water, and cold. Chemical complexity eventually forms imperfect replicators, which makes further complexity inevitable. The evolution of life from imperfect replicators is a scientific fact, no amount of wishful thinking can defeat the enormous mountain of evidence supporting that chain of events.


I’m perfectly willing to accept the existence of a simple object or event, such as an expanding quantum fluctuation or a chemical soup forming an imperfect replicator. However, I’m unable to accept the spontaneous or eternal existence of a supremely intelligent and all powerful entity. You are on the wrong end of the complexity scale to have any sort of believable claim.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Hmm, where'd he go?

Intriguing thought, though, that Paley's Pie implies Paley's Baker... :D

Oolon

[Wounded King]

It's apple pies all the way down.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Wounded King
It's apple pies all the way down.
:notworthy :notworthy :D

And I somehow doubt that Dawkins would have gotten very far with a book called The Blind Pastry-Chef.

[Jet Black]

the pie, having spontaneously appeared, looked at antonio banderas and though "oh no, not again"

apologies to Douglas Adams.

[gaijin]

I sense that we're getting down (reverse-evolving perhaps ;) ) to the roots of this discussion, which appear to be the evidence for God and the nature of the birth of the universe.

DM: As far as I am concerned, no explanation at all is better than "God did it" considering that the evidence for the existence of "God" is far less convincing (to me) than is the evidence that "God" does not exist.

Is there evidence that God does not exist? I am getting the impression that neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God can be objectively proven (this would make sense from the Christian viewpoint as if His existence was directly provable by non-circumstantial evidence then it would contravene free will). I don't think that statements such as "we can wait, even if indefinitely, for science to provide the answer" represent a very scientific approach as they suggest a reluctance to look at all of the options with an open mind. I believe, however, that subjective proof for God exists. This may not sound like a preferable option for the resolute atheist, and I am not able to demonstrate it outside personal experience, but the reason that Christians are Christians is because God reveals Himself to them as they search for Him. It is only through that search that you can know for sure that He is there.

In Antonio's pie experience, if he wanted to know whether or not the pie was created, then it would make sense for him, rather than just philosophically postulating that there does or does not need to be a cook, to actually personally look for the cook. Similarly, a true scientist approaches a problem from all angles and only eliminates a possibility if it can be conclusively ruled out. One of those angles in this case is to personally search for God. You don't really have anything to lose if He is not there. I think that people are reluctant to search because theism and science seem to contradict one another, and because it doesn't feel very scientific to conduct that kind of experiment, but I believe that science and theism can coexist and that scientific process bolsters the need for uncomfortable searches.

Why wait for science to provide the answer if it is possible that there is another way? All you have to do is ask.

DM: One thing that the known existence of both apple pies and watches proves beyond the shadow of a doubt is that "well-designed 'creations' can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required."

I don't think that apple pies and watches prove that because in either analogy you still need a creator to make the creation and guide its evolutionary process, irregardless of how small the steps are. Please excuse me as I am still learning about many of these issues, but I am interested in how consciousness fits into all of this too – how can you explain consciousness atheistically?

I really appreciate the time people are taking out to discuss this and for being patient with me as I try to keep an open mind and learn where I stand on all of this. Thank you. On a lighter note, and I mean no disrespect to the writer of this, nor do I mean to suggest that it is flawed, but does anybody else find this quote funny?

Asha'man: a simple object or event, such as an expanding quantum fluctuation or a chemical soup forming an imperfect replicator

[orac]

Originally posted by gaijin
Antonio, however, is a deep thinker, so he begins to wonder how the maker of the pie came into existence. But, unfortunately for Antonio, he was a somewhat shy and introverted child and is therefore not well versed in the field of procreation. Even though he knows how to make a pie, he does not know how to make a person because they are two completely different things.
Fortunately for poor Antonio, many other people do know all about the mechanics of procreation and can provide many fine instructional videos.

So who made the pie maker's parents? Who made the pie maker's parents' parents? And so on and so forth.

Who made God? Was it the Uber-God?

I have to say I like your analogy because it so clearly shows the flaw in the argument that the universe looks designed therefore god exists.

[Kosh]

This argument is also yet another version of the "hurrican in a junkyard producing a 777" fallacy, is it not?

The error is in assuming that because one thing requires an intelligent maker (and apple pies do, because they do not occur naturally and are the result of human manufacturing) that ALL things require an intelligent maker.

[orac]

Originally posted by gaijin
Is there evidence that God does not exist? I am getting the impression that neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God can be objectively proven (this would make sense from the Christian viewpoint as if His existence was directly provable by non-circumstantial evidence then it would contravene free will).
Circumstantial evidence suggests many Gods don't exist - things that should be are not, yet God is supposed to provide them. If God doesn't provide things that his believers claim he does provide, then there's a reasonable chance that they don't know as much as they think they do. It's not proof of the non-existance of God, or even of a specific God, but it's a bad sign.

You can't prove that there is no God. You also can't prove that there are no flying reindeer. You can, however, show logical inconsistancies in the claims that a specific God does specific things, or that specific reindeer actually did fly at a particular time and place.

So far, no religion has proposed a god that actually performs according to the promises made. That's still not a promising sign.

Originally posted by gaijin
Why wait for science to provide the answer if it is possible that there is another way? All you have to do is ask.

One of those angles in this case is to personally search for God. You don't really have anything to lose if He is not there. I think that people are reluctant to search because theism and science seem to contradict one another, and because it doesn't feel very scientific to conduct that kind of experiment, but I believe that science and theism can coexist and that scientific process bolsters the need for uncomfortable searches.
Searching for God is great - but believing in god is not searching, it's claiming to have found. This is not in any way shape or form even vaguely related to science.

Belief in science is not required. Many discoveries are made by people who were forced to admit that their original ideas were wrong, or who were intending to prove one law, but in the process discovered something unexpected.

Another interesting thing is that with science it's not necessary to personally discover electricity before you can turn a light switch on. With all the believers already in existance, I'm quite happy to demand they show me their evidence before I believe their claims about God. Once this evidence shows up, it's going to be examined in detail by all sorts of intelligent and qualified scientists. If it passes that test, then I can worry about personally learning enough to examine the evidence myself. Oddly, though, none have yet managed that.

Originally posted by gaijin
I don't think that apple pies and watches prove that because in either analogy you still need a creator to make the creation and guide its evolutionary process, irregardless of how small the steps are.
Analogies are imperfect.

In the real world when talking about actual evolution, the "guidance" is performed without conscious thought. For example, when a cat is hunting birds, the faster birds are more likely to escape and breed. As a result, the faster birds breed, and the slower birds become cat food - and whatever made the birds faster is passed on to the next generation of birds. The actual "guidance" of "giving" the slow birds to the cats wasn't an actual decision made by a thinking being - it was just a natural consequence of being slow.

Who decided it should be easier for cats to catch slow birds than to catch fast birds? That's the person who created the universe. (Rhetorical question - I hope you won't argue that the "existance" of concepts such as fast and slow is proof of the existance of God :))

The process is faster and more useful if the selection of features to keep in the next geneation is guided and planned, but oddly enough evolution is a very slow process, and has no concern with evolving creatures towards a pre-selected goal.

Note: anyone who talks about one species being 'more highly evolved' than another aren't being particularly precice. For example, an ape would simply die if made to spend a few weeks swimming in the middle of the ocean, but whales die on beaches. Is a whale better because it can swim? Is an ape better because leaving the oceans is some sort of noble and honourable goal?


Originally posted by gaijin
how can you explain consciousness atheistically?
There would be a lot less whaling done if the whales could shoot back.

Being able to make and use tools is a survival advantage. It's also a hard one to acquire, as it seems to require a suitable environment, limbs capable of relatively fine precision, and a brain/body mass ratio that allows the brain to control the body and still have "processing power" left over.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by gaijin
On a lighter note, and I mean no disrespect to the writer of this, nor do I mean to suggest that it is flawed, but does anybody else find this quote funny?
Asha'man: a simple object or event, such as an expanding quantum fluctuation or a chemical soup forming an imperfect replicator


Does that mean you missed my point entirely or are just being evasive? Or are you really amused by my wording?

A few simple questions for you:

Which seems more likely, a fluctuation in a quantum foam or the spontanious creation of a fully formed universe?

Which seems more likely, a runaway chemical reaction in an already complex chemical soup, or the spontaneous creation of billions of types of intracate lifeforms complete with apparent history?

As our scientific understanding of the universe improves (on a daily basis), we are constantly finding out that apparently complex things all have simple roots. Anytime something appears that is too complex to have arisen on it's own, we eventually find a way for a simpler mechanism to produce it.

To give up the search for that simple root (by invoking the supernatural) is not only non-scientific, it is the death of knowledge and understanding.

[MrDarwin]

I can go to a grocery store or bakery and buy an apple pie. I can watch them make it from scratch at the bakery. And when I buy one, it usually has a label on the package saying who made it, and where. Heck, I'm a decent cook, and on occasion I've made an apple pie from scratch, all by myself.

Now, I can't design or build a living organism myself, but then again I can't build a watch or an airplane either. So perhaps somebody can tell me where I can find that manufacturer's label on a living organism, and where can I go to watch one being designed?

[gaijin]

I went out to try to find cheesecake last night because I have had no luck getting pie, but Starbucks have stopped producing it as it is no longer the cheesecake season here apparently. I note that it is never the pie season.

Anyway, time for some Clint Eastwood style quick-fire rebuttal. You know, when he just holds down the trigger and keeps hitting the hammer back with his hand...

I have to say I like your analogy because it so clearly shows the flaw in the argument that the universe looks designed therefore god exists.

I am not suggesting it is a definite proof, I am just saying that the nature of the universe suggests it was designed, which suggests that God exists.

The error is in assuming that because one thing requires an intelligent maker ... that ALL things require an intelligent maker.

I think it's more that if something has a high degree of complexity then it suggests that it was designed.

So far, no religion has proposed a god that actually performs according to the promises made.

I would tend to disagree with that. What promises are you suggesting have not been fulfilled by the Christian God?

Belief in science is not required.

Sure it is. There are plenty of scientific "theories" out there that people put their faith in while acting according to them.

Another interesting thing is that with science it's not necessary to personally discover electricity before you can turn a light switch on.

A little bit like not having to discover God before you can exist right?

Being able to make and use tools is a survival advantage.

So, you're saying we're not conscious as such, that we're just processing information? It's just chemical signals?

Does that mean you missed my point entirely or are just being evasive? Or are you really amused by my wording?

I'm just amused by your wording ;)

Which seems more likely, a fluctuation in a quantum foam or the spontanious (sic) creation of a fully formed universe?

I don't really believe that the world was created fully formed. I am relatively happy with the evolution idea and creation having occurred at the very beginning of the universe.

To give up the search for that simple root (by invoking the supernatural) is not only non-scientific, it is the death of knowledge and understanding.

Hardly. Just because you may end up finding that there is a God doesn't make the search non-scientific. Refusing to consider it as an option is to deny scientific process, and THAT would spell the death of knowledge and understanding. You aren't giving up, you are just expanding your boundaries.

I know what you're thinking punk. You're thinking did he create six pies or only five? And to tell you the truth I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being this is a Smeg Oven - the most powerful cooking facility in the world and will cook your pie straight off, you've got to ask yourself a question--Do I feel hungry? Well, do ya punk!

[Kosh]

Originally posted by gaijin
think it's more that if something has a high degree of complexity then it suggests that it was designed.



incorrect.

[orac]

Originally posted by gaijin
I am not suggesting it is a definite proof, I am just saying that the nature of the universe suggests it was designed, which suggests that God exists.
Which specific bit? The deadly radiation? The billions of years of slow evolution that lead to a person capable of believing God did it? The seemingly endless stream of child molesters called by God to serve as ministers, priests and leaders? The fossil record showing slow evolution over millions of years? Cancer? Aids? Storms flattening the crops that feed thousands of people?

Is that seriously the best evidence for God that you have?

Originally posted by gaijin
I think it's more that if something has a high degree of complexity then it suggests that it was designed.
Ok, so who created God?

You're not seriously claiming that sentient humans required a designer, but a far more powerful and intelligent being capable of creating the universe doesn't, are you? Is there a reason you're evading that question?

If you won't answer this question then you're deliberately and knowingly choosing to ignore the largest flaw in your entire argument. You've made the claim that complex things need a designer, that this designer is God, and that the designer is more complex than the creation because simple things can't create complex things.

So, either answer the question, or admit that you believe that complex things can exist without a creator.

Btw, once you make the latter admission, you've admitted the universe could exist without God. if you claim God "may" have had a creator - an Uber-God if you will - then you're arguing that an infintely long chain of ever more powerful deities is "simpler" and "more likely" than a universe that just exists.

You also have to explain what created the chain of Uber-Gods, because you've claimed that chain can't exist without a creator, and you really don't want to go that way, because you'll eventually die of old age before you stop imagining Uber-uber-Uber-Gods.

I simply don't believe you can or will answer this question, but I hope you'll at least try to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by gaijin
I would tend to disagree with that. What promises are you suggesting have not been fulfilled by the Christian God?
"Ask and it shall be given." Remember that from the Bible? I hope so, because lots of christians keep asking for things and then having to explain that the Bible shouldn't be taken too literally and that Jesus didn't really mean he'ld give people what they prayed for.

Jesus' thousand year reign is proving a bit awkward, too. Noone knows how Noah got the lions to ignore the lambs for that little sea trip, and we don't want to know what they did with the elephant's manure. God's chosen people (remember them, from the old testament? They're still quite important in christian sunday schools) are still waiting for their messiah, and noone can explain why such a loving and forgiving God demands human sacrifice as a loyalty test or as payment for forgiveness.

On the other hand, Jesus' promise to divide families has come true. Hmm, family values, anyone?

If you want even more detail, refer to the various "problem of evil" threads where christians proudly declare that their perfect God values the free will of child molesters over the safety of children.

Watch for other threads covering biblical inconsistancies, and the hoops through which apologists jump to "explain" that God doesn't have to be consistent.

Originally posted by gaijin
Sure it is. There are plenty of scientific "theories" out there that people put their faith in while acting according to them.
Name one scientist who has faith in electricity.

Plenty of people don't care enough to evaluate evidence for electricity on their own, because the effects are visible, and repeatable as it is.

Please, try to distinguish between scientists and people who use the products of science.

Originally posted by gaijin
So, you're saying we're not conscious as such,
*sigh* I don't recall saying any such thing. If you could point out where I said that, I'ld appreciate it.

Originally posted by gaijin
that we're just processing information? It's just chemical signals?
Let me see if I understand you: merely thinking, sensing, reasoning, creating isn't enough for you to call a being "conscious."

That's interesting.

Is there some reason why you can remain exactly the way you are, but if anyone suggests that your mind is a chemical and electrical machine that evolved over millions of yours you'll decide that's not enough?

That's actually a serious question: why would your mind be so much less valuable merely because it evolved? if you're capable of thinking, feeling, loving, talking, arguing, choosing, creating, and so on then why would the mechanism behind it diminish the value of your mind?

Your brain is a chemical and electrical machine. That doesn't make you less unique or valuable. It also doesn't require God in order for it to exist. Is that the problem with an evolved and physical brain?

Originally posted by gaijin
Hardly. Just because you may end up finding that there is a God doesn't make the search non-scientific. Refusing to consider it as an option is to deny scientific process, and THAT would spell the death of knowledge and understanding. You aren't giving up, you are just expanding your boundaries.
Believing in God is not the same as searching for God.

Is that so hard to understand?

Can you understand that if you don't have any evidence for your beliefs, many people will not feel motivated to do your work for you? You believe your god-hypothesis is correct. Prove it youself, and quite complaining that noone else wants to do your search for evidence for you.

[MrDarwin]

So if Antonio comes across an apple pie, and it has a hole poked in the top, what does that mean?

[Peez]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the critical error in the watch and pie analogies is that watches and pies do not replicate themselves. Living things do, therefore living things can evolve.

Peez

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
So if Antonio comes across an apple pie, and it has a hole poked in the top, what does that mean?
It means that either Little Jack Horner or the American Pie character has been at it.

[pz]

Originally posted by Peez
Correct me if I am wrong, but the critical error in the watch and pie analogies is that watches and pies do not replicate themselves. Living things do, therefore living things can evolve.I agree that that is the fundamental flaw.

A more appropriate example would be to describe walking across a beach with many spotted crabs scuttling about, and encountering one with stripes. Would he be justified in saying, "the inference we think is inevitable, that the striped crab must have had a stripe maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use"? Maybe he could have said something along those lines in the 19th century, but no more.

[Dean Anderson]

Originally posted by gaijin in the OP
The probability of a pie just appearing on a table next to the footpath, however, is negligible, so Antonio could reasonably conclude that the manifestation of the pie requires the existence of the maker of the pie.
Ah - but how does Antonio decide that the probability is negligible?

The answer is that he uses his previous experience.

In his previous experience, all pies that he has ever encountered have been made by an intelligent designer - either directly by hand or by a mechanism that is visible and obvious (e.g. Mrs Tweedy's 'Pie-O-Matic' Pie Machine).

Therefore it is highly probable that this pie was also made by an intelligent designer.

However, when he sees a lake that has iced over - and the frost makes beautiful, intricate and highly complex patterns on it - what does his previous experience tell him then?

It tells him that all the frost he has previously seen has been a result of water freezing - and that the patterns in it are caused by small temperature differences. It also tells him that frost is seen to naturally occur and can even be watched forming.

In this case, it would be very unreasonable of him to conclude that the manifestation of frost requires a maker of frost, and even more unreasonable to conclude that this maker must be the one and only 'Jack Frost' as opposed to any other hypothetical maker.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Peez
Correct me if I am wrong, but the critical error in the watch and pie analogies is that watches and pies do not replicate themselves. Living things do, therefore living things can evolve.

Peez

I disagree. The critical flaw, as I suggested earlier, is that we know where things like watches and apple pies come from: we know that they are designed and built by humans. If we came across a machine or confection that we have never encountered before, we know enough about humans and what they do to reasonably conclude that these other things were designed and built by humans as well. This is because we can easily demonstrate that such things can be designed and built by humans because we can observe the design and manufacture process, and even participate in it.

But we do not similarly know that any living organism, or any biological system, has been designed or built by any intelligence (other than humans, and even we are still quite incapable of designing or building most of the things IDists and other creationists are claiming were designed), nor has anybody ever demonstrated that any such organism or system can be designed or constructed in the first place. The IDists are jumping to the conclusion that things must have been designed, even before they have demonstrated that those same things could have been designed.

[Principia]

I disagree. The critical flaw, as I suggested earlier, is that we know where things like watches and apple pies come from: we know that they are designed and built by humans. If we came across a machine or confection that we have never encountered before, we know enough about humans and what they do to reasonably conclude that these other things were designed and built by humans as well. This is because we can easily demonstrate that such things can be designed and built by humans because we can observe the design and manufacture process, and even participate in it. I agree. Without putting forth a coherent model of the design process and the nature of the designer, the IDists inherently weaken their design inference. At best, any analogy based on human machines can only extrapolate to the possibility that human-like beings designed life. But even that extrapolation is tenuous, since we have no reason to believe that we ourselves would design autonomous, replicating, evolving agents in the same fashion and with the same material that we observe in nature. After all, does it not surprise anyone that our initial attempts at artificial life are in fact in silico? The fact of the matter is that we won't see ID proponents explore the nature of the designer. When you ask them, they dismiss it as a rhetorical ploy. Rather they assume them based on their own religious beliefs [e.g. the notions that there is one Designer, and that he did the designing in the past [rather than in the present or in the future], and that his superior intellect confounds our understanding, etc. ad nauseam]. It is, as some IDiots have said labelled it, "a judgment call." And this is the leap of faith that inherently makes the whole enterprise one big unscientific flop.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by gaijin
I am not suggesting it is a definite proof, I am just saying that the nature of the universe suggests it was designed, which suggests that God exists.If it were correct that the nature of the universe suggests that it was designed, then one could add "which suggests that it was designed by Brahma."

I would tend to disagree with that. What promises are you suggesting have not been fulfilled by the Christian God?Just a few of many possible examples:

GE 15:18 Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen,
and part of Iraq belong to the Jews only.

MT 6:25-34, LK 12:22-31 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will
take care of you.

MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you
will find. Everyone who asks, receives.

MT 17:20, 21:21, MK 9:23, 10:27, 11:23, LK 17:6 Faith can move
mountains. Nothing is impossible if you have faith [as small
as] a grain of mustard seed. [Note: as a wise sage once put it, "Although it is said that faith can move mountains, experience
shows that dynamite works better."]

MT 18:19 If two [believers] agree about anything they ask, God
will do it for them.

MT 21:22, MK 11:24 Whatever you ask in prayer, if you have
faith, you will receive it.

MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and
not experience any harm.

-Don-

[-DM-]

Originally posted by gaijin
Is there evidence that God does not exist?Yes, there is evidence that the biblical "God," the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims, does not exist. That god is alleged to possess characteristics which empirical observation demonstrates do not now exist in any being, natural or supernatural, who is active in human affairs.

I am getting the impression that neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God can be objectively proven"Evidence" and "proof" are not necessarily equivalents. I doubt, for example, that you can prove the nonexistence of either the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, but you probably could provide evidence for their nonexistence. It is the same with regard to the biblical "God."

I don't think that statements such as "we can wait, even if indefinitely, for science to provide the answer" represent a very scientific approach as they suggest a reluctance to look at all of the options with an open mind.What you "think" based on a suggested "reluctance to look at all the options with an open mind" discounts the fact that I was once a born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian who always said that he would one day--with an open mind--look into the foundation of his faith. I did. Have you done the same? Have you looked into the foundation for other religious beliefs as well as that of your current faith?

I believe, however, that subjective proof for God exists. This may not sound like a preferable option for the resolute atheist, and I am not able to demonstrate it outside personal experience, but the reason that Christians are Christians is because God reveals Himself to them as they search for Him.Baloney. There are many, many reasons that Christians are Christians. One of the biggest reasons in many, many cases is that they were born in and raised in a country where Christianity predominates. Religious belief tends to be based on geography. There are essentially no Christians in Iran, for example.

It is only through that search that you can know for sure that He is there."It is only through that search that you can know for sure that Allah is there."--a Muslim. [Whose prayers were "answered" on 9-11, those of the Christians who went to work in the Twin Towers and who flew on those ill-fated airplanes, or those of the Muslim extremists who commandeered those airplanes?]

Why wait for science to provide the answer if it is possible that there is another way?One reason for waiting is that science has proven rather reliable, and even though errors have been made science tends to be self-correcting. Religious belief systems have not proven reliable; they tend to perpetrate and perpetuate error until forced to accept the findings of science. As Oscar Wilde put it: "Science is the record of dead religions."

All you have to do is ask.Baloney.

how can you explain consciousness atheistically?This question represents a reasoning error known in layman's terms as the appeal to ignorance. Whether one can or cannot answer that question says nothing necessarily about the existence of any god.

-Don-

[gaijin]

So if Antonio comes across an apple pie, and it has a hole poked in the top, what does that mean?

It means that Christopher Walken got to it before him. Chris, however, doesn't like apples (they give him a rash), so he always sticks his finger into road-pie to check what kind of delicious filling it has before eating it with his pet monkey (he and his monkey eat the pie together - he doesn't eat the monkey - I know what you atheists are like with semantics).

;)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ah, gaijin, you're around again. Perhaps you could respond to my post above. Here it is again; I guess you missed it:
Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Well I don't know about the universe in general, but if you mean living things, then no, they do not bear the hallmarks of intelligent design. Not unless the designer was, on occasion, a drunken and sadistic idiot.

What say you? Care to defend your designer?

Oolon

[Majestyk]

Originally posted by gaijin (italics mine)
I do understand your point, but I don't think that one's ability or inability to explain something necessarily affirms or negates its existence. I think that if the evidence points convincingly towards a given conclusion then, regardless of whether or not you understand the conclusion, the logically sound (I'm going to get into trouble for saying that aren't I) thing to do would be to accept the conclusion. The issue of how the "cook" came into existence is then a separate issue to be discussed, not a counterarguement for the existence of the "pie".
Leaving the analogy of the pie behind, focusing on logical conclusions, and including the history of mythology, let us look at our current understanding of our cosmological and terrestrial environments.

Mythology has been the tool that people have used to fill the gaps in their knowledge of world around them from at least the time we have been able to document such abstract thoughts. The majority of those explanations, however useful at the time of their acceptance have been shown, thru the application of the scientific method, to be false and wholly without substance. From the god who hurls lighting, to the elephants that support the earth on their backs, to demons that take possession of the body, each of these and many more have been solidly refuted as legitimate explanations of the phenomenon they seek to describe. From the simple to the complex, thru our history, we have a steady progression of mythology being replaced by rational scientific theories that do not require that we dismiss the contradiction that such an explanation poses to existing evidence.

Yet, there is still so much that we do not know. Every answer opens the doorway to a new set of questions. And even the answers we have, are open to revision upon the face of new evidence. This does not require us to leap to conclusions that have no foundation. This only requires us to say that we do not know. Logically, it would seem that the conclusion we have to make is that substituting mythology and superstition for scientific theory is to delude ourselves.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by gaijin
I am not suggesting it is a definite proof, I am just saying that the nature of the universe suggests it was designed, which suggests that God exists.

You say,

1. The pie looks created; therefore, there is probably a human pie maker.

2. The human looks created; therefore, there is probably a creator god.

3. The god looks created; therefore there is probably an uber-god who produces gods as a baker produces pies.

4. The uber-god looks created; therefore there is probably a cherry pie that exudes ubergods.


No, you didn't go that far, did you. For some reason you bailed on us in step three. Why is that? We can posit this other line of reasoning from which you took step three:


1b. The pie looks created because we know all about how pies come about. Humans make pies. Every pie that exists was created by a human. Therefore we may infer that the existence of a pie implies the existence of a human pie maker.

2b. Humans are not like pies. We have no experience of humans being created (by gods or anything else); and we have no experience of gods creating (creating humans or anything else). We therefore have no reason to infer that the existence of a human implies the existence of a creator god.

3b. Gods are more like humans than like pies. That is, we don't have any experience of gods being created, so we cannot infer from the existence of a god that an uber-god probably created it.

4b. 4b is like 3b in that it shouldn't be in this sequence at all. If we are not making unwarranted inferences, then we don't need to consider uber-gods, but we likewise don't need to be considering gods. This sequence should have stopped at 2b.


So, gaijin, why did you pull step 3b and tack it into the first sequence? Why are you treating humans (or universes) differently than you treat gods? Why do you say the universe looks created but you don't say god looks created?

crc

[Albion]

Similarly, a true scientist approaches a problem from all angles and only eliminates a possibility if it can be conclusively ruled out. One of those angles in this case is to personally search for God.

Science doesn't involve personal searches. One of the defining characteristics of the scientific method is that science is done in public in such a way that it can be repeated by other researchers in order to check methods and results. Nobody can perform an objective check on a personal revelation experienced by someone else. Whatever you have in mind here, it isn't science.


You don't really have anything to lose if He is not there. I think that people are reluctant to search because theism and science seem to contradict one another, and because it doesn't feel very scientific to conduct that kind of experiment,

There's a very good reason why it doesn't feel scientific, and that's because it isn't. One of the things that intelligent-design advocates never seem to want to address is their perception of what the scientific method would be like once they had their way and were including a supernatural Creator as an explanation for observed phenomena. How would you use the scientific method to test for the existence or the actions of such an entity?


but I believe that science and theism can coexist and that scientific process bolsters the need for uncomfortable searches.

Science and theism can coexist fine. They just don't mix very well.

[gaijin]

Crikey me, this debate has grown somewhat hasn't it! There are too many points to respond to now, and a great deal of them are just turning into generalisations, so, I'm just going to pick a few:

This does not require us to leap to conclusions that have no foundation. This only requires us to say that we do not know. Logically, it would seem that the conclusion we have to make is that substituting mythology and superstition for scientific theory is to delude ourselves.

I would agree with your point that we should not substitute science for myth and superstition and that we should not leap to conslusions that have no foundation, but the problem here is that Christianity is not mythical or superstitious, nor does it lack foundation. You would have to prove it was before you could make a point like that to demonstrate that we should worship science over God.

Well I don't know about the universe in general, but if you mean living things, then no, they do not bear the hallmarks of intelligent design. Not unless the designer was, on occasion, a drunken and sadistic idiot. What say you? Care to defend your designer?

Sure. God is not, and never has been, a drunken sadistic idiot. What evidence do you have to support your accusation?

Have you done the same? Have you looked into the foundation for other religious beliefs as well as that of your current faith?

I have, I looked fairly extensively into Buddhism for my MA thesis. I live in Okinawa and am learning quite a lot about ancestor worship and Okinawan spiritualism. I now read both pro and anti Christian books and approach my doubts and those of other people with great interest (that is why I am debating here), and I am going to be looking into different belief systems as I grow in my faith.

Baloney.

mmmmmm.... baloney.

One reason for waiting is that science has proven rather reliable, and even though errors have been made science tends to be self-correcting. Religious belief systems have not proven reliable; they tend to perpetrate and perpetuate error until forced to accept the findings of science.

I would argue that Christianity strongly promotes self-correction. Besides, science and Christianity are not mutually-exclusive and science, in many ways, has supported Christianity through archeological confirmation of Biblical facts for example. In fact, this is what this whole discussion is about isn't it? That scientific discoveries point towards a creator?

Whether one can or cannot answer that question [of how do you explain consciousness atheistically] says nothing necessarily about the existence of any god.

Sure it does. If consciousness is something more than just biological process then it suggests the existence of a soul, which suggests the existence of God. I repeat my challenge.

So, gaijin...Why do you say the universe looks created but you don't say god looks created?

That's a good question. This is going to be a little circular, but it's because of my beliefs. The Bible says that God was not created and I believe the Bible because it is a reliable document. If you want to disprove that to me then you'll have to prove that the Bible is not reliable. Also, assuming that the nature of God is as people generally assume, that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, then it becomes impossible for there to be a higher order of existence than God. So, in that respect, God doesn't look created because of what we understand as being his nature.

How would you use the scientific method to test for the existence or the actions of such an entity?

Well, you could use science to look for evidence that points towards the existence of God. Psychology for instance, look at the changes people undergo when they become Christian and see if that can happen naturally. Or psychological testing of the mind of Christ according to the evidence we have of what he said and did to see if he was who he said he was. Archeological testing of the Bible to see if it is a reliable document. etc.

Also, with all of those quotes that Don pointed out. I might be getting myself into trouble with regard to them, but I don't suppose you'd like to have a formal debate about them?

[NottyImp]

I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean by the bible being "reliable", but perhaps you should browse this page from this site before making that claim:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[gaijin]

Thanks NottyImp, I don't think I NEED to visit that site before making the claim, but I'll check that out anyway and get back to you. Thanks for the link!

Hope everybody is having a good week. It's nice and sunny in Okinawa! Great to be alive isn't it!

(^_^)v

[orac]

Here's the quick summary of my post:

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though I'll make an exception if God wants to appeal to himself - but gaijin can't speak for God without God telling us first. Rape and genocide are wrong, not right, no matter what the Bible says or how much you hate the race of people you're killing, and my prediction for today is that gaijin is going to have a little trouble proving that every word in the Bible is literally true, but he'll continue to claim that it's reliable and accurate. Of course metaphor and allegory have nothing to do with myth, so he still has that option, right?

He'll also continue to refuse to admit that his claim that something can exist without being created proves that his original claim (that nothing can exist without a creator) is not actually consistent with his real beliefs. I think we wern't supposed to notice that our world supposedly needs a creator but "higher orders of existance" somehow have different rules. He can admit that different rules to his original proposition are valid, but doesn't want to consider that these new rules could apply to our own universe. Apparantly logical consistency isn't the highlight of creationist arguments, and I've also just learned that water may possibly be slightly damp.

Explaining why he's admitting to logical fallacies but stillw ants us to believe him will also prove quite tricky, but I hope he'll at least come up with something creative.

The summary of the summary: I have way too much time on my hands, and the entire thread is rehashing old arguments anyway. Will these people ever come up with something new? :)

Originally posted by gaijin
I would agree with your point that we should not substitute science for myth and superstition and that we should not leap to conslusions that have no foundation, but the problem here is that Christianity is not mythical or superstitious, nor does it lack foundation. You would have to prove it was before you could make a point like that to demonstrate that we should worship science over God.
Noone worships science.

Christianity is founded on myth - the garden of eden, talking animals, mythical floods, people being brought back to life thousands of years ago but not today, a gradual decline in God's power - he started out the creator, and today curing colds and sore fingers is about all he can manage. God's great miracles were all in an ancient golden past full of heros and evil demons and terrible magic. Where is that today? All we have now is stories and legends. Myth.

However, if you want to argue that the Bible isn't myth, feel free to claim (and prove) that NASA's moon landings were faked, that the hubble telescope is really just a computer simulation run by satanists to seduce people away from God, and that you believe a book written by men advocating the sale of rape victims to their rapist is a wonderful moral guide.

Originally posted by gaijin
Sure. God is not, and never has been, a drunken sadistic idiot. What evidence do you have to support your accusation?
Anyone who lets a 4 year old child die slowly and painfully of cancer is evil. "Sadistic" doesn't fully describe your god, but it's a good start.

Although you may think that's perfectly acceptable. Feel free to say that your God is wonderful for allowing such a beautiful thing if you must, but don't expect many people to join you in your appreciation of cancer. (Yes, yes, the traditional explanation is that many 4 year old children deserve to die like that either because of their terrible sins, or because they have to be punished for what Adam did. If you'ld like, tell us that doing nothing while children die painfully is your idea of a good thing - or admit that your God is doing something wrong.)

Originally posted by gaijin
In fact, this is what this whole discussion is about isn't it? That scientific discoveries point towards a creator?
That's not true. Please, let's leave the lying for Jesus to others.

Scientific discoveries point towards the validity of evolution, the validity of stars and planets forming naturally over billions of years, and the universe appearing in the big bang. I don't think I mentioned God in that list.

Originally posted by gaijin
Sure it does. If consciousness is something more than just biological process then it suggests the existence of a soul, which suggests the existence of God. I repeat my challenge.
Let me see if I understand your challenge. It runs something like this: "I believe there is a thing called a soul, but I have no proof so I challenge you all to find it for me or admit that I'm right." Great challenge. You've got vague unsupported suppositions, and you're presenting that as your evidence and wanting us to prove you wrong or to believe you. The same logic would allow me to call you a willing agent of satan, a purple goblin or a 600 billion ton newspaper, and expect you to either prove me wrong or to accept that it's the truth.

Btw, why did you ignore my last question on that topic? Was it too hard?

Can you please explain what evidence you have that consciousness isn't biological in origin? You're going on and on and on and on about science - but you've presented no evidence for any claims, just assertions and personal belief.

Failing that, what bothers you so much about that idea? Why do you want to believe that so much if you actually have no evidence to back up your belief?

Btw, if you think a personality, curiosity, desires and feelings are uniquely human attributes, get a pet. You'll soon learn differently.

It's a rule on earth - every kid has to have a dog. It's probably so they can learn to appreciate that even animals have feelings.

Originally posted by gaijin
That's a good question. This is going to be a little circular, but it's because of my beliefs.
Well, at least you're prepared to admit it openly. Tradition does dictate denial of that particular truth, though.

Also, circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. In other words, there is a serious flaw in your logic, and you've actually admitted as much. Now, after doing that why on earth do you imagine you'll be taken seriously?

Originally posted by gaijin
The Bible says that God was not created and I believe the Bible because it is a reliable document.
Appeal to authority. Your grasp of logic is astounding.

So, you've got the original front page of the Bible, with God's signature on it? Are you allowed to scan a copy so we can all see this? And will you share it with all the other religious scholars who don't yet know about it?

Originally posted by gaijin
If you want to disprove that to me then you'll have to prove that the Bible is not reliable.
Why are God's chosen people still waiting for their messiah?

Where's noah's ark, and how did he keep the lions from eating the koalas? (I didn't know koalas could swim all the way from australia, but I'll take your word for that.) And how did he manage to keep the polar bears, the camels and the elephants on one tiny boat?

Just what mountain do you stand on to see all the kingdoms of the world, or do all the heathen ones not count?

Just how does friday night and saturday night add up to three nights?

How come the egyptians didn't notice when they all drowned? I know there were a lot of frogs and dead firstborn sons around, but surely everyone dying would have been noticed. Incidentally, what's that about hardening pharoh's heart? If it just made him disobey God, wasn't it a bit of a setup? And if he did what he was going to do anyway, wasn't it unnecessary?

Where did the dinosaus come from, remembering that the earth is only 6000 or so years old. For that matter, why did God make the universe look so big when really all the stars are just points on the ceiling? And does NASA lose so many probes because they crash into the barrier between earth and heaven?

I'm sorry, but if you're a bible literalist then you've got a whole pile of questions to answer about why reality and the bible don't agree.

Then we get into questions about why the Bible says rapists are allowed to buy their victim as a bride (as long as she was a virgin who hadn't been bethrothed to another man - the Bible does at least say you're not allowed to rape anothe man's property.) You say that sort of thing is how you live your life, right? Um, ok, if you say so.

Ten, eleven and twelve are all the same number, right? Er, you did say the BIble was accurate, so surely if Jesus appears to a number of apostles, that number will be the same? Or is there evidence of a poor memory for an uncertain Bible author? While we're at it, how do you recognise who someone is without knowing who they are? I want to know that, because the Bible says it's possible but I can't do it (and it was done by a regular human, not Jesus.)

Btw, gaijin, you will answer every last one of these questions accurately, without appeal to authority, and without denying the reality of every last event and law I just listed. Unless, of course, you're prepared to admit that some of them don't quite fit in a reliable and accurate guide to the real world.

Every. Last. Question.

Do you understand? You've presented the Bible as the ultimate accurate guide to the nature of the universe and proper moral behavior.

Now you have the start of a challenge - just things I can think of off hand, without needing any help. Plenty of people have much longer lists if you can answer all that. (Traditional liberal explanations are that it's all just myth, metaphor, legend - but you're saying that it's accurate. The interesting thing about accurate descriptions of the real world is that subjective interpretation and inspiration isn't actually necessary. Instead, anything that's unclear oubtful or uncertain gets verified independantly.)

Besides, once you argue that Noah was a myth or that parts of the Bible only apply to the people at the time it was written I'll jump all over you wanting to know which passages of the Bible actually tell you this, why your reliable book doesn't reliably describe who the laws apply to, and why you claimed that christianity isn't founded on myth. You're in trouble here, and you're not the first person to completely fail to convert the heathens with mere unsupported assertions and the hope that we haven't already read the Bible cover to cover. Worse than that, we read the bits that they don't cover in sunday school. (I know this - I've been to literal sunday school.)

Originally posted by gaijin
Also, assuming that the nature of God is as people generally assume, that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, then it becomes impossible for there to be a higher order of existence than God. So, in that respect, God doesn't look created because of what we understand as being his nature..
So, who created this higher order of existance?

Can a thing exist without a creator, or does everything have a creator?

Oddly, you're now claiming that things can exist without being created. Unfortunately, changing the rules half way though isn't allowed.

You've now openly admitted that your original assumption was invalid. You have openly admitted that you believe there are circumstances which allow a thing to exist without a creator.

As a result, you must now start again to try and prove your original conclusion. All you're doing now is emphasising that you don't really believe your original claim. (Note: this higher order of existance is unproven, and you certainly haven't proven that the universe can't spring from a higher order universe without a creator - especially if things up there don't need a creator.)

Some days I wish there was a god so I could pray for him to do nasty things to people who claim to be talking about science but never actually provide any evidence for their claims.

Originally posted by gaijin
Or psychological testing of the mind of Christ according to the evidence we have of what he said and did to see if he was who he said he was. Archeological testing of the Bible to see if it is a reliable document. etc...
Lunatic asylums are full of Jesuses. All of whom say things just like in the Bible. Just how many saviours do you have?

[Doubting Didymus]

Sure. God is not, and never has been, a drunken sadistic idiot. What evidence do you have to support your accusation?

I detect the sound of a floodgate cracking.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by wiploc
2. The human looks created; therefore, there is probably a creator god.

A quibble, but that's not quite the claim: the claim is that something is too complex to have evolved, therefore must have been designed (or created). Where the IDists and other creationists, and now gaijin, run into a bit of trouble is demonstrating precisely why complex systems could not have evolved. To me, the human body looks remarkably uncreated; its design is so problematic that I find it impossible to believe that any intelligence went into it. (The bizarre "design" of the fetal circulatory system is one of my favorite examples, as it results in infants born with potentially fatal heart and circulatory defects; but for a simpler example, why on earth is the human female reproductive system "designed" so that fertilized eggs can implant and begin to grow in the fallopian tubes, where they cannot possible grow to full term, and will kill both the mother and with her the developing fetus itself if they are not aborted?)

2b. Humans are not like pies.

Bingo.

[Majestyk]

Originally posted by gaijin
I would agree with your point that we should not substitute science for myth and superstition and that we should not leap to conslusions that have no foundation, but the problem here is that Christianity is not mythical or superstitious, nor does it lack foundation. You would have to prove it was before you could make a point like that to demonstrate that we should worship science over God. Believe what you will and may you find happiness in your delusions.

[gaijin]

I'm going to respond to a couple of points here and then I'm going to sign out of this debate because it seems to be getting a little emotional, which is understandable considering the nature of the topic. It has been very enjoyable though and I am grateful to Orac and Don especially for being such spirited contributors. Feel free, therefore, to have the last word if you like. If you have any personal questions then you can email me at gaijindo4dan@hotmail.com and I'll see what I can do about getting you an answer.

So, FIRSTLY, free will means that we get to make our own choices, which is why we tend to screw a lot of stuff up. For God to intervene to stop us from doing wrong would be to violate our free will. He could create an earth where everybody was nice to each other and only good stuff happened, but then life would have no point because we'd all just be machines with no control over our own lives. It would end up being a horrible meaningless existence, a lot like the TV series Full House.

He can also prevent traumatic things like cancer from happening to people, but He is not going to do it in every single instance because the same situation as the above would result. Think about it as a father parenting a child. You can do some things to protect them, but encasing them in a protective bubble for their entire life is not going to do them any good whatsoever.

I have suffered a lot in my life and I have screwed a lot of things up, but I wouldn't be who I am today if I hadn't gone through all of that.

SECONDLY, I do not agree that Christianity is founded on a myth. Christianity is founded on Jesus Christ. I don't think there is much debate that Jesus actually lived, so the question becomes one of whether or not he was God. I don't think there is much debate that this is what he claimed. Whether or not you believe him is up to you, but there is no myth involved there.

THIRDLY, I have worked a lot with animals. I grew up and worked on a farm. I agree that animals have personality and some degree of intelligence, but I do not think that their minds compare to that of the human being. People are, fairly obviously I would argue, quite remarkably different and it all has something to do with our minds. We can perform complex reasoning, we can create complex objects and we can contemplate our own existence. I find it very difficult to believe that this just comes down to electrical signals in our brain. I'm sorry I can't offer any proof, but it just feels like something else is there, and evidently so do many other people or we wouldn't have words and phrases like "conscious", "sentient" and "self-aware".

FOURTHLY, I believe that the Bible is reliable because, amongst other things, it is historically accurate in terms of its descriptions of places and people, it is corroborated in many ways by other historical documents (much the Bible itself is a collection of such documents), it contains texts written by people such as Paul and Luke who would not have ulterior motive to lie, and it is personally verifiable through experience. I have not yet seen any evidence that can prove otherwise. It really is an incredible book, there is much about it that makes it different than other books in that it almost becomes a part of you as you read it. It has certainly changed my life.

I'm not a "Bible literalist", I don't necessarily believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and I don't think the moon landing was a hoax. If you have any specific points you would like to discuss then how about a formal debate? Otherwise, I'm happy to respond to them by email.


So, that's about it then I guess. Thanks to everybody who contributed to this debate, it has been very interesting and I have learned quite a lot through it. I hope you have also had a chance to review your stance and thoughts on the issue and that you feel you have benefited from doing so. I'll see some of you again in other forums I hope.

Drop me a line if you manage to get over to Okinawa sometime and I'll buy you a coffee, or perhaps some pie ;)

God bless,

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by gaijin
So, you're saying we're not conscious as such, that we're just processing information? It's just chemical signals?
Yes, and its testable. Eat a hit of LSD and tell me if the chemical does or does not interact with the chemicals in your brain, altering your consciousness. In fact, many drugs alter consciousness. When surgeons perform brain surgery, they can manipulate that person's consciousness by pressing on different parts of the brain. So yes, consciousness can be explained without resorting to the god of the gaps fallacy.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Aw shucks, looks like he ran away before I could tell him about Rickettsia prowazekii and Pediculus humanus's utter dependence on humans; about darkling beetle wings, mayfly adult mouthparts, laryngeal nerves, phorid flies, whiptail lizard sex, marsupial birth, human foetal circulation, bat lung ventilation, Ebola Zaire, influenza, Plasmodium falciparum (in itself, and wrt chloroquinine), our appendix, coccyx, third molars, knees, plantaris muscle, infant grasping reflex...

No, I'm not about to get into an email discussion. Been there, done that. But if anyone has questions on the above, do ask!

Cheers, Oolon

[Wounded King]

Personally, I don't think I'd find my free will violated by not getting cancer. I could quite easily feel in control of my life without worrying about contracting cancer.

This isn't a father protecting their children its a father dropping a bag of rattlesnakes and scorpions into the cradle, after all God designed us so that we were susceptible to cancer.

[HRG]

Originally posted by gaijin

So, FIRSTLY, free will means that we get to make our own choices, which is why we tend to screw a lot of stuff up. For God to intervene to stop us from doing wrong would be to violate our free will. He could create an earth where everybody was nice to each other and only good stuff happened, but then life would have no point because we'd all just be machines with no control over our own lives. It would end up being a horrible meaningless existence, a lot like the TV series Full House.


This "It ain't free will if it doesn't include the decision to dismember your family with an axe" argument is a standard apologetic tool. I think it is ridiculous.

Not being able to hurt our fellow human beings would not make us into machines, because not being able to breathe vaccuum doesn't make us either.

He can also prevent traumatic things like cancer from happening to people, but He is not going to do it in every single instance because the same situation as the above would result. Think about it as a father parenting a child. You can do some things to protect them, but encasing them in a protective bubble for their entire life is not going to do them any good whatsoever.

Invalid comparison. Only in this world with suffering - which your God allegedly has prepared -, it may unfortunately be necessary to expose children to various harms.

Regards,
HRG.

[NottyImp]

Well, he didn't last long, did he? Fascinating how often those so "sure of their faith" disappear from the debate when challenged on the ethical implications of what they believe.

He can also prevent traumatic things like cancer from happening to people, but He is not going to do it in every single instance because the same situation as the above would result.

And on what basis does your God choose to do this? Why is it that some will be favoured by his munifience and others will be left to die in protracted screaming agony?

It is deeply ironic to me that everytime we look at your "omnibenevolent" god, what we find is a being that fails to measure up to even the most basic and flawed notions of secular natural justice.

I think I'll take my chances with the monkey-men...

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by gaijin
So, FIRSTLY, free will means that we get to make our own choices, which is why we tend to screw a lot of stuff up. For God to intervene to stop us from doing wrong would be to violate our free will. He could create an earth where everybody was nice to each other and only good stuff happened, but then life would have no point because we'd all just be machines with no control over our own lives. It would end up being a horrible meaningless existence, a lot like the TV series Full House.

[last word]Gee, sounds like Heaven to me. :rolleyes: [/last word]

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by NottyImp
Well, he didn't last long, did he? Fascinating how often those so "sure of their faith" disappear from the debate when challenged on the ethical implications of what they believe.


I don't believe that was the challenge we gave him at all. The challenge was to support a basic premise that several of us showed to be quite faulty, and he never even attemptedto do so.

[Wounded King]

But he sure baked a mean metaphorical apple pie.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by HRG
Not being able to hurt our fellow human beings would not make us into machines,....]That is a good point (IMO), and it should and could also apply to "God."

-Don-