The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

For discussing religion and related topics.

Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Possumdude0 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:12 pm
([msg=41212]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Not at all. At no point has science demonstrated one iota of evidence for the notion that god created the universe.

Your entire argument presumes that the universe can't be eternal and that it needed to be caused in the first place. Reread what I said on the topic, if the universe needn't have a cause then your entire argument is shot. Even if it did all it proves is an uncaused cause...god's still not in the picture.


Half of the argument is about what attributes something would need to cause the universe. As I've pointed out before, the attributes needed to cause our universe are all attributes of God, meaning God is a possible cause.


Argument from ignorance. We don't know how the universe came to be with the big bang so god must have done it.


Reasonable conclusions drawn from the available evidence. Nowhere do I say, "we don't know, so it must be God." I say, "To do this sort of thing, you would need something very similar to God."


Unrelated note, are you a Juggalo by chance?


Probably not, since I don't know what that is. All Google gives me is stuff about fans of the Insane Clown Posse.


Nope, wrong again. There's no mind behind evolution and it works fine...tromping your theory of an ephemeral mind guiding the process.


I explicitly said evolution is mindless. I mentioned directed evolution as the only way it could be considered a "designer", since design implies intelligence. I didn't mean to imply that believe in directed evolution.


Well creationists claim that god designed humans as well, so it's not an unrelated topic.

Here's your argument in a nutshell:

1) The universe is fine tuned to support life, therefore
2) God must have designed the universe to be this way.

Now here's my question: what have you read, specifically, to support this position?


Actually, no. The fine-tuning was just a passing mention to support one of the attributes I claim can be attributed to the first cause. You've made a big deal out of it. However, that's not really even a good summary of the fine-tuning argument. It would be better summarized like this:

1) The universe is fine tuned to support life
2) This fine-tuning is improbable by random chance
3) Therefore, an intelligent being must have been involved in creating (or at least ordering) the universe.

I've heard famous biologists like Richard Dawkins (and, I think, someone in this thread) agree that life here on Earth could have been seeded or started by intelligent alien beings (Directed Panspermia). But if you try to posit that our universe as a whole could have been started or even organized by an intelligent being, even in a purely deistic sense, these same people will lash out with derision and counter-arguments to make the idea of universal intelligent design look ridiculous. You said earlier that I was arguing from ignorance because we don't know what happened before the Big Bang. But isn't it also arguing from ignorance to declare with absolute certainty that there is no deity because there is no evidence?


My point was that humans could have been designed much better. God apparently can design things but he's sort of thickheaded in the process, and as a result, he created us, with the obvious and easily addressable aforementioned weaknesses.


Yes, I get your point. My point was that God was not trying to make the best possible body for us.

Also, another point. Does your computer have sixteen terabytes of memory? No? Why not? Sixteen terabyte would be an awesome computer! Whoever designed that thing must be thick-headed to put in less!

The point here is that even when things aren't the best that they could be, there might be a good reason for them to be that way. In the case of your computer, it's probably because of cost, and maybe space limitation. Not being a biologist I can't comment in depth on the human body, but I know I've heard this argument put forth before by people who were educated enough to support it.


Good question, so why are there millions of planets to begin with? Why not just six and a sun or something?


Well, as a Christian, I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God. ;) Hundreds of trillions of stars... pretty freaking glorious! When I was a deist I didn't think about it much, but it made me very sure that aliens lived out there somewhere. Or that the deist god really liked stars.


It'd be interesting to see if another life-bearing planet had heard of Jesus. Lol.


Doubtful. At least, He wouldn't be called Jesus, since that was an entirely human name (about as popular then as John is now). The real interesting thing would be alien psychology, since I take "made in the image of God" to be a mental similarity, not a physical one.


Like a said, your god's a shitty designer.


Why's that? Maybe Andromeda will bring us much needed resources right when we've depleted what we've got here in the Milky Way. Maybe by that time our technology will have advanced far enough the the problems associated with galactic collision will be little more than minor annoyances to us. Unless you can see the future and know that this collision turns out totally bad, you don't really have grounds to call it shitty design.


Nope, as I said before, all your argument shows (assuming it's sound even, which I doubt) is that there needs to be an uncaused cause. No god in the equation at all.


An uncaused cause would be a god by any definition we have. Unless you redefine "god" to mean "being who totally did not create the universe". The only real escape from this is a multiverse spawning off countless universes. Since we don't have direct evidence at all, and the indirect evidence seems to point to a deity (in addition to the many other arguments for God's existence), I see no reason good to believe in the multiverse hypothesis.


This'll be my last response to you, I have other things to do and I think there's enough here for people reading this to see what's going on. You'll live for a while, die, and rot in the ground; my only hope is that you didn't waste too much of your one and only life on your knees, worshipping a lie.


I'm sorry to hear you're done with this discussion. I'm just one of those people who really loves a good argument, and you've been one of the more intelligent people I've argued with. I hate to see it end, but I understand that you just don't feel like going over and over these same points, which you've probably heard from others before, yet again.
Posts on the subjects of religion or morality are from a Christian's perspective

Posts on the subject of programming are from a coder's perspective

Posts on the subject of hacking are from a noob's perspective

Please phrase your responses accordingly
Possumdude0
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Pythous on Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:32 pm
([msg=41215]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Possumdude0 wrote:Also, another point. Does your computer have sixteen terabytes of memory? No? Why not? Sixteen terabyte would be an awesome computer! Whoever designed that thing must be thick-headed to put in less!

The point here is that even when things aren't the best that they could be, there might be a good reason for them to be that way. In the case of your computer, it's probably because of cost, and maybe space limitation. Not being a biologist I can't comment in depth on the human body, but I know I've heard this argument put forth before by people who were educated enough to support it.


So what you are saying is that an omnipotent, all-knowing, perfect being like "God" would still choose to create creatures that are badly designed- just because of limitations? If he is omnipotent and all knowing, then why wouldn't make us as perfect as possible?
He should be able to bypass any limitations that he might encounter without a second glance. If he is perfect than nothing would be able to influence him to avoid making much more efficient beings than us, other than reasons that he thinks up himself.
If we were created in his image, and we want to make the things that we create as perfect as possible (which I think that almost all humans inherently do), then wouldn't the god that we were the image of be the same?
Please don't give the excuse that if god is perfect then he would do things that don't make sense to us, but are perfectly understandable to him. Anyone can say something like this and you wouldn't be able to argue with it because there is no way to make evidence against it, or for it.

I could just as easily say that we all live in the matrix and we are used as fuel for robots, and you wouldn't be able to prove it right or wrong, because there wouldn't be any evidence against it or for it. It's the same with religion, the only difference is that more people believe in Christianity than the matrix :).
We did not invent the algorithm.
The algorithm consistently finds Jesus.
The algorithm killed Jeeves.
The algorithm is banned in China.
The algorithm is from Jersey.
The algorithm constantly finds Jesus.
This is not the algorithm. This is close.
User avatar
Pythous
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by msbachman on Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:28 am
([msg=41216]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Pythous wrote:I could just as easily say that we all live in the matrix and we are used as fuel for robots, and you wouldn't be able to prove it right or wrong, because there wouldn't be any evidence against it or for it. It's the same with religion, the only difference is that more people believe in Christianity than the matrix :).


That made me think of my first year of philosophy studies in college. It was a very elucidating experience that I believe taught me quite a bit about how people think as they mature intellectually.

To go on what you said, in one of the classes, it was posited that we indeed live in a "Matrix" sort of universe. As I remember the purpose of such was to demonstrate among other things that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and that we shouldn't deceive ourselves in living in a Matrix without adequate proof of such.

Several of the students were perturbed by the discussion; because the claim "we might live in the matrix" makes sense, and is a possibility (though unsupported by evidence), one can entertain the notion that it might be true. And I can't be sure about the next point, but I'll state it anyway: if you're inculcated in a religious background that accepts things at face value without demanding evidence to support claims, claims that we live in a Matrix are more difficult to deal with than they otherwise would be.

Certain aspects may even be explained better with the Matrix. This is directly applicable to the notion of god. We might be living on a 10,000 year old rock. There might be a god floating around in another dimension. Jesus might have been raised from the dead by this deity. Where the difficulty comes in for many is to gauge the relative veracity of two competing claims that both may be true; this flies in the face of schooling, which reinforces a single right answer. We each have to ponder the evidence and decide among two at least somewhat viable alternatives.

The reason why I suspect people have a hard time shaking religious beliefs is due to the fact that we're brought up to think of knowledge as something gained from reading books written by so-called experts. With such a paradigm the Bible fits in perfectly. It's only when you start to really get your hands dirty with critical examination of all involved that I think the Bible begins to appear extremely weak. I think of anyone I should know this as well as anyone: were I not forced to confront the bible in preparation for my former 'calling' of priesthood, I doubt I ever would have become an atheist.

The correct attitude, which you alluded to, is to accept claims of the religious with the same level of (in)credulity that you'd give to similar unfalsifiable statements like "we live in a Matrix." They're much closer than people realize: both are plausible but unsupported by anything but the most shaky of evidence. In both my attitude is that either could be true, it's conceivable that there's a god, that we live in a matrix, but that neither are supported sufficiently.

There I go again on one of my goddamned essay-posts.
"I'm going to get into your sister. I'm going to get my hands on your daughter."
~Gatito
User avatar
msbachman
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: In the sky lol
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Possumdude0 on Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:22 pm
([msg=41245]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Please don't give the excuse that if god is perfect then he would do things that don't make sense to us, but are perfectly understandable to him.


Well, He could... ;) . Don't worry, though. I feel confident that situations like that are rare, and if it does happen it's probably more common in personal issues than in scientific issues. I believe that God meant for us to study and understand the world around us.


So what you are saying is that an omnipotent, all-knowing, perfect being like "God" would still choose to create creatures that are badly designed- just because of limitations? If he is omnipotent and all knowing, then why wouldn't make us as perfect as possible?


This again goes to the main point I made on this issue: our bodies aren't meant to be perfect. They're meant to supported us for a century or less (sometimes a little bit more). And they do that job fairly well.

The reason why I suspect people have a hard time shaking religious beliefs is due to the fact that we're brought up to think of knowledge as something gained from reading books written by so-called experts.


I'd agree, although I wouldn't limit it to just religious beliefs. School textbooks instill a lot of "knowledge" in our heads that is non-religious (although usually not anti-religious). It doesn't at all encourage independent thought.

Evolution really annoys me in this regard. Not because evolution is necessarily anti-religious (I don't think it is). But because it is taught as if it were necessarily anti-religious. I know several people who believe, because of what they learned in school, that evolution absolutely disproves the idea of a deity. All by itself, without any other evidence or arguments. To them, if evolution is true then no deities can possibly exist. Which makes very little sense. Evolution would fit excellently into Deism, and even a few theistic beliefs.

Not that I really blame the schools for this. There's no need to go over each and every scientific theory and discuss the religious implications. But they could make it more clear that the theory of evolution only applies to biology, something they seem to be failing at. I have a friend who told me, in all seriousness, that I can't believe in the Big Bang theory because it depends on evolution.

The correct attitude, which you alluded to, is to accept claims of the religious with the same level of (in)credulity that you'd give to similar unfalsifiable statements like "we live in a Matrix."


Actually, the correct attitude is to accept claims of any belief system with the same level of incredulity that you'd give to statements like "we live in a Matrix". Atheism doesn't get a free ride either.


There I go again on one of my goddamned essay-posts.


:D It's ok. Hit on the right topic and I'll rant on for pages.
Posts on the subjects of religion or morality are from a Christian's perspective

Posts on the subject of programming are from a coder's perspective

Posts on the subject of hacking are from a noob's perspective

Please phrase your responses accordingly
Possumdude0
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Pythous on Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:52 pm
([msg=41246]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Image

All joking aside, what is you're theory for why "God" didn't make us perfect?
We did not invent the algorithm.
The algorithm consistently finds Jesus.
The algorithm killed Jeeves.
The algorithm is banned in China.
The algorithm is from Jersey.
The algorithm constantly finds Jesus.
This is not the algorithm. This is close.
User avatar
Pythous
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Possumdude0 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:47 am
([msg=41256]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

All joking aside, what is you're theory for why "God" didn't make us perfect?


Well, there was really no reason to. Actually, I think He might have had a reason not to. A perfect body would not grow old. It would not die. And so a perfect body would not work for us at all, since we're not supposed to be in these bodies forever.
Posts on the subjects of religion or morality are from a Christian's perspective

Posts on the subject of programming are from a coder's perspective

Posts on the subject of hacking are from a noob's perspective

Please phrase your responses accordingly
Possumdude0
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by VACUOUS on Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:10 am
([msg=41260]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Possumdude0 wrote:
All joking aside, what is you're theory for why "God" didn't make us perfect?


Well, there was really no reason to. Actually, I think He might have had a reason not to. A perfect body would not grow old. It would not die. And so a perfect body would not work for us at all, since we're not supposed to be in these bodies forever.


SENSE THAT MAKES = 0
VACUOUS
New User
New User
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:55 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Pythous on Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:50 pm
([msg=41264]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Possumdude0 wrote:
All joking aside, what is you're theory for why "God" didn't make us perfect?


Well, there was really no reason to. Actually, I think He might have had a reason not to. A perfect body would not grow old. It would not die. And so a perfect body would not work for us at all, since we're not supposed to be in these bodies forever.


OK then, assuming that that is true, why would "God" not make us better in other ways?
We did not invent the algorithm.
The algorithm consistently finds Jesus.
The algorithm killed Jeeves.
The algorithm is banned in China.
The algorithm is from Jersey.
The algorithm constantly finds Jesus.
This is not the algorithm. This is close.
User avatar
Pythous
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by msbachman on Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:26 pm
([msg=41265]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Possumdude0 wrote:
All joking aside, what is you're theory for why "God" didn't make us perfect?


Well, there was really no reason to. Actually, I think He might have had a reason not to. A perfect body would not grow old. It would not die. And so a perfect body would not work for us at all, since we're not supposed to be in these bodies forever.



Another LULZ-worthy aspect of the faith is that Genesis 5:5 states that Adam lived 900+ years. So primitive man, great body, lives for almost a thousand years. Modern man, despite all the advances of medicine, struggles to make it 80 years, with an uphill battle after 60.

So that's another knot for Christians and Jews to untie. God DID make man with good bodies. For unknown reasons, his work fell apart.

Or, the writers of the OT didn't have a clue what they were talking about, or were willingly fabricating a quilt of myths helpful at the time to explain the world around them.
"I'm going to get into your sister. I'm going to get my hands on your daughter."
~Gatito
User avatar
msbachman
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: In the sky lol
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake

Post by Possumdude0 on Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:06 am
([msg=41276]see Re: The "proof" of the Christian God being fake[/msg])

Another LULZ-worthy aspect of the faith is that Genesis 5:5 states that Adam lived 900+ years. So primitive man, great body, lives for almost a thousand years. Modern man, despite all the advances of medicine, struggles to make it 80 years, with an uphill battle after 60.


I've been trying to avoid the whole sin-degrades-stuff argument (since even man's original bodies were not perfect). But that's why our bodies got worse and worse. After a number of generations of degradation, it settled out at around 120 years.

Also, you shouldn't mistake average lifespan and maximum lifespan. Man's average lifespan has changed a lot over the years. In ancient times the average lifespan could be as low as the 20s or 30s. Now, in more developed countries, it's close to 80. But our maximum lifespan has hovered around 120 throughout recorded history.

I try to avoid arguments that are based on things my opponents do not yet believe in. The cosmological argument I gave in previous posts is based in the Big Bang theory, which is generally accepted. That's why it's my favorite argument to start off with, because I'll have common ground. Arguing that sin has caused a degradation in creation leaves me with no common ground. Without any common ground, arguments never get anywhere at all.

Another note: Genesis 6:3 "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in [1] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'"

I used to think this passage meant the maximum lifespan was set at 120 years (with some individual variation). But while reading some stuff for this post I came across an alternate interpretation that the 120 years is the amount of time until the flood. I haven't given much thought to this interpretation yet, since I only just heard of it, but it is possible that my interpretation has been wrong. If someone else ever brings it up, keep this in mind.
Posts on the subjects of religion or morality are from a Christian's perspective

Posts on the subject of programming are from a coder's perspective

Posts on the subject of hacking are from a noob's perspective

Please phrase your responses accordingly
Possumdude0
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron