The flaw in arguments for god. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The flaw in arguments for god.


Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 01:07
I'd like the theists to watch this and tell me where you think it's wrong. We've been over the points in this video so many times and for many it just won't sink in. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind but it'll make a nice thread to link back to the next time someone gives the, "Well you can't prove god doesn't exist!" argument as if it's some all purpose debate winning statement.

Putting faith in its place - YouTube

GreenDrake
06-06-2012, 05:59
Sums it up quite well. Thanks for sharing.

Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 08:32
Yes it does. I expect this one to be largely ignored. Just like it never happened. :whistling:

dbcooper
06-06-2012, 09:26
Hell: an excessive punishment - YouTube

Geko45
06-06-2012, 09:53
Wish we had that video in the intellectual honesty thread.

Vic Hays
06-06-2012, 10:25
Hell: an excessive punishment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQapU&feature=player_embedded)

Hell as it is taught by some is excessive punishment.

The Bible is clear on the subject. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. This is not excessive seeing all of the non believers believe they will die and enter oblivion. The difference is that Christians believe the promise of the gift of eternal life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

cowboywannabe
06-06-2012, 10:51
Gunhaver, thank you for that refreshing breeze of common sence.

Rally Vincent
06-06-2012, 11:35
Well, I'm catholic. But, great video.

scottz0369
06-06-2012, 18:50
As a Theist (Christian in particular), I found a couple of things interesting in this video, aside from the contempt for religion in general.
The narrator noted (and I’m paraphrasing here; I don’t have a transcript) that our brains are fallible and our limited technology gives us gaps in our understanding. I completely agree with that statement. As science advances, we get new information, which leads to new conclusions. For example, I remember clearly the warnings about the coming Ice Age when I was a kid. Science has advanced, and we now have more to worry about (if scientists are to be believed) from global warming. My experience has been to take science with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to theories. We know the universe exists, and at some point our world and life on it came into being. What we don’t know is how. Until someone can replicate it, any explanation is a theory. I’ve chosen to place my trust in the Bible, and its explanations of how things work. Note that the Bible says that God created the Earth and everything on it. What it doesn’t say is how. At some point in the future, perhaps our understanding of how such a thing could come to be will improve, but I don’t need an ironclad explanation for something to believe in it. I just need a preponderance of evidence to place my trust in something. If we agree that our minds are fallible, and our technology limited, then to put all of our faith in people (who used their minds and technology to come to a particular conclusion) seems to defeat the thesis of this entire video.
Logic is an important skill, but it only goes so far, but at some point, “faith” has to come into play. For example, I flew to Georgia last month. I don’t personally know the pilots, the maintenance crew, or any of the other things that come into play to keep a plane in the air. Now, using evidence of observations and experience, I can make a judgment that everything works correctly the vast majority of the time, but occasionally they don’t. I put my trust, or faith in the pilots, crew, etc. to get me where I want to go safely. Same when it comes to my faith. I don’t claim to understand the mechanics of creation, but there’s enough other information in the Bible that does explain many things (human nature, especially), that I have chosen to put my trust/faith in it.
Another point I agreed with was when the narrator said (again, I’m paraphrasing) that if a person should be honest with (yourself) about what you know and don’t know. Back to my Ice Age example, 30 or so years ago, I (and many others) could have said that I know an Ice Age is coming because scientists said so. What I didn’t know at the time was what methods the scientists were using, if their data analysis was accurate, etc. Turns out they were wrong.
I don’t believe that science and religion (Christianity anyway) are mutually exclusive, nor do any of the Christians I’ve known throughout the years. The same can’t be said for some of the highly-educated people I know.
So back to what I think was the original point of the video, the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a creator. That’s correct, I can’t prove a creator using logic. Nor can I prove that George Washington existed. I do have credible evidence that he did, so I put my trust in those that say he existed. Same for the God of the Bible. There’s enough credible evidence for me that it’s accurate, so I choose to put my faith in what it says. On an aside, I was once an agnostic until I started looking at the evidence myself, but it still required a leap of faith to believe.
One observation I took away from the video was the distaste for someone trying to convince another to come to their way of thinking. What then was the point of the video? If it was made for people that already subscribe to a certain belief system –use of logic in this case – then it seems like a waste of time and effort for the person who created it. If it was to change the mind of someone that doesn’t hold these same beliefs, then that seems hypocritical.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind; I doubt I’ve got the power to do that. But if I’m going to be honest with myself about what I know and don’t know, I’ve got to look at the other side of the argument, weigh the evidence, and make a decision. That’s what led me to becoming a believer in the first place. All this talk about concrete evidence being required to believe something seems intellectually dishonest as there are very few things we know with absolute certainty, but we routinely put our trust (faith, if you will) in people and things based on our imperfect assessment of incomplete information. If I hold of a decision until I’ve got all the associated information, I’d never make a decision. Nor would most people.


If you’re interested in logical arguments from the Christian perspective, check out some podcasts from Ravi Zacharias. He’s far more eloquent than I.

Scott

juggy4711
06-06-2012, 20:25
As a Theist (Christian in particular), I found a couple of things interesting in this video, aside from the contempt for religion in general.

If you want folks to read your posts I'd suggest not using a font and font size that does not hurts folks eyes. Seriously WTF is up with that?

juggy4711
06-06-2012, 20:29
As a Deists of sorts I found that down right refreshing.

Kingarthurhk
06-06-2012, 20:41
Hell: an excessive punishment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU&feature=player_embedded)

http://www.helltruth.com/

Tilley
06-06-2012, 20:41
If you want folks to read your posts I'd suggest not using a font and font size that does not hurts folks eyes. Seriously WTF is up with that?

Don't make him never no mind. We is a troublesome bunch here, but we welcomes us strangers round there parts!

Welcome to RI Scott! :wavey:

Kingarthurhk
06-06-2012, 20:46
If you want folks to read your posts I'd suggest not using a font and font size that does not hurts folks eyes. Seriously WTF is up with that?

Probably a word processor to take care of spelling faux pas. This is a problem I typically have, because I tend to type quickly and off the cuff without the use of a spell checker. This particular board does not have an internal spell checker, and it tends to be the raison d'etre of Atheists to portray Theists as stupid by nit picking their grammar and spelling. Rather than subject himself to such scrutiny, I suspect he has chosen to type his response in a word processor and then paste the contents to a post.

juggy4711
06-06-2012, 21:12
Don't make him never no mind. We is a troublesome bunch here, but we welcomes us strangers round there parts!

Welcome to RI Scott! :wavey:

What? :dunno:

Probably a word processor to take care of spelling faux pas. This is a problem I typically have, because I tend to type quickly and off the cuff without the use of a spell checker. This particular board does not have an internal spell checker, and it tends to be the raison d'etre of Atheists to portray Theists as stupid by nit picking their grammar and spelling. Rather than subject himself to such scrutiny, I suspect he has chosen to type his response in a word processor and then paste the contents to a post.

Again what? When I misspell a word GT underlines it with red squiggly. If I brush the text and right click it shows options for acceptable spelling or in other words GT has spell check built in. :dunno:

Syclone538
06-06-2012, 21:49
As a Theist (Christian in particular), I found a couple of things interesting in this video, aside from the contempt for religion in general.

The narrator noted (and I’m paraphrasing here; I don’t have a transcript) that our brains are fallible and our limited technology gives us gaps in our understanding. I completely agree with that statement. As science advances, we get new information, which leads to new conclusions. For example, I remember clearly the warnings about the coming Ice Age when I was a kid. Science has advanced, and we now have more to worry about (if scientists are to be believed) from global warming. My experience has been to take science with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to theories. We know the universe exists, and at some point our world and life on it came into being. What we don’t know is how. Until someone can replicate it, any explanation is a theory. I’ve chosen to place my trust in the Bible, and its explanations of how things work. Note that the Bible says that God created the Earth and everything on it. What it doesn’t say is how. At some point in the future, perhaps our understanding of how such a thing could come to be will improve, but I don’t need an ironclad explanation for something to believe in it. I just need a preponderance of evidence to place my trust in something. If we agree that our minds are fallible, and our technology limited, then to put all of our faith in people (who used their minds and technology to come to a particular conclusion) seems to defeat the thesis of this entire video.

Logic is an important skill, but it only goes so far, but at some point, “faith” has to come into play. For example, I flew to Georgia last month. I don’t personally know the pilots, the maintenance crew, or any of the other things that come into play to keep a plane in the air. Now, using evidence of observations and experience, I can make a judgment that everything works correctly the vast majority of the time, but occasionally they don’t. I put my trust, or faith in the pilots, crew, etc. to get me where I want to go safely. Same when it comes to my faith. I don’t claim to understand the mechanics of creation, but there’s enough other information in the Bible that does explain many things (human nature, especially), that I have chosen to put my trust/faith in it.

Another point I agreed with was when the narrator said (again, I’m paraphrasing) that if a person should be honest with (yourself) about what you know and don’t know. Back to my Ice Age example, 30 or so years ago, I (and many others) could have said that I know an Ice Age is coming because scientists said so. What I didn’t know at the time was what methods the scientists were using, if their data analysis was accurate, etc. Turns out they were wrong.

I don’t believe that science and religion (Christianity anyway) are mutually exclusive, nor do any of the Christians I’ve known throughout the years. The same can’t be said for some of the highly-educated people I know.

So back to what I think was the original point of the video, the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a creator. That’s correct, I can’t prove a creator using logic. Nor can I prove that George Washington existed. I do have credible evidence that he did, so I put my trust in those that say he existed. Same for the God of the Bible. There’s enough credible evidence for me that it’s accurate, so I choose to put my faith in what it says. On an aside, I was once an agnostic until I started looking at the evidence myself, but it still required a leap of faith to believe.

One observation I took away from the video was the distaste for someone trying to convince another to come to their way of thinking. What then was the point of the video? If it was made for people that already subscribe to a certain belief system –use of logic in this case – then it seems like a waste of time and effort for the person who created it. If it was to change the mind of someone that doesn’t hold these same beliefs, then that seems hypocritical.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind; I doubt I’ve got the power to do that. But if I’m going to be honest with myself about what I know and don’t know, I’ve got to look at the other side of the argument, weigh the evidence, and make a decision. That’s what led me to becoming a believer in the first place. All this talk about concrete evidence being required to believe something seems intellectually dishonest as there are very few things we know with absolute certainty, but we routinely put our trust (faith, if you will) in people and things based on our imperfect assessment of incomplete information. If I hold of a decision until I’ve got all the associated information, I’d never make a decision. Nor would most people.

If you’re interested in logical arguments from the Christian perspective, check out some podcasts from Ravi Zacharias. He’s far more eloquent than I.

Scott


This needs to go in every thread in GTRI, and this looks like a good place to put it.

I'm not sure, but I'm thinking maybe you are under the mistaken impression that most atheists believe there is no god or think they know there is no god. The vast majority of atheists are also agnostic, and simply lack belief in one more god then you lack belief in.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

ModGlock17
06-06-2012, 22:03
I would never attempt to rationalize God "into existence" for another. My observations in life and my studies convinced me that it is ONLY possible to find God if you seek God.

If you don't, then I would not waste my time.

Similarly, in my engineering business, I would never waste time with an individual who has no interest in completing a job. Tired of innovations of childish reasoning. Never let people who don't "have the heart" to take your time away from people who "do have hearts!"

Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 22:13
Probably a word processor to take care of spelling faux pas. This is a problem I typically have, because I tend to type quickly and off the cuff without the use of a spell checker. This particular board does not have an internal spell checker, and it tends to be the raison d'etre of Atheists to portray Theists as stupid by nit picking their grammar and spelling. Rather than subject himself to such scrutiny, I suspect he has chosen to type his response in a word processor and then paste the contents to a post.

GT does have a spell checker. That's what all those red underlines are. The only nitpicking of grammar or spelling I've seen here has come from Blast. When we want to portray theists as stupid we don't need to bring grammar or spelling up at all.

Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 22:17
http://www.helltruth.com/

Everybody gets to define and interpret hell however they like because it's an imaginary concept. How about commenting on the original video I posted?

Kingarthurhk
06-06-2012, 22:19
GT does have a spell checker. That's what all those red underlines are. The only nitpicking of grammar or spelling I've seen here has come from Blast. When we want to portray theists as stupid we don't need to bring grammar or spelling up at all.

My posts don't have a red line for spelling. I've looked for a spell checker without success. Also, for the record I have been chided by Muscogee for spelling and grammar. However, to be fair, I have been on some legally prescribed pain medicine for a rather nasty injury I received.

Syclone538
06-06-2012, 22:46
My posts don't have a red line for spelling. I've looked for a spell checker without success. Also, for the record I have been chided by Muscogee for spelling and grammar. However, to be fair, I have been on some legally prescribed pain medicine for a rather nasty injury I received.

I'm sorry to hear that.

As I'm typing this, your name and Muscogee get the red underline. It will not be there once I post, only while on the "Reply to Thread" page.

Tilley
06-06-2012, 23:03
I'm sorry to hear that.

As I'm typing this, your name and Muscogee get the red underline. It will not be there once I post, only while on the "Reply to Thread" page.

Actually that red underline signifies those with a lost soul. Try writing Animal Mother and you will see the red underline again.

Gunhaver
06-06-2012, 23:09
Actually that red underline signifies those with a lost soul. Try writing Animal Mother and you will see the red underline again.

:rofl:

Animal Mother
06-06-2012, 23:23
I'm sorry to hear that.

As I'm typing this, your name and Muscogee get the red underline. It will not be there once I post, only while on the "Reply to Thread" page.I'm fairly certain the spell check is a function of the browser, not the forum software. For example, I get spelling prompts in Firefox and Chrome, but not in IE.

Guss
06-07-2012, 01:37
...
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind; I doubt I’ve got the power to do that. But if I’m going to be honest with myself about what I know and don’t know, I’ve got to look at the other side of the argument, weigh the evidence, and make a decision. That’s what led me to becoming a believer in the first place. All this talk about concrete evidence being required to believe something seems intellectually dishonest as there are very few things we know with absolute certainty, but we routinely put our trust (faith, if you will) in people and things based on our imperfect assessment of incomplete information. If I hold of a decision until I’ve got all the associated information, I’d never make a decision. Nor would most people.

...

You speak of imperfect assessments. The scientific mind makes reference to "confidence levels" which would correspond to that. These confidence levels are based on experience. Our experience with the god hypothesis is that it has so little going for it that it is unworthy of belief. What on earth happened to you that you believe it? You say you don't expect to change anyone's mind, which implies that you have nothing to show behind your belief.

I have beliefs too. I believe that if I drive across a bridge, it will not collapse. I have confidence because I know that bridges must be designed by engineers who have a body of tested knowledge behind them. I have confidence because I know that my state has an inspection system to look for bridge decay. That still leaves me vulnerable to things like acts of sabotage, but I can still carry on with a high confidence level based on actual outcomes. I have absolutely zero evidence of the existence of an immortal soul, so I don't even concern myself with further thoughts of it.

"a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed." - Anthony Kenny

Blast
06-07-2012, 02:48
GT does have a spell checker. That's what all those red underlines are. The only nitpicking of grammar or spelling I've seen here has come from Blast. When we want to portray theists as stupid we don't need to bring grammar or spelling up at all.
One time I "nitpicked" your spelling just for fun. I don't go around pointing out errors in grammar/spelling to show the stupidity of others. There is no need. Some of the atheists here do well demonstrating their stupidity.

As for the vid, makes some good points I'm already aware of. Yet is inconclusive. Does not negate the existence of a supreme creator.

Kingarthurhk
06-07-2012, 05:48
I'm sorry to hear that.

As I'm typing this, your name and Muscogee get the red underline. It will not be there once I post, only while on the "Reply to Thread" page.

I guess mine does not function, because I have pop-up blocker.

scottz0369
06-07-2012, 20:01
What? :dunno:



Again what? When I misspell a word GT underlines it with red squiggly. If I brush the text and right click it shows options for acceptable spelling or in other words GT has spell check built in. :dunno:
Actually, I tried to type my response during lunch at work, and after 30 minutes of wrestling with my tiny "smart phone" keyboard, my fat fingers deleted everything. So, during my next break, I typed up a response on my computer and emailed it to myself, then cut/pasted it here when I got home.
Sorry the format caused so much consternation. I didn't realize there was a protocol for this sort of thing.

scottz0369
06-07-2012, 20:18
You speak of imperfect assessments. The scientific mind makes reference to "confidence levels" which would correspond to that. These confidence levels are based on experience. Our experience with the god hypothesis is that it has so little going for it that it is unworthy of belief. What on earth happened to you that you believe it? You say you don't expect to change anyone's mind, which implies that you have nothing to show behind your belief.

I have beliefs too. I believe that if I drive across a bridge, it will not collapse. I have confidence because I know that bridges must be designed by engineers who have a body of tested knowledge behind them. I have confidence because I know that my state has an inspection system to look for bridge decay. That still leaves me vulnerable to things like acts of sabotage, but I can still carry on with a high confidence level based on actual outcomes. I have absolutely zero evidence of the existence of an immortal soul, so I don't even concern myself with further thoughts of it.

"a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed." - Anthony Kenny

What on earth indeed. I looked at both sides of the argument, and made a decision. It's not as shocking as it seems. I'm familiar with confidence levels from 3 grad school statistics classes. I'd prefer to go back through SERE school than take another stats course. My point is that we know very little from direct knowledge, rather we put our trust (faith, if you will) in the opinions and conclusions of others, as well as our imperfect knowledge of the facts.
You seem to put a lot of confidence in people and things. Has anyone ever let you down? Any experience with lax inspectors or faulty materials? I drive over bridges too, and for the same reasons you do, I trust that it won't collapse based on past experience and indirect evidence. However, I've known incompetent engineers and inspectors that phone it in.
How does a belief differ from faith? Aren't they both ways to make predictions and assumptions on the future?
Again, I can't convince you, that's wasn't the purpose for my response. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. Brother, you are free to take it or leave it. I have plenty to show for my belief, but that wasn't the subject of this particular thread.

scottz0369
06-07-2012, 20:33
This needs to go in every thread in GTRI, and this looks like a good place to put it.

I'm not sure, but I'm thinking maybe you are under the mistaken impression that most atheists believe there is no god or think they know there is no god. The vast majority of atheists are also agnostic, and simply lack belief in one more god then you lack belief in.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

I'm familiar with this. I didn't have the time to go into the details in the time I had. This is one of the first arguments I present to someone that claims to be an atheist. My experience is that the majority are agnostic. I also present this to Christians that are so for no other reason than family tradition. It's not enough for me for a person to say they're a Christian or (insert other belief or non-belief here) without knowing what that means. The exception to this rule was when I debated religion with my Iraqi counterparts when I was embedded with an Iraqi Army Battalion. Pushing too hard there can truly be life-threatening.

Syclone538
06-07-2012, 21:35
Actually, I tried to type my response during lunch at work, and after 30 minutes of wrestling with my tiny "smart phone" keyboard, my fat fingers deleted everything. So, during my next break, I typed up a response on my computer and emailed it to myself, then cut/pasted it here when I got home.
Sorry the format caused so much consternation. I didn't realize there was a protocol for this sort of thing.

Tab for a paragraph doesn't show up, so you have to put a blank line in for a new paragraph. Also, if you cut and paste, after you paste, preview your post, then look for any tags such as then and delete them.

That sucks to lose a long post like that.

Animal Mother
06-07-2012, 23:03
Thatís correct, I canít prove a creator using logic. Nor can I prove that George Washington existed. I do have credible evidence that he did, so I put my trust in those that say he existed. Same for the God of the Bible. Thereís enough credible evidence for me that itís accurate, so I choose to put my faith in what it says. On an aside, I was once an agnostic until I started looking at the evidence myself, but it still required a leap of faith to believe. What objective evidence do you have for the creator as described in the Bible, or by modern religions, that's equivalent to the evidence we have for George Washington?

WS6
06-26-2012, 17:26
I'd like the theists to watch this and tell me where you think it's wrong. We've been over the points in this video so many times and for many it just won't sink in. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind but it'll make a nice thread to link back to the next time someone gives the, "Well you can't prove god doesn't exist!" argument as if it's some all purpose debate winning statement.

Putting faith in its place - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=relmfu)

At the 2:00 minute mark, this is stated:

Logic CAN'T show that possible beings actually exist, without EVIDENCE.

Define the term evidence.

At the 2:52 mark:

Minds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change.

Why?

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 18:37
Define the term evidence. Does the video really use the word evidence in such an unusual way that you can't comprehend what is meant?

WS6
06-26-2012, 18:43
Does the video really use the word evidence in such an unusual way that you can't comprehend what is meant?

I might be able to address your question, when I have an answer to mine.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 18:55
I might be able to address your question, when I have an answer to mine.

Define the term evidence. Information which supports or contradicts a hypothesis.

WS6
06-26-2012, 19:09
Information which supports or contradicts a hypothesis.

Are there bounds or limitations to the type or category of acceptable information?

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 19:15
Are there bounds or limitations to the type or category of acceptable information?
In the instance of showing possible beings exist, one presumes such evidence would need to be objectively verifiable to be of any value.

WS6
06-26-2012, 19:32
In the instance of showing possible beings exist, one presumes such evidence would need to be objectively verifiable to be of any value.

What are the means needed to meet this objectively verifiable criteria? Also, please explain why you presume this need.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 19:45
What are the means needed to meet this objectively verifiable criteria? Evidence which is objective and verifiable would meet the criteria.
Also, please explain why you presume this need. I presume it because such evidence is the foundation of actual knowledge.

WS6
06-26-2012, 20:07
Evidence which is objective and verifiable would meet the criteria.
I presume it because such evidence is the foundation of actual knowledge.

I'll consider this point a bit more. How about you or Gunhaver addressing my second question:

At the 2:52 mark:

Minds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change.

Why?

Gunhaver
06-26-2012, 21:30
I'll consider this point a bit more. How about you or Gunhaver addressing my second question:

Why not? Seems like a silly question and I'm not sure where you are having trouble with the concept. How would a mind function without change? How could anything be created without going through a change?

And to answer one question back, I assume the need, you assume the need, everyone assumes the need for objective verifiable evidence in every aspect of our lives. It's why you don't send money to Nigerian princes or buy those enhancement pills. Without it you're just someone selling a story. Religious people even claim evidence is objective and verifiable when they know it isn't because they understand that credibility hinges on it.

WS6
06-27-2012, 02:54
Why not? Seems like a silly question and I'm not sure where you are having trouble with the concept.

Well, you can take your Chick Comic video and stuff it, if we theists only are going to have our questions characterized as silly. Furthermore, it seems that you are the one having trouble in that you can't conceptualize a mind or purposeful creation that does not depend on change.

How would a mind function without change? How could anything be created without going through a change?

Why are you asking questions me on a point made by your video? I am kind of open to seeing the objectively verifiable evidence that supports such a statement.

And to answer one question back, I assume the need, you assume the need, everyone assumes the need for objective verifiable evidence in every aspect of our lives. It's why you don't send money to Nigerian princes or buy those enhancement pills.

What is that objective verifiable evidence that you consider with regard to Nigerian princess and enhancement pills?

Without it you're just someone selling a story. Religious people even claim evidence is objective and verifiable when they know it isn't because they understand that credibility hinges on it.

Such as?

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 03:20
Well, you can take your Chick Comic video and stuff it, if we theists only are going to have our questions characterized as silly. Furthermore, it seems that you are the one having trouble in that you can't conceptualize a mind or purposeful creation that does not depend on change. Can you? If something does not exist, then it is created, isn't that change? If, for example, you don't know the definition of the word evidence, but then you learn that definition your mind is changed by the addition of that information. Can you give an example of a functional mind or an instance of creation that does not also involve change?

WS6
06-27-2012, 04:16
Can you?

Yes, I can.

If something does not exist, then it is created, isn't that change? If, for example, you don't know the definition of the word evidence, but then you learn that definition your mind is changed by the addition of that information. Can you give an example of a functional mind [ ... ]

That of the Unmoved Mover.

[ ... ] or an instance of creation that does not also involve change?

Consider that motion (change) is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentially to actuality. In the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change.

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 04:33
Yes, I can. I'm sure we all eagerly await that event.
That of the Unmoved Mover.You've shown such a being exists? Could you direct me to that proof, I seem to have overlooked it.
Consider that motion (change) is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentially to actuality.No, motion is change in position with relation to time.
In the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change.Everything is created out of nothing? Items just pop into existence?

eracer
06-27-2012, 04:38
Yes it does. I expect this one to be largely ignored. Just like it never happened. :whistling:
Well now...that video sums it up quite nicely.

3:40 hit a high note for me. Believe whatever you want. But don't pretend to seek the truth through faith.

Lone Wolf8634
06-27-2012, 08:52
Well now...that video sums it up quite nicely.

3:40 hit a high note for me. Believe whatever you want. But don't pretend to seek the truth through faith.

Quite good, Gunhaver. I'd say the logic of that video is pretty hard to argue with.

WS6
06-27-2012, 09:15
I'm sure we all eagerly await that event.

You've shown such a being exists? Could you direct me to that proof, I seem to have overlooked it.

No, motion is change in position with relation to time.

Everything is created out of nothing? Items just pop into existence?

What part of the term conceptualize do you not understand? Now, address the issue of why "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change". I really want to see the underpinning objectively verifiable evidence for this assertion.

scccdoc
06-27-2012, 09:19
I would never attempt to rationalize God "into existence" for another. My observations in life and my studies convinced me that it is ONLY possible to find God if you seek God.

If you don't, then I would not waste my time.

Similarly, in my engineering business, I would never waste time with an individual who has no interest in completing a job. Tired of innovations of childish reasoning. Never let people who don't "have the heart" to take your time away from people who "do have hearts!"


Proverbs 2 : 1-6

muscogee
06-27-2012, 10:01
Probably a word processor to take care of spelling faux pas. This is a problem I typically have, because I tend to type quickly and off the cuff without the use of a spell checker. This particular board does not have an internal spell checker, and it tends to be the raison d'etre of Atheists to portray Theists as stupid by nit picking their grammar and spelling. Rather than subject himself to such scrutiny, I suspect he has chosen to type his response in a word processor and then paste the contents to a post.

It's not necessarily the grammar. That's only a symptom of the greater problem. When you type "quickly and off the cuff" you're obviously thinking the the same way. You don't proof read. You don't read what you have written and ask yourself if it makes sense of if it will have any impact on your argument. You give an emotional response rather than a thoughtful reasoned response. You mentioned you have a graduate degree. I don't see how you got away with that in graduate school.

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 10:12
What part of the term conceptualize do you not understand? I understand that you can conceptualize such a being, now I'm asking you to demonstrate such an entity exists.
Now, address the issue of why "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change". That's already been addressed. The very acts of thinking or creation require change as a core component.
I really want to see the underpinning objectively verifiable evidence for this assertion. The changes which the brain goes through and the existence of newly created objects would provide the evidence you require.

WS6
06-27-2012, 10:34
I understand that you can conceptualize such a being, now I'm asking you to demonstrate such an entity exists.

The points made in Gunhaver's video are the subject of thread discussion:

I'd like the theists to watch this and tell me where you think it's wrong. We've been over the points in this video so many times and for many it just won't sink in. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind but it'll make a nice thread to link back to the next time someone gives the, "Well you can't prove god doesn't exist!" argument as if it's some all purpose debate winning statement.

Continuing ...

That's already been addressed. The very acts of thinking or creation require change as a core component.

The changes which the brain goes through [ Ö ]

Show the objectively verifiable evidence that all thinking is conducted by a physical brain.

[ Ö ] and the existence of newly created objects would provide the evidence you require.

Give an example of a newly created object that provides this evidence of motion or change.

WS6
06-27-2012, 13:23
Back to the 2:00 minute mark, where this is stated:

Logic CAN'T show that possible beings actually exist, without EVIDENCE.

What is the objectively verifiable evidence that supports this statement?

Norske
06-27-2012, 15:52
Hell as it is taught by some is excessive punishment.

The Bible is clear on the subject. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. This is not excessive seeing all of the non believers believe they will die and enter oblivion. The difference is that Christians believe the promise of the gift of eternal life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For Romans 6:23 to actually be true, you first have to prove that the entire Bible is in fact the word of "God".

I personally do not think that any so-called "Holy Text" is in fact the word of "God".

For one thing, as I understand it, none of the 1st five books of the New Testament were actually written by any of the persons who were eyewitnesses to the events described.

They were all written starting about 70 years after the death of Jesus, long after all eyewitnesses were themselves dead.

This, to my mind, casts doubt as to whether these are the words of God, or simply the words of Men, written for those Men's own agendas at the time and place they were written. :dunno:

But, I cannot prove that the Bible is not the word of "God" any more than you can prove that it is the word of "God".

WS6
06-27-2012, 16:23
[ ... ] I expect this one to be largely ignored. Just like it never happened. :whistling:

Yeah, I know the feeling. :whistling:

WS6
06-27-2012, 16:41
At the 2:00 minute mark again: if logic alone can refute impossible beings, why cannot logic alone affirm possible beings?

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 23:43
The points made in Gunhaver's video are the subject of thread discussion: And the point in the video is that no such being can exist.
Show the objectively verifiable evidence that all thinking is conducted by a physical brain.fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging)
Give an example of a newly created object that provides this evidence of motion or change.Literally anything.

ksg0245
06-28-2012, 06:38
At the 2:00 minute mark again: if logic alone can refute impossible beings, why cannot logic alone affirm possible beings?

Because possible does not equal actual.

Dexters
06-28-2012, 08:03
This particular board does not have an internal spell checker, and it tends to be the raison d'etre o.

Yes it does - note the red underlines

WS6
06-28-2012, 10:27
At the 2:00 minute mark again: if logic alone can refute impossible beings, why cannot logic alone affirm possible beings?

Because possible does not equal actual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

WS6
06-28-2012, 10:51
The points made in Gunhaver's video are the subject of thread discussion:

And the point in the video is that no such being can exist.

As I referred to an Unmoved Mover in this post (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19135566&postcount=45), direct me to the part of the video which disproves such a notion.

Show the objectively verifiable evidence that all thinking is conducted by a physical brain.

fMRI

This does not account for any thinking that may occur inside the pink cube.

Give an example of a newly created object that provides this evidence of motion or change.

Literally anything.

Make your point using the beginning of our universe.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 14:20
As I referred to an Unmoved Mover in this post (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19135566&postcount=45), direct me to the part of the video which disproves such a notion. You've quoted it yourself a couple of times.At the 2:52 mark:[QUOTE]Minds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change.
This does not account for any thinking that may occur inside the pink cube.For thinking to occur inside the pink cube, there would have to be something inside it thinking. If you're actually suggesting thinking occurs independently of a mind, you'll have to demonstrate such a possibility can actually exist, much like would be required if you contended the cube contained a "bed made of sleep".
Make your point using the beginning of our universe. At the end of planck epoch, the fundamental forces separated (change) and the universe continued to expand (motion).

WS6
06-28-2012, 16:14
As I referred to an Unmoved Mover in this post, direct me to the part of the video which disproves such a notion.

You've quoted it yourself a couple of times:

At the 2:52 mark:

Minds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change.

No, the assertion that "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change", does not prove a thing.

This does not account for any thinking that may occur inside the pink cube.

For thinking to occur inside the pink cube, there would have to be something inside it thinking. If you're actually suggesting thinking occurs independently of a mind, you'll have to demonstrate such a possibility can actually exist, much like would be required if you contended the cube contained a "bed made of sleep".

I am not suggesting nor do I have to demonstrate a thing. The burden of demonstration rests with you to prove that all minds change, wherever they may be.

Now, address the issue of why "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change". I really want to see the underpinning objectively verifiable evidence for this assertion.

[ Ö ] and the existence of newly created objects would provide the evidence you require.

Give an example of a newly created object that provides this evidence of motion or change.

Literally anything.

Make your point using the beginning of our universe.

At the end of planck epoch, the fundamental forces separated (change) and the universe continued to expand (motion).

Show with objectively verifiable evidence that at time 'zero' of the beginning of the universe the acting force of this event underwent change or motion itself.

Woofie
06-28-2012, 18:26
No, the assertion that "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change", does not prove a thing.



I am not suggesting nor do I have to demonstrate a thing. The burden of demonstration rests with you to prove that all minds change, wherever they may be.



Show with objectively verifiable evidence that at time 'zero' of the beginning of the universe the acting force of this event underwent change or motion itself.

The math doesn't exist yet to allow us to look back to T 0. However since "force" is defined as the capacity to do work or cause physical change and is measured by multiplying an object's mass by its acceleration. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a period of time. Velocity is measured by calculating an object's change in position over time.

Logically, change must occur in order for a force to act.

ksg0245
06-28-2012, 19:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Yep, your response was a non sequitur; bravo.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 22:09
No, the assertion that "[m]inds and purposeful creation DEPENDS on change", does not prove a thing. No it doesn't, it reports something that we can accept as proven in the absence of contrary evidence.
I am not suggesting nor do I have to demonstrate a thing. The burden of demonstration rests with you to prove that all minds change, wherever they may be. Are you suggesting that I simply need imagine something exist and the burden then falls to others to demonstrate it does not? In this instance, if I suggested the pink cube contained a plane made of biceps or a dress made of despair, would it then fall to you to demonstrate they don't exist?

On the contrary, given a large enough sample size, with no contradictory evidence, we can conclude something is true unless and until such contrary evidence is produced.
Show with objectively verifiable evidence that at time 'zero' of the beginning of the universe the acting force of this event underwent change or motion itself.I can't do that because we don't yet have the insight to describe the time prior to 10^-43 seconds after the universe began. If you care to argue that some divine being occupied that gap I won't argue the point, not because I agree, but because I have no data with which to dispute the contention.

WS6
06-30-2012, 12:00
The math doesn't exist yet to allow us to look back to T 0. However since "force" is defined as the capacity to do work or cause physical change and is measured by multiplying an object's mass by its acceleration. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a period of time. Velocity is measured by calculating an object's change in position over time.

Logically, change must occur in order for a force to act.

Make your case, logically.