Happy Atheist Forum

Hello everyone,
I am new here and i would like to first off thank everyone for any responses i get on this topic. I am taking a philosophy course at my local community college and the professor has assigned us an opinion based paper on if we believe in god. She would like us to provide evidence as to why we think the way we choose. Now, i believe the professor is a christian, although she has not said so, I can tell by the way she talks about god. This is irrelevant BUT she teaches us philosophers and their ways of LOGICALLY proving the existence of god. I have my belief that god does not exist and the universe was created without a supreme beings helping hand. I came here to ask this question. Can anyone point me in the right direction that logically proves this? Another thing is, I thought there was a unified understanding that no one could prove or disprove gods existence in philosophy but my professor seems to tell us otherwise and when me and my bro challenge her on this, she says he is logically proven to exist because you can think he exists. You can then move down to your mind and then senses to know what you know. I would like to throw something good in her face but I cant put my finger on it which is why I came here :D

Edit: If you are going to flame me for not doing research please do not bother responding. Rest assured that I am doing research outside this forum, I just want the opinion of other atheists. Thanks

If your class is Philosophy of Religion hasn't selected a textbook that covers arguments against god I would go demand my money back.

That said, you should check out the following books for your research:

Critiques of God edited by Peter A. Angeles

Atheism : A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin

Atheism:  A case against god by George H. Smith

btw, most arguments against god are basically set up as responses to arguments which support god. This is because you can't have 'evidence' of something not existing you can only show why evidence of that something isn't actually valid.  A prime example of this is the Invisible Pink Unicorn; you can't provide evidence that it doesn't exist yet we know it isn't real.

is everyone taking a religion class posting here?

Quotehe is logically proven to exist because you can think he exists. You can then move down to your mind and then senses to know what you know.

i can think that odin existed. i can also think that the gods before yahweh existed. so if i move down my mind and then my senses and i now know what i know.
i can also think that a car exists, and a train, and a bus, and a unicorn. i can go on for days with what i can think about existing. then send that to my mind and senses... whatever that means.

i would suggest you browse the forum and read older posts about the subject.

on another note i think the internet has changed class rooms for the worst. how many people come here and just ask for an answer rather than actually research (you know study) and what not? is this post searching for an answer to a paper as to avoid just browsing the other threads? or reading a book? or looking up info on the internet?
im not against being lazy, and i am actually only half assed accusing... but really?

I like the pink unicorn analogy. The book for the class does mention Atheism and such but I feel like the professor gave the null headed god believers a way of proving his existence using logic and reason. The philosophers that came up with these techniques were Descartes, Kant, Pascal, and Bacon. I am a strong believe that Man created the idea of God but my professor LOVES to bring up Descartes Cartesian circle that states "since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannot create god." Maybe im just looking for responses to these Philosophers that use logic and reason...

Quote from: "G-Roll"is everyone taking a religion class posting here?

Maybe that means we are all really smart and therefore people want to ask us questions.  

Quote from: "G-Roll"i would suggest you browse the forum and read older posts about the subject.

I am.

Quote from: "Iamwaves"I like the pink unicorn analogy. The book for the class does mention Atheism and such but I feel like the professor gave the null headed god believers a way of proving his existence using logic and reason. The philosophers that came up with these techniques were Descartes, Kant, Pascal, and Bacon. I am a strong believe that Man created the idea of God but my professor LOVES to bring up Descartes Cartesian circle that states "since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannot create god." Maybe im just looking for responses to these Philosophers that use logic and reason...

It's been about 4 or 5 years since I took philosophy of religion, so the details of most of the arguments have kinda faded (and is part of why I gave you a book list).  I remember going over the arguments that basically try to prove god into existence by saying the greatest thing you can conceive of to exist is god and therefore god must be real (total bullshit since I can think of all sorts of things which could feasibly exist yet don't).  

"since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannon create god" is not an argument for the existence of god because it fails to address the issue of if god exists in the first place; of course if a god did exist man wouldn't be able to create him after the fact.


I think you should ask for your money back from the class....your professor shouldn't be teaching in such a biased manner and apparently is promoting some of the worst example of arguments for god that were ever conceived.  She could at least use the prime mover argument; it at least makes some sense even if it ultimately just drives home the fact that we have no clue why there is something rather than nothing.

Quote from: "G-Roll"is everyone taking a religion class posting here?
im not against being lazy, and i am actually only half assed accusing... but really?

Eh....I basically had internet access from middle school on and it didn't affect my ability to actually read the textbooks and do proper research.  Online research is a good starting point but on philosophical topics I've found that there aren't very many good online sources aside from maybe looking at wiki to quickly figure out was "a priori" or something like that means.

Yeah I see how that the argument that man cannot of created god is flawed so maybe I will start my paper off with a statement similar to that and how it doesn't prove the existence of a god and state my evidence for how man created the idea of god. I am currently reading Did Man Create God? by David E. Commings. It does provide ample examples as to why man created god that are connected to evolution, genetics, cosmology, other religions, neurology, spirituality, string theory, etc

But look at this "Cartesian circle" and tell me what you think if any of you have a counter to this idea. This is my professors "logical way of proving god"
1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.
2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust cleat distinct ideas to be real.
3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.
4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them
5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

Thats the "Cartesian circle" from Descartes that supposedly logically proves the existence of a God.

Quote from: "Iamwaves"But look at this "Cartesian circle" and tell me what you think if any of you have a counter to this idea. This is my professors "logical way of proving god"
1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.
2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust cleat distinct ideas to be real.
3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.
4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them
5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

Thats the "Cartesian circle" from Descartes that supposedly logically proves the existence of a God.

I'm not a logician or philosopher, so I may not get things right, here... but my initial responses are these:

1. I have a clear, distinct idea of a unicorn in my mind. Does that make it real?
2. The mind is not reliable. Mentally ill people have delusions that form in the mind. The mind can be manipulated and tricked to produce experiences that do not involve reality.
3. I agree that a human cannot create an actual deity, but humans can create the idea of a deity. We can make up superheroes and mythological characters who are "greater" than us, but still do not exist. That doesn't mean Spider-Man or Apollo created me.
4. Assumption without evidence. what if there is no god? Even if there was, how is it known that god can put ideas into someone's mind?
5. Again, I have a distinct idea of a unicorn in my mind. Therefor it must exist?

 

edit... godless girl beat me to the post.  :hmm:[/quote]

Lol i like that idea.

Take any 'proof' of a god's existence, replace the word 'god' with a word for any other object, idea, or concept - the more absurd the better, then have fun 'proving' the existence of anything you can come up with.

Here are some suggestions, just listing off the top of my head:

Leprechauns
Antigod (god's evil twin)
All other gods
The Benevolent Toothache
Evil Jesus
The part of the universe where god doesn't exist
Bert and Ernie
The highest integer
The opposite of everything
Nothing
Free Lunch
An inside-out bicycle
The Force
The Funk
Universe-building bees
Another god who created the god who created that god
Creationlessness
Godlessness
An ultimate color, existing outside the light spectrum, which created all color
et cetera
ad infinitum

 

Enjoy!

Here's the ruse behind attempts to prove the existence of God, as well as the (incorrect) nostrum that you can't disprove God's existence. Proofs for God's existence tend to conflate God to a single characteristic, such as being an uncaused cause or being supreme, and then attempt to prove that that single characteristic is a logical necessity. Whether any such philosophical attempts will ever be successful (and none have, so far) the fact is that they should offer no comfort whatsoever to believers in Yahweh or Allah or whatever. The God of the Bible is not a single characteristic, he is a combination of characteristics. And that combination is logically impossible. You cannot be A) Omnipresent, B) Omniscient, C) Eternal, D) Unchanging, AND E) A person. Personality is defined by restriction, limitation and change over time. All the emotions, motivations and reactions attributed to the Abrahamic God are impossible for a being not bound by time and space. The God they care about cannot exist. QED

You could keep E and give up A, B, C and/or D, but then you'd be a pagan.
You could keep A, B, C, and D and give up E, but then you'd be a mere deist, and absolutely no moral or spiritual principals would follow from your conclusion. You might as well worship Hydrogen.

Quote from: "Iamwaves"1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.

1a False Premise : One has a clear distinct idea of God in their mind.
Reasons:
1a.1. Anyone who has a clear distinct idea of God in their mind does not have the same clear distinct idea of God as everyone. (Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) If this premise were true, God would either be inconsistent, or there would be an infinite number of gods.
1a.2. The clear distinct idea of God was placed in the mind by indoctrination and culture.
1b False Premise : AAAA must exist because BBBB( of AAAA).
Reasons:
1b.1. "Distinct Ideas", by definition, are not real. Hence they're are called "ideas" and not "things".
1b.2. This logic would prove that Santa Claus and Death Notes were real. We know that both of these subjects are not real.

Quote2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust clear distinct ideas to be real.

I don't think this is sound logic at all.

Quote3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.

3a. False Premise: God created (Not supported).
3b. False Premise: God exists (Not supported).

Quote4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them

4a. False Premise: God exists (Not supported).
4b. False Premise: God put distinct ideas in a mind (Not supported).
4c. False Premise: You can trust thoughts placed in your head by God (Not supported).

Quote5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

This is the same as the first point.

QuoteI have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

1. I have a clear, distinct idea for a painting in my head.

2. I go to paint it but stopped when I realized it must already be hanging in a gallery somewhere because I have a clear, distinct idea for it in my head.

This is all very helpful thanks guys. Im thinking about just saying I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and prove his existence by the evidence pastafarians provide. I have the gospel so it should be easy

Quote from: "Iamwaves"Hello everyone,
I am new here and i would like to first off thank everyone for any responses i get on this topic. I am taking a philosophy course at my local community college and the professor has assigned us an opinion based paper on if we believe in god. She would like us to provide evidence as to why we think the way we choose. Now, i believe the professor is a christian, although she has not said so, I can tell by the way she talks about god. This is irrelevant BUT she teaches us philosophers and their ways of LOGICALLY proving the existence of god. I have my belief that god does not exist and the universe was created without a supreme beings helping hand. I came here to ask this question. Can anyone point me in the right direction that logically proves this? Another thing is, I thought there was a unified understanding that no one could prove or disprove gods existence in philosophy but my professor seems to tell us otherwise and when me and my bro challenge her on this, she says he is logically proven to exist because you can think he exists. You can then move down to your mind and then senses to know what you know. I would like to throw something good in her face but I cant put my finger on it which is why I came here :D

Edit: If you are going to flame me for not doing research please do not bother responding. Rest assured that I am doing research outside this forum, I just want the opinion of other atheists. Thanks

Stenger's God: the Failed Hypothesis is excellent. However, there is no evidence for a lack of belief, technically. We can't prove a negative. It is them that believe that make a huge assumption that is theirs to prove. The professor is theist and she wants to see who else is and is not. I've seen this ploy before - also at community college- not in a real college. As I have cautioned elsewhere challenging these people can be dangerous. They crave the tiny bit of power they have and are not afraid to use it. Write your paper, be good -use sources, etc, but do not be shocked at criticism. this is what the theists are told by their churches to do. It is a concerted effort to bring theism into the classrooms. There is actually a list of logical fallacies and she is committing one, but again she is the one with the power and she is there to use it. What she is doing is called an argument from ignorance.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Iamwaves"I like the pink unicorn analogy. The book for the class does mention Atheism and such but I feel like the professor gave the null headed god believers a way of proving his existence using logic and reason. The philosophers that came up with these techniques were Descartes, Kant, Pascal, and Bacon. I am a strong believe that Man created the idea of God but my professor LOVES to bring up Descartes Cartesian circle that states "since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannot create god." Maybe im just looking for responses to these Philosophers that use logic and reason...

It's been about 4 or 5 years since I took philosophy of religion, so the details of most of the arguments have kinda faded (and is part of why I gave you a book list).  I remember going over the arguments that basically try to prove god into existence by saying the greatest thing you can conceive of to exist is god and therefore god must be real (total bullshit since I can think of all sorts of things which could feasibly exist yet don't).  

"since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannon create god" is not an argument for the existence of god because it fails to address the issue of if god exists in the first place; of course if a god did exist man wouldn't be able to create him after the fact.


I think you should ask for your money back from the class....your professor shouldn't be teaching in such a biased manner and apparently is promoting some of the worst example of arguments for god that were ever conceived.  She could at least use the prime mover argument; it at least makes some sense even if it ultimately just drives home the fact that we have no clue why there is something rather than nothing.

Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... god-t5.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm)

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.

2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.

3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

Evidence #1: the origin of the universe
- the steady state model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the oscillating model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries
- the quantum gravity model supports atheism, but it pure theory and has never been tested or confirmed by experiment and observation

Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
- there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
- example: mass density
- example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
- example: carbon formation

Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
- the type of galaxy and our location in it
- our solar system and our star
- our planet
- our moon

I hope you don't plan on me responding to that because I have better things to do and they've all been addressed elsewhere on the forum.

Quote from: "Whitney"I hope you don't plan on me responding to that because I have better things to do and they've all been addressed elsewhere on the forum.

its up to you, if you want to respond , or not.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"I hope you don't plan on me responding to that because I have better things to do and they've all been addressed elsewhere on the forum.

its up to you, if you want to respond , or not.

I feel like this should read - it's up to you, if you want to waste your time, or not.  But, I've had conversations about the content you posted quite a few times before.  Maybe someone new here has yet to have this conversation, I don't know.  I, for one, am simply bored with the subject matter at this point.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I feel like this should read - it's up to you, if you want to waste your time, or not.  But, I've had conversations about the content you posted quite a few times before.  Maybe someone new here has yet to have this conversation, I don't know.  I, for one, am simply bored with the subject matter at this point.

Exactly. This stuff gets posted here on an almost weekly basis. Maybe if more of you guys would hang around and read some older threads, including our responses, before posting, and ask a few sincere questions, you might learn a few things. It couldn't hurt.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I feel like this should read - it's up to you, if you want to waste your time, or not.  But, I've had conversations about the content you posted quite a few times before.  Maybe someone new here has yet to have this conversation, I don't know.  I, for one, am simply bored with the subject matter at this point.

Exactly. This stuff gets posted here on an almost weekly basis. Maybe if more of you guys would hang around and read some older threads, including our responses, before posting, and ask a few sincere questions, you might learn a few things. It couldn't hurt.

oh, i desperately want to learn. Please teach me.  

Quote from: "angelosergipe"oh, i desperately want to learn. Please teach me.  

Just did. The learning part is up to you.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... god-t5.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm)

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the famous "five ways" by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.

2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.

Why is God exempt from the "no unmoved mover" rule?  Why is infinite regression not a sufficient answer? This is self-serving and speculation.

Quote3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

More self-serving speculation. The building blocks of reality that form our interpreted structures known as energy and matter could be eternal. No problem, no need to make up a god to fill in a gap.

Quote4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

Biblically speaking, we all have knowledge of good and evil because of Adam and Eve. We know genocide is wrong because evil people like Hitler commit them.  God committed genocide. Therefor, God can't be the maximum quantity of good. Point instantly refuted.

Also, this point rides on the unsupported or false premise that at least one object in existence has a quantified quality known as goodness. On top of that, If you could measure goodness or organize objects by goodness, there would be no need for a maximum object of goodness. Take temperature, for example. Temperature is a quality that exists outside of your head. Temperature makes plenty of sense without something that represents maximum temperature. If goodness were a real quality of anything, simply picking 2 anchors would be sufficient to form a universal standard of measurement. Temperature is measured in Celsius. 0 C is when water freezes and 100 C is when water boils at standard pressure, etc.. There is no evidence that goodness even exists, let alone could be measured or compared.

Quote5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

This point lays on the unsupported or false premises that the world was designed. If the world was designed, then there would be a need for a designer. If the world were not designed, then there would be no need. You have claimed the world was designed without any justification as to why anyone would think such a thing.

QuoteEvidence #1: the origin of the universe
- the steady state model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the oscillating model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
- the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries
- the quantum gravity model supports atheism, but it pure theory and has never been tested or confirmed by experiment and observation

This list of general information does not support nor negate the existence of a god.

QuoteEvidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
- there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
- example: mass density
- example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
- example: carbon formation

We do not fully understand the mathematical relationships between such constants. To suggest they are a series of arbitrary numbers is speculation.

To imply that life could not exist if certain aspects of reality were different is also speculation.

It is also speculation to say what it means to be fine-tuned for life. If the universe were fine-tuned for life, why haven't we found life off earth?

QuoteEvidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
- the type of galaxy and our location in it
- our solar system and our star
- our planet
- our moon

This one is just plain stupid. Considering the size of the universe and number of solar systems (uncountable), it would be statistically impossible for there not to be at least one planet with Earth's exact qualifications for life.

Angel all your "Proofs" a just different god of the gaps. A lack of evidence against something is not poof of something. Some of the other examples are a bit scientificly ignorant. NOTHING you have posted as proof is in fact proof.

Saying "God did it" when we don't know something for sure is not a very stable system for understanding or indeed arriveing at any real proof.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Why is God exempt from the "no unmoved mover" rule?  Why is infinite regression not a sufficient answer? This is self-serving and speculation.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/search. ... ults=posts (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/search.forum?mode=searchbox&search_keywords=infinite+regression&show_results=posts)

An infinite regression is an alleged chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. The logical problem with such an argument is that it begs the question of what set the original chain in motion. It thus becomes an example of perpetual motion, something no inventor has ever been able to achieve.

[code]
More self-serving speculation. The building blocks of reality that form our interpreted structures known as energy and matter could be eternal. No problem, no need to make up a god to fill in a gap.[/quote]

According to the Big Bang Theory, matter and energy had a beginnint with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang, nothing physical existed.

QuoteBiblically speaking, we all have knowledge of good and evil because of Adam and Eve. We know genocide is wrong because evil people like Hitler commit them.  God committed genocide. Therefor, God can't be the maximum quantity of good. Point instantly refuted.

Did God Commit Atrocities in the Old Testament?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t148.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-christianity-f6/did-god-commit-atrocities-in-the-old-testament-t148.htm)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 8&page=159 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=159)

God is not a man that He would somehow be guilty of murder. Why?

Because that would mean that He murders ALL of us through determining
our lifespans and the word murder would be meaningless (and rather
foolish).

God is far bigger and greater than you imagine and this is why you
make false accusations against Him. He is the Owner of the universe
and all that is in it. He sets the Law therefore He can not be guilty of
ever breaking it. Example: God can not be guilty of "unlawful killing"
(murder) because His Will IS the Law. His Infinite Will trumps all other
finite wills. God determines every number of heartbeats through an
infinite amount of circumstances in this temporary creation.

There IS accountability coming and anyone who does not have
their "objective guilt" of God's Law paid for is in eternal trouble.

QuoteWe do not fully understand the mathematical relationships between such constants. To suggest they are a series of arbitrary numbers is speculation.

that is not true. We well understand the relationships, and we know the universe is finely tuned to life. That is a fact, that demands a explanation.

QuoteTo imply that life could not exist if certain aspects of reality were different is also speculation.

No, its not. Its based on scientific knowledge.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... e-t240.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/carbon-chemistry-base-for-life-t240.htm)

If the earth were made of pure carbon it would contain only about 1050 carbon atoms, but more than 10451 carbon atoms would be needed in order to make enough amino acids to form the proteins to achieve the probability of producing one protein molecule with the prescribed sequence. In other words, it would require an amount of carbon about 10401 times the size of the earth in order to achieve the probability of forming one required protein molecule with the specifications above! Realizing that the probability of producing proteins by a random assembly method is exceedingly small, some have proposed that DNA was formed by chemical evolution first and then it was used to direct the synthesis of the protein. This trades one problem for another. The random assembly of a gene containing 1,040 bp to code for a specified protein would be likely to require as much or more carbon than it would to make the protein directly by a random assembly method.
With a problem this great in forming one gene, imagine the problem of forming the 470 specific genes found in the one chromosome containing 580,070 bp: M. genitalium. Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, uses the term “irreducible complexity” to refer to such situations where all conditions must be met simultaneously in order for the organism to survive.

QuoteIt is also speculation to say what it means to be fine-tuned for life. If the universe were fine-tuned for life, why haven't we found life off earth?

It was fine-tuned for life on OUR earth.

QuoteThis one is just plain stupid. Considering the size of the universe and number of solar systems (uncountable), it would be statistically impossible for there not to be at least one planet with Earth's exact qualifications for life.

you are quit wrong about that.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... y-t232.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/life-on-other-planets-a-real-possibility-t232.htm)

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10^140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).

Quote from: "Tanker"Angel all your "Proofs" a just different god of the gaps. A lack of evidence against something is not poof of something. Some of the other examples are a bit scientificly ignorant. NOTHING you have posted as proof is in fact proof.

Saying "God did it" when we don't know something for sure is not a very stable system for understanding or indeed arriveing at any real proof.

Nope. Quit the contrary is the case. Because we KNOW the universe had a beginning. Because we KNOW it was finely tuned to life. Because we KNOW life is based on Information, and information is always the product of a mind, we can deduce God as the best explanation of our existence. The argument is not based on ignorance, but on scientific knowledge.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Tanker"Angel all your "Proofs" a just different god of the gaps. A lack of evidence against something is not poof of something. Some of the other examples are a bit scientificly ignorant. NOTHING you have posted as proof is in fact proof.

Saying "God did it" when we don't know something for sure is not a very stable system for understanding or indeed arriveing at any real proof.

Nope. Quit the contrary is the case. Because we KNOW the universe had a beginning. Because we KNOW it was finely tuned to life. Because we KNOW life is based on Information, and information is always the product of a mind, we can deduce God as the best explanation of our existence. The argument is not based on ignorance, but on scientific knowledge.

We don't "know" it had a beginning however most sources do belive it is finite. It most certainly is NOT finely tuned for life. Ther are a hundred billion stars in our Galaxy and a few hundred billion galaxies. So far despite having found over 200 extra solar planets and taking into account the 8 planets and hundreds of moons in our solar system we have a grand total of 1 place that we know can support life, the Earth. We are suited to living on Earth not the Earth being made to suit us. Seems like if god made this whole massive universe just for us it's kinda letting 99.999999999999999999999 of it just go to waste. Life can be considered to be basd on information however information does NOT require intelligence so I don't understand your vast leap to "god did it". Your argument is nothing but ignorance and I have a hard time believeing you have ever read any science texts.

Everything you have written could be summerised as "God did it" and little to nothing is based on fact.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Ellainix"Why is God exempt from the "no unmoved mover" rule?  Why is infinite regression not a sufficient answer? This is self-serving and speculation.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/search. ... ults=posts (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/search.forum?mode=searchbox&search_keywords=infinite+regression&show_results=posts)

An infinite regression is an alleged chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. The logical problem with such an argument is that it begs the question of what set the original chain in motion. It thus becomes an example of perpetual motion, something no inventor has ever been able to achieve.

Why is God exempt? Such is a logical fallacy called "Special Pleading".

Quote

QuoteMore self-serving speculation. The building blocks of reality that form our interpreted structures known as energy and matter could be eternal. No problem, no need to make up a god to fill in a gap.

According to the Big Bang Theory, matter and energy had a beginning with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang, nothing physical existed.

No, the Big Bang theory does not claim that.

Quote

QuoteBiblically speaking, we all have knowledge of good and evil because of Adam and Eve. We know genocide is wrong because evil people like Hitler commit them.  God committed genocide. Therefor, God can't be the maximum quantity of good. Point instantly refuted.

Did God Commit Atrocities in the Old Testament?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t148.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-christianity-f6/did-god-commit-atrocities-in-the-old-testament-t148.htm)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 8&page=159 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=159)

God is not a man that He would somehow be guilty of murder. Why?

Because that would mean that He murders ALL of us through determining
our lifespans and the word murder would be meaningless (and rather
foolish).

God is far bigger and greater than you imagine and this is why you
make false accusations against Him. He is the Owner of the universe
and all that is in it. He sets the Law therefore He can not be guilty of
ever breaking it. Example: God can not be guilty of "unlawful killing"
(murder) because His Will IS the Law. His Infinite Will trumps all other
finite wills. God determines every number of heartbeats through an
infinite amount of circumstances in this temporary creation.

There IS accountability coming and anyone who does not have
their "objective guilt" of God's Law paid for is in eternal trouble.

By your Logic, Hitler was not a bad person because he lawfully killed 6 million Jews.

Quote

QuoteWe do not fully understand the mathematical relationships between such constants. To suggest they are a series of arbitrary numbers is speculation.

that is not true. We well understand the relationships, and we know the universe is finely tuned to life. That is a fact, that demands a explanation.

No, we do not fully understand the mathematical relationships between such constants. To suggest they are a series of arbitrary numbers is speculation.

Quote

QuoteTo imply that life could not exist if certain aspects of reality were different is also speculation.

No, its not. Its based on scientific knowledge.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... e-t240.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/carbon-chemistry-base-for-life-t240.htm)

If the earth were made of pure carbon it would contain only about 1050 carbon atoms, but more than 10451 carbon atoms would be needed in order to make enough amino acids to form the proteins to achieve the probability of producing one protein molecule with the prescribed sequence. In other words, it would require an amount of carbon about 10401 times the size of the earth in order to achieve the probability of forming one required protein molecule with the specifications above! Realizing that the probability of producing proteins by a random assembly method is exceedingly small, some have proposed that DNA was formed by chemical evolution first and then it was used to direct the synthesis of the protein. This trades one problem for another. The random assembly of a gene containing 1,040 bp to code for a specified protein would be likely to require as much or more carbon than it would to make the protein directly by a random assembly method.
With a problem this great in forming one gene, imagine the problem of forming the 470 specific genes found in the one chromosome containing 580,070 bp: M. genitalium. Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, uses the term “irreducible complexity” to refer to such situations where all conditions must be met simultaneously in order for the organism to survive.

If the Earth were made purely out of carbon and only had 1050 Carbon atoms, I think we would have much bigger problems than acids and proteins.

No potential example of a supposed irreducibly complex system can, even in theory, demonstrate that it did not evolved from less complex components. One can only demonstrate how a system can be reduced, or claim ignorance as to how it can be. Irreducible complexity is therefore an argument from ignorance and, more specifically, a God of the gaps argument.

Quote

QuoteIt is also speculation to say what it means to be fine-tuned for life. If the universe were fine-tuned for life, why haven't we found life off earth?

It was fine-tuned for life on OUR earth.

More speculation.

Quote

QuoteThis one is just plain stupid. Considering the size of the universe and number of solar systems (uncountable), it would be statistically impossible for there not to be at least one planet with Earth's exact qualifications for life.

you are quit wrong about that.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... y-t232.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/life-on-other-planets-a-real-possibility-t232.htm)

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10^140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation)

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Tanker"Angel all your "Proofs" a just different god of the gaps. A lack of evidence against something is not poof of something. Some of the other examples are a bit scientificly ignorant. NOTHING you have posted as proof is in fact proof.

Saying "God did it" when we don't know something for sure is not a very stable system for understanding or indeed arriveing at any real proof.

Nope. Quit the contrary is the case. Because we KNOW the universe had a beginning. Because we KNOW it was finely tuned to life. Because we KNOW life is based on Information, and information is always the product of a mind, we can deduce God as the best explanation of our existence. The argument is not based on ignorance, but on scientific knowledge.

We don't "know" it had a beginning however most sources do belive it is finite. It most certainly is NOT finely tuned for life. Ther are a hundred billion stars in our Galaxy and a few hundred billion galaxies. So far despite having found over 200 extra solar planets and taking into account the 8 planets and hundreds of moons in our solar system we have a grand total of 1 place that we know can support life, the Earth. We are suited to living on Earth not the Earth being made to suit us. Seems like if god made this whole massive universe just for us it's kinda letting 99.999999999999999999999 of it just go to waste.

Why the Universe is so large

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... 49.htm#812 (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/why-is-our-universe-so-large-t249.htm#812)

The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.

QuoteLife can be considered to be basd on information however information does NOT require intelligence so I don't understand your vast leap to "god did it"..

In this case, you are certainly able to show me a non-intelligent source of information ?

Why do you keep linking to that one guy on that heavenforum?  We don't really care what he thinks.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"In this case, you are certainly able to show me a non-intelligent source of information ?

Life itself.