Beleiving in God is the Norm

[Kyuuketsuki]

We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

Wrong because science doesn't claim to be correct (it does not regard its explanations as absolute) and therefore can be regarded as our best current explanation given the available data. What;s more scientific explanation are useful ... not only do they allow us to do things, to build things, to make things work and are testable they also make predictions. Religious/god explanations however do claim to be correct, they do so without a shred of evidence or a shred of usefulness in any real terms, they do not make things work  and they have no predictive value so they can be considered the extraordinary claim and therefore require solid supporting evidence.

You have none.

Kyu

[karadan]

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

We are discussing things done by God (from my point of view) and done by nature (from your point of view)
Those events can not be used as a proof (neither by me or you)

We can only use things that we both know and agree on

For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created  3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

So based on many similar examples we can relate complexity to intelligence creation

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

There is no real form of debate with someone displaying your mindset. The reason being?

You seem to think things you make up in your head are fact.

You seem to think everything is made by god so going by that, there is nothing we can successfully debate with you because you've already made up your mind - which is closed to all possibilities other than 'everything is made by god'. There is simply nothing we will be able to agree on because you think everything is made by god and we don't believe god exists.

You conveniently gloss over the more difficult questions aimed at you, ie, fractals. We, on the other hand, will answer every question you ask of us.

You clutch at straws because you are trying to convince us (and yourself) that what you've been force-fed (brainwashed) into believing is actually true, when infact none of it even exists!

If you were to really listen to your heart, somewhere in there, i'm sure, would be a faint voice of reason. A voice yearning to escape the confines of the vitriol which holds your reality matrix in bondage.

[bowmore]

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

I've given fractals as an example as well. You ignored that apparently.

We do know how snow flakes are formed, and if you think they are not complex, then I'll ask you to define complexity, because I'm afraid we have different ideas of complexity.

[karadan]

Now it is your turn to give an example that violates this pattern
P.S. Snow flakes shapes are not that complex (Just we don't know yet how it is formed and why) http://snowflakes.barkleyus.com/index.html

I've given fractals as an example as well. You ignored that apparently.

Yes he/she did. You know why? Because it was a damn good example.

[BadPoison]

Then debate my example?

If every time you eat a red apple you find it sweet and a green one you find it bitter, normal/logical people will relate sweetness to the red color

Rational people relate creation & intelligence to complexity

I'm not a "logic expert" but wouldn't this be a basic logic fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident

Yes, I believe it is.

For example we both know that Robots are 1- Complex 2- Created 3-by human intelligence
also we know that a less complex object (as a stick) 1-Less complex 2-Created 3-Possibly by intelligence ( for example P=0.1)

1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

[Kylyssa]

1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Most fundamentalist Christians such as Messenger are unable to see the contradiction in logic when they say that everything complex must be created yet God (in their beliefs the most complex thing in existence) need not have been created but simply always existed.  Just as Messenger ignored my response to his assertion that "evolution is an imaginary theory" I full well expect him to ignore your question regarding his logic.

[bowmore]

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Ironically, all humans I know are very complex, and not one has been created. They all grew from a fertilized cell.
This is completely against the 'logic' of complexity implies created.


<edit>Hi Kylyssa, you have the cutest avatar ever!</edit>

[oldschooldoc]

I agree. I don't find belief in religion and god to be 'normal' (at least what I perceive as normal), but merely typical of an ever-increasing trend towards holy fundamentalism in humans (not all, just a good chunk). Even though atheistic views have been and will continue to make strides towards a secular and logical world, the fundies won't go away very easily.

If you exclude evolution, will it be logical to believe in God or not?

or in other words, taking into consideration how we look to complexity and its relation to intelligence, would that be a clue that an intelligent deity created the Universe or not?

Wow, this discussion took off like a rocket in the past 18 hours...

First off, why would we exclude evolution? It is the argument in the whole discussion actually based on scientific findings, not faith based, blind beliefs. Now to humor your hypothetical (excluding evolution). Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

So, it's not only evolution that makes belief in a god or gods illogical. It is also the lack of evidence in support of a god or gods.

[Messenger]

First off, why would we exclude evolution? It is the argument in the whole discussion actually based on scientific findings, not faith based, blind beliefs. Now to humor your hypothetical (excluding evolution). Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

This is my point, if Evolution is excluded believing in God is very straight forward from our universal observations
Intelligence creation is related to complexity
So it can not blind, ridiculous or without evidence

Maybe some/many religion details are but not the concept of God!

[Messenger]

The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

[Messenger]

I'm not a "logic expert" but wouldn't this be a basic logic fallacy?

No, it is called statistical probability based on experience, I did not say that this proves God 100% but it gives us a confidence level about it

1. Robots are complex.
2. Robots are created.
3. Humans are complex and created.
4. Who/what then created humanities creator?

This line of thinking only leads to the question of number four. It's flawed. So this can't be the case. The only logical solution is that number 3 is wrong.

No, 3 is wrong is one of the logical solutions (but it has a very low probability)
If almost every thing we see is related by complexity to intelligent creation
Then we can deduce (with very high probability) that more complex things (us, universe, etc.) is also related

[Messenger]

Wrong because science doesn't claim to be correct (it does not regard its explanations as absolute) and therefore can be regarded as our best current explanation given the available data.

It seems that you don't understand/follow this discussion
If we are debating if human, universe are created or not
You can not say because the universe (or part of it) is not created, so human is not created
This is circular logic and has no meaning at all

Religious/god explanations however do claim to be correct, they do so without a shred of evidence or a shred of usefulness in any real terms, they do not make things work  and they have no predictive value so they can be considered the extraordinary claim and therefore require solid supporting evidence.

Don't assert things you don't know
The true god can be proved scientifically and logically, so don't rush things

[Messenger]

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God
Second, complexity does not mean just many patterns
It means many parts assembled to fit a certain function (for example human body, solar systems, food chain, etc.)

I guess you've never heard of fractals...

It has no benefits or function, so it is not complex (regarding our discussion)

[bowmore]

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God

True, but we do agree that they are part of nature, and you have yourself used nature as an example.

Second, complexity does not mean just many patterns
It means many parts assembled to fit a certain function (for example human body, solar systems, food chain, etc.)

Isn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?
What is the function of a solar system?
What is the function of a food chain?

Function is subjective.

I feel you're ultimately dragging morality into this, that is bound to 'complicate' matters further.
Wouldn't a definition of complexity that allowed for simple measurement be much more practical?

I guess you've never heard of fractals...

It has no benefits or function, so it is not complex (regarding our discussion)

In your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

[Messenger]

This is not true, we know that the structures of snow flakes are the result of physical laws. Unless you can prove god hand assembles each individual snow flake, snow flakes are made by nature. You only protest because it makes your entire argument tumble down.

Yes, but we don't agree that universal laws are created by God

True, but we do agree that they are part of nature, and you have yourself used nature as an example.

You can not use it as an evidence, because I don't deny them, I claim that they are created by God for an (Intelligent) purpose
You claim that they work by themselves
I brought examples of intelligent creation (we both agree on them)
You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results
(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times   )

Isn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?

It is not the whole function, it is something like:
Sperm and Egg are crated to fit each other with a lot of details

In your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

Maybe I'm missing the word, but I mean usefulness or sophistication not just complex