"Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and, therefore, I have no reason to be an athiest, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
--C.S. Lewis
This is a phenomenal quote. Still I am sure DB or Percivale could find a flaw in it, but I'll still go on, lol. I have seen the quote used multiple times as a way to show that the Christian God exists. The problem with that view is that he clearly is talking about God, not the Biblical Yahwah.
As most of you know I am an Agnostic Deist but I have inklings with the Norse religions and paganism. If you've seen the Dan Le Sac Vs. Scroobius Pip video, Letter from God to Man, that has circulated once or twice, you'll see I agree with that as well. This isn't the point though.
The point is that we as humans years removed from previous writers, like to take ideas and change them to fit our own agendas. Take the quote above as I've said before, it is a good argument for a God, but it has no scientific backing. Why can't science and God coincide? Perc and DB will say because there is more proof that a God doesn't exist, than there is proof that one exists. I would argue that there is proof that a God or intelligence exists, I would even say that we are living in an intelligent universe. I however see no proof from science that proves that a certain God exists.
Sure we can fall back on the teaching of religions and their morals. The only problem is that those morals are all based off what is known as Natural Laws that we witness using logic, something that religions usually never take into effect. Do I feel that deism is a scientific religion? Certainly not, science cannot prove a human construct, but no one has really tried to prove or disprove God. My point is that logic and reason all point to something bigger than us, more than likely some intelligence of some sort, probably an intelligent universe. Religions unfortunately disregard logic and reason and that is where they all fail miserably.
I am not saying God exists, I am only saying that reason and logic point to somthing bigger be it just intelligence or a entitiy of some sort. Still it is better to leave an open mind to all things than to close it off to even one because when you shut down even part of your thinking, you suffer greatly.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
What, only DB and Percivale can find a flaw with it?
I can do it easily.
If he can't trust his own thinking, then how could he trust the arguments that say there is a god. Because, of course, he can only trust his own thinking if god exists, which means that in order for him to trust the outcome of this little game, he has to presuppose the existence of god.
Circular logic, my friend.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I'm not saying I agree with his quote, but I must disagree with the circular thinking you pointed out. It might be circular, but the fact is that if he's wrong, then your thinking also could be wrong, but if he's right, you're still wrong. If his thinking is flawed, then your thinking is not exempt from flaw. But if his thinking is right, then your thinking is still flawed! It is kinda circular at first glance, but either way disproves human thinking as a means of disproving God(or entity or intelligence... or whatever son_of_disaster calls it...). I don't know, just some thoughts...
-Cheez Out-
But I don't use that logic to determine my beliefs. If I was going to use that logic to do so, (which could be done) then I'd be circular, but since I'm not...
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
one reason that science is "anti-god" so to speak, is because the bible says that god said "let there be light" and he created all of this vast universe from nothing. science says that something can not be created from nothing because matter is neither created nor destroyed.
It is also proven that nothing cannot come from something and that matter cannot be destroyed, God on the other hand, cannot or has not been tried to be proven. Science isn't anti-god. Religion is anti-science and science is anti-religion.
I believe that Hawkings (I think) theories have added some interesting twists to that. The basic gist, as I understand it, is that when black holes close, the matter in them is not released back into the Universe, which means that what black holes take out of our Universe doesn't come back in.
I think (as a liberal arts student) that this is good evidence for the multiverse theory. An eternal multiverse solves the problem rather neatly, from my point of view.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
That's wonderful. Now we're out of science and into conjecture. Please, keep unproven theories out of this... black holes are not "portals" into another universe. If they do exist(I'm not saying they don't but I have read where some scientists have doubts as to that theory...) they are just where matter is compressed really really small. They don't dissapear and go to other universes. That's science fiction, not science. Black holes, in theory, are where matter has been so condensed that it's gravitational field is much higher than normal. If you've studied physics there's a law for this. It would be like if the earth was compressed to a dot at the center of where it once was, we'd still fall towards it at the same rate we do now, only since there's no ground between us and it, the closer we got to it, the more gravity would increase. Gravity is based on the mass of an object, not the volume. Ok so with that in mind, black holes are just regions where the volume has decreased but the mass is the same, and thus the gravity is still the same. You cannot say that that matter dissappears...
-Cheez Out-
Actually theoretical physics is always needed in these types of discussions. Without theoretical physics we wouldn't have Einstein's or Bohr's theories of the universe.
I'm not read up on my black holes, but now seems like as good a time as ever to brush up on is with Einstein, Bohr's and Hawkings.
I'm stating a theory presented by a preeminent scientist said, as I understand it. If it is correct, it offers a possible explanation.
How could you even consider talking theology without conjecture?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Just because a scientist is "preeminent" doesn't mean he's in any way capable of being right. Einstein was "preeminent" and he wasn't right in all of his theories. Oh and I'm not talking conjecture. Frankly, I never brought any conjecture into this argument, just logic. If you cannot face it then you're the one who needs to rethink their life a little. I'm talking logic here. Matter doesn't "dissappear". That's not even conjecture, that's a blantant lie! This really pisses me off. For lack of evidence, you'll resort to pulling disproven theories out of your crack that totally defy reason and you're going to tell me that "science" can disprove God?! I'm sick of what you people call "science". You'll take any theory that goes along with what you want to believe and you'll tell me that it's science. Science is the aquisition of knowledge. You only gain knowledge if you are properly using logic. If you can't tell the difference between logic and conjecture then you really have no place arguing with people who do have an idea. KEEP YOUR FICTION OUT OF THE DISCUSSION!! I never once brought up any fiction that was unprovable. Everything I said was based on logic. If you're going to jump into an argument, you better bring some facts with you, now some crazy theories that aren't true but if they were, then you would be right. It's like if I made my point by saying that if everyone suddenly received a million dollars, it would be a proof that God exists. Of course you would say, no, not everyone at one can receive a million dollars and you'd be right. Well to quote you, "If it is correct, it offers a possible explanation.". Well that's nice. I'll use that thinking. Well, my theory is totally full of holes but... A HUGE BUT.... if it is right, then it proves that God exists.
Am I using "logic" like that? Am I using completely wrong theories in my arguements? NO! I'm using logic. If you can answer my logic with logic and with out science fiction then you can talk...
-Cheez Out-
1) It also doesn't mean he's wrong. While he isn't saying that black holes create other Universes, he is saying that the matter taken into the black hole is never released back into the Universe. The point is that the matter is removed from existence, which can lend plausibility to the Multiverse Theory.
2) No, in this argument you never had much conjecture. Of course, God exists is conjecture because there is absolutely no way to show that to be true.
3) "Matter doesn't "dissappear". That's not even conjecture, that's a blantant lie!" Quantum physics says it can. Just because High School physics classes don't cover it doesn't make it false.
4)"you're going to tell me that "science" can disprove God?!"
I'd say no such thing, I'd say the burden of proof lies on you, not me.
5) "I never once brought up any fiction that was unprovable."
Oh, try this one. "God exists" Prove it.
6) Yes, if every person on Earth was suddenly and instantly a million dollars richer for no economic reason, it would point to god as a possible explanation.
7) Logic? All you're doing is screaming when someone presents a theory that you didn't learn about in high school. The fact is, I don't know. I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that people who are scientists support the theory.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Science dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. Well then where does all matter come from? Well if God created time and space, then he also placed the rules in it to govern it and since he is supreme and he created these laws for reality as we know it, then he is exempt from them. Here's an example. There's a stretch of road where the speed limit is ummm... let's say 50 miles per hour. Well let's say that everyone's cars are limited to this speed limit.(just say that their engines have been tweaked so that they max out at 50...) Well the person who created the road was there before the speed limit was introduced and his car can go as fast as it wants... just an example and probably a bad one at that... =( But the idea behind it is what I'm trying to get at...
-Cheez Out-
The only problem with that is that our universe is essentially expanding into nothing. Even taking yourself out of the universe would put you in a state of nonexistence, which is theoretically impossible and if it did exist, then God would be unable to create or intervene in this universe because it would simply be nonexistent.
Number one, as long as matter exists, there will never be any nothingness. It may be spread out to one atom per trillion miles or more and more thin, but there never will be nothing. Use logic. Things don't exist and then not-exist. If your body was put outside of the universe(wherever you draw the boundaries, it's not like in a textbook where they have it in this quaint little bubble...) it would be just matter placed where there wasn't matter before. Your matter wouldn't dissappear. Essintially you would be expanding the universe, or as least the part of it that has matter in it...
-Cheez Out-
Nothingness can't exist period because nothingness is nonexistence. I wrote an entire blog on it last contest. Anyway, I am using logic. Questioning what the universe is expanding into when clearly there is nothing for it to expand into is a logical question. Your matter wouldn't disappear, but it would cease to exist, at least in our universe. With a multiverse, you'd exist in another universe the, but you would be officially nonexistent in your previous universe and therefore cannot mess with it unless you go back into it. I know it isn't like a textbook, but when something expands, it takes up the space that wasn't occupied and our universe is expanding but there is no space for it to expand into.
...when one's only exposure to science comes from a church.
Factually incorrect. This is a common theological misapprenesion of The Law of Conservation of Matter. A more accurate statement of that Law, however, would be that in a closed system, mass will remain a constant, implying that matter can be niether created nor destroyed. In the past, your interpretation would probably go unchallenged, but both special relativity and especially quantum mechanics have forced scientists to recognize that space-time is not, technically speaking, a closed system. Thus, this Law is not universally applicable as was once thought.
I would suggest that you read the following article that provides a relatively non-technical discussion of Virtual Particles, and the experimental evidence that supports the presumption of their existence.
That's a very good question. And, here is a very good article from Steven Hawking's Universe that discusses the subject:
WHERE DOES MATTER COME FROM?
by Marcelo Gleiser
Well, isn't that convenient? Unfortunately, this assertion is purely speculative, and in the absense of any actual, objective evidence to support its truth-value, it doesn't really add any weight to your arugment.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. "
Wow. Come on people. I'm asking for logic here. Where in this statement do you find the proof that particles can just cease to exist? Frankly, no where. Essentially, these particles are split and then quickly rejoined as the original particle. No matter is lost. It's like if I had a bus that I cleaved in two. Well, some genius decided that since the original vehicle doesn't look like it's there, it must have "popped" out of existance. Well no. There are two halves lying there. Nothing dissappeared. It just changed form. So if you're going to go off of the basis that you think that particles can cease to exist then you're totally right. But until you can prove that... well, sorry but I'm not buying into that. It's unproven. It's impossible and it defies logic...
-Cheez Out-
...or once again your religiously polluted view has led you to misapprehend the statement that was offered to you.
Wow. Come on people. I'm asking for logic here. Where in this statement do you find the proof that particles can just cease to exist? Frankly, no where. Essentially, these particles are split and then quickly rejoined as the original particle. No matter is lost.
I will point you to the essential point that your bolded question overlooked...
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there."
When a particle divides into two virtual particles, there is more mass (and more matter) in the virtual particles than there was in the original particle...i.e., matter has just been "created." When the event ends, that extra mass (and matter) disappears...i.e. the matter has been "destroyed."
But until you can prove that... well, sorry but I'm not buying into that. It's unproven. It's impossible and it defies logic...
If you had read the rest of the article I provided, you would know that in fact the existence of virtual particles has been experimentally proved, and has been a solidly established Theory in modern science for over half a century.
Please, educate yourself.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Question. Is my understanding of Hawkings black hole thing that I was talking about correct?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I understand what you are saying, but to defend Christianity from what I have experienced from good christian people is that they want to do things logicaly and with respect towards what is right, not what they want to fit into their ideology or what fits inside their comofort zone. Not all Christians are like this though, humans are humans. And humans make many mistakes. I don't know its just something to think about. lol I hope this doesnt come off like I am trying to be rude. I just don't want yout to think we are all bad.
This is "phenomenal"??
Natural selection made our brains. An organism with a brain that can correctly assess the risk in a situation is more likely to leave descendants with his genes for a brain that can do just that. Everyone of my ancestors' brains were good enough to allow them to have offspring. Not a single one failed to do so. That is a long line in which the genes controlling our thinking abilities has been tested and found successful. So even if thought is the by-product of a flow of ions across neural membranes, I have pretty good reasons to trust my thinking.
Now suppose on the other hand that there was a creator who specifically designed our brain. Is there any reason to believe that he would necessarily design our brain to think clearly? Human video game designers create characters in their "universes" who have limited purposes. Their "thinking" is intentionally limited. So given our experience with video games ... an analogue for an intelligently designed universe ... postulating a designer gives one no more reason to "trust" one's own thinking than one has without it.
Instead of dealing with your post line for line I want to make some more general comments.
Science is the best and ultimately only reliable method to investigate the natural world. ANY phenomenon within the natural world is subject to scientific method. Therefore the only God that science can say nothing about is one who stays in supernatural domain and never involves himself with the activities of our world. Science cannot rule that possible God out ... but who cares if he exists or not?
(1) Theoretically it would be a simple thing for science to prove God's existence. All that would need to be done is for God to act the way you or I would if we wanted to prove our existence to others ... SHOW UP. But God doesn't do that? Why not? What is the purpose of this Divine Hiddeness? My answer ... God doesn't exist.
(2) People claim that God gives them revelations. But no one has yet produced any convincing evidence that the revelations actually came from God and not from within themselves. Why not? ... my answer is that God doesn't exist.
(3) People claim that the bible is a message to us from God. But there is no sign that there is a unified authorship, or that the bible contains anything suggestive of a supernatural authorship. Why not? ... my answer is that God doesn't exist.
(4) People claim that God made the universe and the life in it for a specific purpose. But I have yet to have anyone tell me a purpose that withstands scrutiny. Why not? .. my answer is that God doesn't exist.
(5) People claim that God answers prayers. However, when we try to quantify the effect of prayer scientifically, we find no such effect. Why not? ... my answer is that God doesn't exist.
So coming at the God question from 5 different directions lead to the same conclusion ... God doesn't exist. I find that consilience convincing. So I strongly disagree with your assessment "that reason and logic point to somthing bigger be it just intelligence or a entitiy of some sort". I think it points to the natural world being the only thing there is.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Oh gosh... you again. (I guess you could take that as a complement...) Ok, how much C.S. Lewis have you read? I'm not talking about going out and watching a movie based on a childrens series he wrote. I'm talking about title's such as "Mere Christianity.". Read that with an open mind and tell me what you think. Frankly, he could blow you out of the water with logic.
Ok, I'll address this. You're operating off of the idea that evolution is fact. Well according to many, it's not. But ok, let's just say that evolution is fact. It states that our brains are adapted to understand our enviroment around us and blah blah... you can explain that better, but what the quote meant was if our brains are just product of natural selection and evolution, then we're not adapted to understand the intricacies of the universe. We can observe and study some of them, but only the ones that our brains are capable of. Accordingly, we could be putting aside tremendous evidence just because our brains are not capable of understanding it. Now don't get all proud on me and tell me that YOUR brain is capable of understanding the secrets of the universe cuz, according to evolution, you're only capable of understanding as much as evolution has enabled you to. Thus you cannot disprove the existance of anything(I'm talking anything... not just an entity or intelligence or whatever son_of_disaster calls it...) based on your own knowledge because it's in no way complete. Now, what C.S. Lewis was saying is that if human thought is flawed, then you can't use it to prove or disprove anything. However, if God created it perfect for it's task, then we can use it to discover our enviroments or what the heck ever we use it for. We can prove or disprove theories and the like scientifically, but only on the basis that our thought is not flawed. So if our thought is the product of a creator, then we have nothing to worry about and can proceed scientifically. But, however, if our thought is the result of natural processes and evolution, then we cannot trust it for anything because it is inherently flawed. It only allows us to perceive the things that our senses have evolved. Compare our mind with that of an eagle. Hmmm... well our senses inform our minds by means of sight, taste, sound, touch and smell. Well eagles do as well, but they also have an extra sense. They navigate using the earth's magnetic field. Well we can't perceive this field using any of our "evolved" senses so we are limited in our perception of the world around us by those senses. To say that the magnetic field doesn't exist because we don't see, hear, feel, taste or smell it would be ridiculous. We know now that it exists, but only by studying the effects of it with our senses. We aren't actually able to sense it. Eagles do though...
Same applies to our brains. If it's evolved then there's the fact that it has more to evolve and if so, then the thinking done with the unevolved brain cannot be true when faced by the thinking of the more evolved brain. It's like us watching some chimps in a zoo. Let's say that they're gathered around... a banana! Now they've all been born in that zoo and have no idea what the outside is like. One of them pipes up. "I think that the banana came from a hole in the ground." Another doesn't agree. He's seen the zoo tenders drop in bunches of bananas over the wall so he states that, "No, banana's come from the sky." Well based on his knowledge, he's right. But we, having superior brains and knowledge know that bananas come from trees. So while the one chimps hypothesis is proveable because for him bananas do in fact seem to come from the sky, it negates the fact that there could be different circumstances. Let's say that the chimps were in a cage and the bananas were dropped in a chute for them to eat. They might concur that bananas come from chutes. Scientifically they would be right. They created a hypothesis and it was proved the next time a bunch of bananas came down the chute. Great! It's now a theory!
Well we as humans do the same thing. We create a hypothesis. "God does not exist". Then we test it. Hmmm... do we see him? Do we smell him? Do we taste him? Do we feel him? Do we hear him? Well, except in some cases(such as in the bible where there are occurances where people saw or heard God...) the answer is no to all of those questions. So we write it off as another fact. But you cannot rely on your own thinking. What if God mostly operates out side of our senses? What if he does things that aren't immediately observable? We leave room for theories about astronomy and the like where we can't immediately observe the actions and reactions occuring but we don't write them off like they could never be proven... why do we do the same with God?
-Cheez Out-
doesn't know much about science OR logic, you seem to think you do.
Instead of contributing further to the hijacking of this thread, I have written a a blog further details the problems with the quote and your screwed up thought.
Enjoy,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Well it could be the complex circular reasoning that Lewis trapped me with and it seemed phenomenal to me, but when you and Jsaj point out its flaws, it doesn's seem quite so brilliant.
I agree about the intelligence and thinking factor like in video games. Have you read about the simulation theory, because the examples you're using were never brought up there, but in my mind it would ne an excellent addition.
I agree science is the best. As I see it, modern evolution is also the best at describing all of this. The difference in my views is that I can't confirm nor deny the existence of God, but I feel that isolated people cannot have thought up the idea of God all by themselves. So it seems to me that a "watchmaker" God exists and created the universe with the Big Bang and then let it run its course. But that's just me, and I'm always open to new ideas.
However your five arguments are very convincing. I think I'll hold to my beliefs a little longer, but I know have more things to consider and to turn over in my mind.
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." ~ Mark Twain
Yep...there's a flaw. In fact, there are a few of them. Here we go...
Basically, what we have here is a sloppy syllogism. This is an example of begging the question (which is, I might add, the most common flaw found in virtually all "pro-god" arguments). The reasoning is essentially circular. In order to reach the (paraphrased) conclusion that "without god, sound reasoning is not possible," one must accept as a premise that "without god, sound reasoning is not possible." A properly framed version of this argument would actually be two different logical questions. The first would be "Am I capable of sound reasoning?" If you are NOT capable of sound reasoning, then you may as well stop there. Nothing that you can conclude one way or the other is valid. If, however, you ARE capable of sound reasoning, THEN you can move on to the second question..."Does 'god' exist?"
They can...at least, the can IF (and that's a pretty big "IF") "god" actually exists. To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no actual, objective evidence that is soundly based in any relevant field of scientific study that would suggest that "god" (or any other supernatural being or force) acutally exists.
I can't speak for D.B., but I would NOT say that there is more proof that "god" doesn't exist, because saying that would represent a logical fallacy. When it comes to logical propositions, one cannot in general use logic to prove that something does NOT exist (there are some logical exceptions to that rule, but none of them really apply here). The burden of proof in cases like this, logically lies with the person who proposes the positive premise, i.e. the proposition that "god" exists. The entire burden of the argument lies with the positive position to make its case without falling prey to any logical flaws.
This is similar to, but not exactly the same as the empirical question of whether or not "god" exists. Again, the burden of proof lies with positive hypothesis. If you think that "god" exists as a real object, then you need to construct an falsifiable, empirical experiment that will allow you to test your hypothesis. To the best of my knowledge, there have been few such tests ever devised, and those that have been did not produce results that would support your hypothesis.
Okay...so, what "proof,"...exactly...are you talking about?
I diagree. In my experience, the "reason and logic" that are used in defense of the "pro-god" position consistently fails for similar reasons that your C.S. Lewis quote does, above.
Having an open mind does not (or should not) require one to give credibility to an argument simply because it represents an opposing point-of-view. Having an open mind means (or should mean) that you are willing to change your opinion if the evidence (or a valid argument) suggests that your own opinion is flawed.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Mark Twain will almost certainly trump someone like Lewis in these debates...which I am glad he does. Twain makes a very good point and it in my mind overrides Lewis's point.
I agree that science and God can exist only if God actually exists. It might still be my Christian upbringing that I still lean if not possibly yearn for at least something to be there that really isn't. As you can see by my "religious" views, it's basically a contradiction.
Lewis's statement gave credibility in my mind, that's why I was hoping for you and/or DB to enter because whereas part of me leans toward the God idea, the other part of me leans toward no God existing. Being able to see the discussion from both sides of the ball makes it easier to see what one wants to see or what is actually there. That being said, I still hold on to my leanings, for the most part because of my upbringing, but seeing yours and DB's sides, there clearly is more evidence for God not to exist than for God to exist.
Ok. I'm going to address your circular reasoning question. Lewis makes a statement. Either our minds are made perfect or they are evolved and hence only capable of what they've evolved to do. They aren't able to understand everything if that is the case. Well if you run off of the premise that our mind's are evolved, then you honestly and truthfully can't say that you have enough knowledge to prove or disprove God since there's so much more knowledge out there. Well if our minds are made perfect then we can prove and disprove things but only with the knowledge that our brains are actually capable of such things, hence, God-given. To say that if his premise is true then how can you trust his premise, would still lead you to the conclusion that if he was wrong then it was on the basis that his premise was right and that means that you are wrong as well. You could say that, well his premise states that you can't trust your thinking so you can't trust his either. Well ok, if that's true then you're still faced with the fact that you can't trust your thinking. Well if the other side is true, the God gave us brains perfectly able to rationalize things and discover things and one which we can rely on, then we must know that there is a God. You can't say that, "There is no God!" and "I rationalized it out..." in the same sentence. Number one, if there is no God then you can't be sure that your knowledge, or any knowledge is perfect. Number two, if your knowledge isn't perfect, you can't "rationalize" anything. Sure you can be like an animal and just interpret your surroundings via your five senses but you really can't be sure of anything outside of that realm.
Have you ever considered a child. They'll sit there and play in the mud and get filthy and when you tell them to wash up and come in, they complain! Now to our reasoning, the logic is, "You're filthy and you're going to track it in the house." Well they still complain. They don't see our logic. They see their own. "Quickest way to the dinner table is not going to the garden hose to wash off." Well they rationalized it out and that was their logical conclusion. It doesn't make them right because we, as the superior intellect, know what's actually right in this case(unless you like living in a mud pit...). Well if evolution is true, we're just another intermediary species between homo erectus and the step beyond us. Maybe they'll have larger and more capable brains and will laugh at us for thinking that we knew what was true and what could be proven false...
-Cheez Out-
I think that you SHOULD address this point, since your further arguments fall prey to the SAME logical fallacy.
Here is your first slip. You are begging the question by assuming that a mind created by a being whose existence is the desired conclusion of your argument is capable of superior thought than a mind that has evolved. You further beg the question by assuming that ONLY a mind created by a being whose existence is the desired conclusion of your argument is capable of that level of thought.
Indeed...but then, I have made no such claim. I have merely pointed out the logical flaws present in your argument. I have made no assertion towards the potential existence of god, though I do in fact find the proposition unlikely, I certianly don't rule it out entirely, and for precisely the reason that you suggest. However, what evidence IS known does not support your assertion, and until you discover some evidence that DOES support your point-of-view, it will continue to remain an unlikely possibility in any reasonable, rational mind.
Again, you beg the question by assuming that even if "god" exists, that only "he" is capable of making "perfect" minds, or even if "he" can, that "he" would do so. This simple fact, however, is that this premise is supported ONLY by your assertion.
Wow...that is possible the most convoluted, and essentially incomprehensible stream of bable that I have ever enountered. I must admit that I find it difficult to even follow the flow of it, so many are its twists and turns. But, I shall try...
Once again, the essence of your comment begs the same question, and rests on the same assumption that unless "god" exists, that the human mind would be incapable of higher thought. Our minds are what they are. Your argument is a classic example of circular logic (a.k.a. begging the question).
I know and can prove that human children exist. I know and can prove that human adults exist. Thus, the comparison between the logic of a child and the logic of an adult has meaning, and can be used to help craft a sound logical argument concerning the nature of human children and adults. However, to extend that comparison to humans and "god," you must first be able to prove to an equivalent certainty that "god" in fact exists. If you cannot (and so far you aren't doing a very good job of it), then your argument is once again circular, as it begs the question of "god's" existence.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We won't know until that happens. Until then, we have to make do with the brains that we have, which as I have said are what they are, regardless of our speculative origins.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Ok. I will make try to make the logic I used clear. Sorry if I was confusing. Ok...
Let's make a chart...
If: We can't rely on the logic that our brains use
Then: We cannot use it to prove/disprove anything that we don't know about.(in this case, God)
If: Our minds are capable of perfect logic
Then: We can use our brains to prove/disprove things using the understanding we have now, in the knowledge that it is perfect. (Ie. if we can trust our logic as correct, then we can use it...)
If: Our minds are capable of perfect logic
Then: Someone/thing/entity/intelligence with perfect logic gave it to us
If: We were given perfect logic
Then: Evolution cannot be true because it states that we weren't created
Ok, let's take God out of this.
If: We are capable of perfect logic
Then: Since evolution is not capable of creating something perfect(just highly adapted to it's enviroment), it cannot be true.
If: Evolution is true
Then: Our logic is inherently flawed, subject to how we evolved, and thus, we cannot trust it fully.
Ok, if evolution is true and our logic is flawed, yes, we do still use our brains to interpret data from our enviroment. But to say that something is for sure wrong, or for sure right is not possible. We cannot say that one theory is correct and another isn't since there MAY be more data out there that we don't know of, or, are not able to comprehend. Thus, if you believe in evolution, you cannot say that anything is logically right or wrong.
Ok, here's where I put God back in the picture.
If: the theory of God is impossible to prove wrong, because we cannot say that one theory is right or wrong.
Then: the possibility of the theory being correct is still possible.
So I'll leave you with this question. Knowing that the possibility exists, it states some absolutes. According to the "theory", God is perfect. He set out what is right and wrong and since he created us(still according to the possible "theory"...) then we are accountable to him for whether we followed the purpose for which he created us. Well, according to the plausable "theory", there's a problem. Mankind fell into sin in the garden of Eden(still according to the "theory" that you can't disprove honestly...). If you're familiar with any bible(God's word... according to "theory") you might have heard this verse before. Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Well that is a problem cuz the Bible also states that the "Wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23. Also, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practising evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." John 3:19-20. Well, you admitted that you can't really, honestly and with logic disprove this "theory". You may think it unlikely, based on whatever data you've heard or read, but the fact is that you cannot know for sure, if you believe in evolution. Well, just a friendly nudge but you might want to investigate and read up on what God said in his word. Just to educate you on it because, hey, if you can't say for sure that it's wrong, honestly, then you might want to be on the right side of the law right? Hey, that scripture I mentioned above, well, there's another part to it. You see that one come right after John 3:16 and 17.
John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Then in verse 18 it goes on, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." So God made a way for us to make up for our sin, for our not being what we were created to be. Our sin was put on Jesus who paid the price for sin, which is death, so if we ask God to take our sin away and change us to enable us to resist sin he will. Ok, that's really, really basic christianity. So the question I put to you is, knowing that God is possible, are you willing to believe that he doesn't exist(honestly...) and live with that and die with that when you know that you might be wrong? Well if you don't want to take a chance like that, the best place to learn about God is in His word, ie. the Bible... you make the descision...
-Cheez Out-
"If: Our minds are capable of perfect logic
Then: Someone/thing/entity/intelligence with perfect logic gave it to us"
Why?
"If: We are capable of perfect logic
Then: Since evolution is not capable of creating something perfect(just highly adapted to it's enviroment), it cannot be true."
Again. Why?
And, also, why do we need perfect logic. We don't. We need good logic.
And, also, since this provides absolutely no evidence that we do in fact have perfect logic, any reasoning that points to god is just as questionable.
What I would say is that human minds are, for the most part, very good. And, thus, our logic, while not perfect, needs not be doubted merely because of its imperfection, but when the results of that logic are clearly flawed or unverifiable.
"Ok, if evolution is true and our logic is flawed, yes, we do still use our brains to interpret data from our enviroment. "
Indeed we do.
"But to say that something is for sure wrong, or for sure right is not possible."
It's a good thing that evolutionists don't sat that.
"We cannot say that one theory is correct and another isn't since there MAY be more data out there that we don't know of, or, are not able to comprehend."
But, we can say, and we do, that based on the evidence available to us, one theory is more likely correct than another theory.
"Thus, if you believe in evolution, you cannot say that anything is logically right or wrong."
Yes I can. I can say that it is illogical to use circular reasoning to try and point to the existence of god. I can also say that it is illogical to say that because one theory seems unable to explain certain things that another theory must be true.
"If: the theory of God is impossible to prove wrong, because we cannot say that one theory is right or wrong.
Then: the possibility of the theory being correct is still possible."
And I would say that you are correct. I would not say, though, that it is reasonable to afford the god theory equal chance of correctness based on the evidence available to us.
"Knowing that the possibility exists, it states some absolutes. According to the "theory", God is perfect."
According to whose theory? And, on what grounds? How can we test this? What would the results show if this was true?
"He set out what is right and wrong and since he created us(still according to the possible "theory"...) then we are accountable to him for whether we followed the purpose for which he created us."
Again, how can this be tested?
"Well, according to the plausable "theory", there's a problem."
I'd say one big problem is your use of the word plausible. I'd say that is rectified by the fact that you seem to accept that this is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be tested and cannot make predictions.
"Mankind fell into sin in the garden of Eden(still according to the "theory" that you can't disprove honestly...)."
While I can't disprove it, I can say that it is highly unlikely, based on available evidence. For example, the location of Eden isn't totally vague. It was placed in location to certain rivers. How is it that there is no archaeological evidence for its existence?
"If you're familiar with any bible(God's word... according to "theory") you might have heard this verse before. Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.""
Actually, this is strongly flawed. The New Testament and Old Testament are god's word according to your theory. Other people have different theories. The Jews say it's just the OT. The Mormons add a book. Different sects of Christianity include different books in the NT. Islam says the Koran is the final word of god. Zoroastrianism says something totally different from all the Abrahamic religions, just to name a few religions. A big problem is that none are any more verifiable than the others.
"Well that is a problem cuz the Bible also states that the "Wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23. Also, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practising evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." John 3:19-20."
Um. What does this actually have to do with anything? How are these quotes in any particular way pertinent to the question at hand?
"Well, you admitted that you can't really, honestly and with logic disprove this "theory". You may think it unlikely, based on whatever data you've heard or read, but the fact is that you cannot know for sure, if you believe in evolution."
I don't claim to know for sure, but I also claim that you, also very likely a product of evolution, can't know for sure.
"Well, just a friendly nudge but you might want to investigate and read up on what God said in his word. Just to educate you on it because, hey, if you can't say for sure that it's wrong, honestly, then you might want to be on the right side of the law right?"
Why, that's a great idea! You might want to read up on some science that's more than high school level. I've read and am reading. I see absolutely no reason to put my faith in what it says.
"Hey, that scripture I mentioned above, well, there's another part to it. You see that one come right after John 3:16 and 17.
John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." Then in verse 18 it goes on, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." So God made a way for us to make up for our sin, for our not being what we were created to be. Our sin was put on Jesus who paid the price for sin, which is death, so if we ask God to take our sin away and change us to enable us to resist sin he will. Ok, that's really, really basic christianity. So the question I put to you is, knowing that God is possible, are you willing to believe that he doesn't exist(honestly...) and live with that and die with that when you know that you might be wrong? Well if you don't want to take a chance like that, the best place to learn about God is in His word, ie. the Bible... you make the descision..."
Yes, I am willing. Why? Because I have absolutely no reason, based on the evidence at hand, to assume that it is true. And, what if you're wrong. Maybe Islam is right. Maybe LDS is right. Maybe Zeus is real. Who knows? Maybe you're going to hell for believing in the wrong religion.
All I have to say is that any god who sends people to hell for skepticism or misplaced faith is a small minded petty being not worthy of worship except out of fear of punishment.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
If your chart includes the same logical fallacy (and it does), then it isn't any more sound that your previous argument...
Your first two relationships seem logical, but are a bit unclear. How do you define "perfect" logic? What is the objective measure against which you quantify this judgement?
Your next two relationships, however, are guilty of the same logical fallacy that has pervaded your entire presentation. This is a classic example of a circular argument. These relationships assume that "perfect" logic exists (whatever that means), and they assume that only some outside agency (i.e. an "entity" whose existence you are attempting to establish through your argument) could be responsible for a mind that is sufficient to grasp the concepts at hand.
The converse relationships that you offer are nothing more than the other side of the same illogical, circular argument.
Your argument is conclusatory. The idea that if our minds are the product of evolution, then they must be flawwed is conclusatory, and thus fails the test of logic.
Not at all. Your attempt at creating a logic table has failed, because you have mistakenly assumed two things...one, that the options you have chosen are the only possible options; and two...that the evidence in support of each of the present options is equally distributed. This is a common error among those who have read, for example, Pascal's Wager, which also falls prey to this same structural fallacy.
Acutally, your argument assumes some absolutes, but unfortunately, those absolutes are not demonstrably true, and thus your argument is unsound.
You don't have a "theory." You have a hypothesis. In order for your hypothesis to be considered a theory, you need a means of obtaining objective, testable evidence that supports your hypothesis. Can you provide us with a falsifiable experiment that supports your hypothesis? If you can, you will be the first person in history to do so, and well on your way to winning a Nobel Prize.
Blah, blah, religious crap, blah, blah. If you want to preach, go find a pulpit. If you want to discuss logic and evidence, however, then you need to abide by the accepted norms and practices that define those terms.
That is because, unlike you, I understand that attempting to do so would make me guilty of the SAME logical flaws which poison your position. To even ask someone to disprove a "theory" in this fashion is a logical fallacy. What you are asking is no different than someone who demands that Big Foot is real unless you can prove that Big Foot is not real. I'm sorry, but logical arguments just don't work that way.
You're right...I cannot know "for sure," because I have a reasonable understanding of what I know and what I don't know. However, your assumption that this in any way supports your position demonstrates a very poor understanding of the nature of logical discussions.
Why do religious zealots always assume that their opponents are poorly informed concerning the contents of the bible? I would be willing to be you a beer that I am far more well read concerning the bible, including its actual contents and the scholarship that surrounds it, than you. I was raised in a very religious, christian family, attended and graduated with honors from an excellent private christian academy, and went on to study the bible in-depth at the collegiate level. I have read the bible in two modern languages (English and French), and studied the comparative translations from the orginal Greek and Hebrew. What about you?
This is one of the most common, and most unethical arguments that I hear from the huge number of turbo-christians that seem to infest the world wide web. I base my beliefs on the evidence and the weight of the arugments. I don't try to "hedge my bets," just in case those conclusions turn out to be wrong. You also assume that the bet you offer is a good one, when in fact the evidence (or rather utter lack thereof) suggests exactly the opposite.
The bottom line is simple...you can quote all the bible-crap you want, but unless you can come up with some actual, objective evidence that would indicate that the "divinely inspired source" of that book's "wisdom" is real, then your quotes are meaningless.
Man...I would love to sit across from you in a poker game.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
it is not feasible that the application of logic and reason can be applied to prove or disprove of a god entity. The theory of religion is based on assumption, therefore it can not be proven nor disproven using logic. The only possible solution would be for time to continue and for us a civilization to make an attempt to forget the humiliation of our past when we engaged ourselves in such primative thinking. Through science our eyes are being opened to a new world where we are in control to guide our fate through the promises of biological enhancement
Sure we can fall back on the teaching of religions and their morals. The only problem is that those morals are all based off what is known as Natural Laws that we witness using logic, something that religions usually never take into effect. Do I feel that deism is a scientific religion? Certainly not, science cannot prove a human construct, but no one has really tried to prove or disprove God. My point is that logic and reason all point to something bigger than us, more than likely some intelligence of some sort, probably an intelligent universe. Religions unfortunately disregard logic and reason and that is where they all fail miserably.
I am not saying God exists, I am only saying that reason and logic point to somthing bigger be it just intelligence or a entitiy of some sort. Still it is better to leave an open mind to all things than to close it off to even one because when you shut down even part of your thinking, you suffer greatly.
So what is your point. You can prove something thats greater than human intelligence? This has always been said... I don't see any relative breakthrough in thought in this blog. You wrote, "I am only saying that reason and logic point to somthing bigger be it just intelligence or a entitiy of some sort.", this has been the case for ever. A greater entity which can only be believed in if you have faith. That's the whole reason why the faith word exists. We will never know, why do we even bother trying to find out. It's beyond our mental capacity to comprehend it.
+mspin
I meant in my own mind. I don't have faith in it, to me the intracities in life sometimes seem to be from a high intelligence and other times I see how a high intelligence could not exist and it would all work out. Faith is worthless, and it isn't beyond our mental capacity to try finding out. There is no point to living if all you do is decide that you live life, you have to learn and evolve with it, and you must be searching or you'll waste away.