Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Story]

no further inquiry is required.....

Inquiry, how can there be inquiry with someone openly admitting that asking for empirical evidence of god is an error?

 

[Story]

Well, sure. I don't think there is a better explanation for our existence than God, and the answers of the participants of this thread just prove me right. they just cement further my position

Please do me the service of telling me what would falsify your belief?

He's just purposely being obnoxious now. It is symptomatic of logical death. The throes of abandonment. He'll be gone shortly. He may troll a little while longer before that though.

Regardless of what argument you make he'll just say "Oh that makes me believe my assertion more" or words to that effect, It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. He came here with an emotion and he wants to leave with the same feeling. I've been in his place before. I believe he is actually beginning to doubt his own position, but he will not admit that to us, he likely would not even admit it to himself.

You have to realise that there is a lot of egoism involved in debate, even if you're shown to be absolutely wrong, you can't admit to that, not only because it's hard to change your beliefs, but also because it feels as if it would be a shame or disgrace to admit error. You can almost see his doubts showing with his "you can't ask for evidence of god" argument and his incapacity to address many arguments that are made. This is a painful scary process however and he will not allow himself to succumb to these spurts of cognition for a long while to come.

As I said, I've been in his position before. I only just now posted on the Skeptics Annotated Bible board apologising for my attitude in the past and trying to help out with dissent on the boards.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

He came here with an emotion and he wants to leave with the same feeling. I've been in his place before. I believe he is actually beginning to doubt his own position, but he will not admit that to us, he likely would not even admit it to himself.

You have to realize that there is a lot of egoism involved in debate, even if you're shown to be absolutely wrong, you can't admit to that, not only because it's hard to change your beliefs, but also because it feels as if it would be a shame or disgrace to admit error. . . . This is a painful scary process however and he will not allow himself to succumb to these spurts of cognition for a long while to come.

This.
I've also been in the same position and I left and came back weeks, sometimes months later, after which I would get beaten and left again. This went on for years.
It's a battle of attrition and people who respond in this way are just doing damage control because it's scary as hell.

 

[borrofburi]

Regardless of what argument you make he'll just say "Oh that makes me believe my assertion more" or words to that effect, It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. He came here with an emotion and he wants to leave with the same feeling. I've been in his place before. I believe he is actually beginning to doubt his own position, but he will not admit that to us, he likely would not even admit it to himself.

There is evidence to suggest that debunking something just makes people believe it more...

not only because it's hard to change your beliefs

This bit is very crucial... Even when I am perfectly open minded to something (and there's no egoism involved), it still takes a LONG time and a LOT of effort to convince me. The reason for this is not necessarily dogmatism or stubbornness; rather there are two primary reasons conversations do NOT affect immediate change (at least in me): (1) just because I can't refute position A in the moment does not make position A correct (2) just because I can't refute position A does not make position A correct (i.e. others might be able to refute it, so I have to do plenty of research).

The first one basically amounts to: it takes a lot of time for my brain to process this new information and these new arguments, and not only do I have to spend time thinking hard and engaging them, I have to spend time trying various rebuttals and seeing if they hold well (which, of course, results in new arguments that I have to consider). However, the second one, consulting with others who disagree with whatever you're telling me is a very interesting one: there's two ways to handle it.

Either I can find the rebuttals to what you're telling me, and then find the rebuttals to the rebuttals to what you're telling me, OR I can find the rebuttals to what you're telling me, and respond back to you with them. I see arguments for the validity of both of them.

The problem with the latter, as we often tell creationists we're fed up with is a "why the hell don't you do your own research, these have been answered time and time again already" type of problem; however the difficulty for the person doing the research is twofold: (1) the person doing the research might not know how to find the reply to the rebuttals, and (2) the person doing the research might not necessarily be aware that there is a reply to the rebuttals worth searching for (i.e. we who see these canards repeatedly know that there's plenty of very good responses and consider them to be old and pathetic, but someone who really believes them thinks of them as new and cutting edge not even realizing that they're so commonplace they've become canards).

And of course, as already addressed, the problem with bringing the rebuttals back to the person you're talking with is that they might be offended you would insult them with such replies, and wonder why on earth you didn't do even a smidgen of basic research; but the advantage to it is this: research takes time and effort, and if the person trying to convince you of a position is well weathered, you can almost use that person as a quick refutation encyclopedia, and as a result save yourself some time...

Anyway, the result of all this is that even ignoring egoism, or dogmatism, or any of those things, it can very reasonably take a long time for a person to change their mind.

You have to realise that there is a lot of egoism involved in debate, even if you're shown to be absolutely wrong, you can't admit to that, not only because it's hard to change your beliefs, but also because it feels as if it would be a shame or disgrace to admit error. You can almost see his doubts showing with his "you can't ask for evidence of god" argument and his incapacity to address many arguments that are made. This is a painful scary process however and he will not allow himself to succumb to these spurts of cognition for a long while to come.

I don't know that he's at all changing his mind (I think he probably belongs to the group of people for whom disagreement/refutation/debunking/criticism just makes them more certain they're right no matter how precise, logical, or clear the response is (or even the group of people who engage in these online "conversations" to satisfy their own persecution complex)), nevertheless your post reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvXH-1N_VE (I'd embed but this post is already long)

 

[Japhia888]

Well, sure. I don't think there is a better explanation for our existence than God, and the answers of the participants of this thread just prove me right. they just cement further my position

Please do me the service of telling me what would falsify your belief?

If the skeletton of Jesus Christ would be found, with 100% proof it would be of Jesus, my faith would be worthless.

 

[borrofburi]

Please do me the service of telling me what would falsify your belief?

If the skeletton of Jesus Christ would be found, with 100% proof it would be of Jesus, my faith would be worthless.

Oh I know you! We've had this conversation before!

Hmm... if the skeleton of the invisible undetectable purple dragon in my garage were found, with 100% proof it was of that purple dragon, my faith would be worthless.

Moreover, the physical death of jesus does not actually disprove the deistic god you've spent the entire thread arguing for.

 

[Japhia888]

Oh I know you! We've had this conversation before!

Hmm... if the skeleton of the invisible undetectable purple dragon in my garage were found, with 100% proof it was of that purple dragon, my faith would be worthless.

Moreover, the physical death of jesus does not actually disprove the deistic god you've spent the entire thread arguing for.

then lets put it this way :

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe
- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

chance resumes to simply " nothing " . Nothing , aka a inefficient cause, should be a more rational, more compelling, simply a better explanation, than a intelligent designer, aka a efficent cause for all that exists ?

that explanation might satisfy you ( and i really don't know why ) Certainly it does not me. Neither do i understand, why such thinking should be reasonable. Based on what should this be a league of reason ? based on NOTHING ????

i know... you might say.........no no no... we simply have no answers yet..... bollock. any reasonable person can find out just by studying nature, that it makes a lot of sense to believe in a intelligent creator, by observing its complexity, its beauty, its organisation.

 

[Logic-Nanaki]

Oh I know you! We've had this conversation before!

Hmm... if the skeleton of the invisible undetectable purple dragon in my garage were found, with 100% proof it was of that purple dragon, my faith would be worthless.

Moreover, the physical death of jesus does not actually disprove the deistic god you've spent the entire thread arguing for.

then lets put it this way :

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe
- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

chance resumes to simply " nothing " . Nothing , aka a inefficient cause, should be a more rational, more compelling, simply a better explanation, than a intelligent designer, aka a efficent cause for all that exists ?

that explanation might satisfy you ( and i really don't know why ) Certainly it does not me. Neither do i understand, why such thinking should be reasonable. Based on what should this be a league of reason ? based on NOTHING ????

i know... you might say.........no no no... we simply have no answers yet..... bollock. any reasonable person can find out just by studying nature, that it makes a lot of sense to believe in a intelligent creator, by observing its complexity, its beauty, its organisation.

we simply don't say "goddidit" and just leave it at that. we actually WANT to find the answers. not just say my magical sky-daddy did it so no more research is needed. besides. the scientific models have no need for a invisible pink skydaddy to tinker to get the universe as it is. what YOU have done is giving up the quest of finding out stuff.

 

[Japhia888]

we simply don't say "goddidit" and just leave it at that. we actually WANT to find the answers. not just say my magical sky-daddy did it so no more research is needed.

what you want to say is : we actually WANT to find the answers, but God shall be excluded as reasonable answer AT ANY COST .
That is not : lets lead us through the evidence, whereever it goes. Its more like : We want a naturalistic answer, whatever leads to God, is excluded .

besides. the scientific models have no need for a invisible pink skydaddy to tinker to get the universe as it is.

that is, because modern science is commited to find all answers within the universe, not outside. And when the limit is reached, than the escape is : we don't know the answer......

what YOU have done is giving up the quest of finding out stuff.

Yes, that is true. I have found a answer, which convinces and satisfies me 100%. I believe, i have found the truth to the ultimate questions.
That makes me a very happy person, which has found meaning, and hope.

 

[Story]

Japhia, tell me the difference between saying "God did it" and "A magical entity done it with it's powerful magic".

 

[Andiferous]

that is, because modern science is commited to find all answers within the universe, not outside. And when the limit is reached, than the escape is : we don't know the answer......

what YOU have done is giving up the quest of finding out stuff.

Yes, that is true. I have found a answer, which convinces and satisfies me 100%. I believe, i have found the truth to the ultimate questions.
That makes me a very happy person, which has found meaning, and hope.

But you've hit the nail on the head. You can't test for god with what we know of this universe, because god is theoretically not in this universe. Sometimes you just have to accept that things may not be knowable.

Were all things immediately knowable by us, wouldn't that make us god, and the assumption a kind of hubris?

 

[Story]

Even when I am perfectly open minded to something (and there's no egoism involved), it still takes a LONG time and a LOT of effort to convince me. The reason for this is not necessarily dogmatism or stubbornness; rather there are two primary reasons conversations do NOT affect immediate change (at least in me): (1) just because I can't refute position A in the moment does not make position A correct (2) just because I can't refute position A does not make position A correct (i.e. others might be able to refute it, so I have to do plenty of research).

Hmmmm... but would you say that losing a debate on something that is supported by multitude of people, research, evidence and arguments that shoots down all of your rebuttals and discredits all the research you do against the concept wouldn't make you slightly doubt your position, no matter how ridiculous it sounded to you?

 

[Jotto999]

Sometimes you just have to accept that things may not be knowable.

What makes you think it cannot be known?

Yeah I know, here we go again, but your assertion still has nothing to support it. Since you're using it as an argument here, then support the assertion that there are things that are impossible to know.

Note: I am not agreeing with Japhia, only aiming to expose a weakness in the quoted text.

 

[Rivius]

Oh I know you! We've had this conversation before!

Hmm... if the skeleton of the invisible undetectable purple dragon in my garage were found, with 100% proof it was of that purple dragon, my faith would be worthless.

Moreover, the physical death of jesus does not actually disprove the deistic god you've spent the entire thread arguing for.

then lets put it this way :

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe
- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

chance resumes to simply " nothing " . Nothing , aka a inefficient cause, should be a more rational, more compelling, simply a better explanation, than a intelligent designer, aka a efficent cause for all that exists ?

that explanation might satisfy you ( and i really don't know why ) Certainly it does not me. Neither do i understand, why such thinking should be reasonable. Based on what should this be a league of reason ? based on NOTHING ????

i know... you might say.........no no no... we simply have no answers yet..... bollock. any reasonable person can find out just by studying nature, that it makes a lot of sense to believe in a intelligent creator, by observing its complexity, its beauty, its organisation.

I'm sorry, but at this point, I know you never even tried to understand what people are trying to explain to you. You're just rigidly set in your beliefs. A lot of things "happen by chance". It's nonsense and a completely silly anthropocentric view of the universe. The universe doesn't give a flying fuck if we're here.

The existence of the universe is something no one can really explain to its fullest yet, but we're seeking the answer.

The fine tuning constants you're talking about are garbage. You do realize that 99% of all species of life that ever arose are now dead right? It's life's own ability to evolve that had it adapt toward the harsh conditions in the world. The mere wastefulness over the years of specie, upon specie, upon specie to get to us is just silly if done by some sort of intelligent God. If the universe were fined tuned for life, then it would have occurred elsewhere as well, would it not?

No, the only fine-tuning you seem to see is in one small little corner of the universe, which is soon to be wiped out by either the Andromeda-Milky Way collision or the destruction of the sun (which looks like it'll happen first). Life is but a transient occurrence in the universe, soon to be wiped out. Fined tuned my asshole.

DNA --> Evolution.
Consciousness--> Evolution.
Thinking, speech and morality ---> Cultural Evolution.

All of these things developed over time, through our own damned struggles. They're chemistry and physics at work.
They weren't magically gifted to us from a God. Too many of our predecessors DIED to pass on the successful genes that will go on to become us.


And you made a little shot about being happy about meaning. You're so silly, you don't even realize that meaning is a human construct and concept. Since when did meaning have anything to do with cosmic validation? As long as my life and my accomplishments, goals and dreams have significant sentimental value to me to be able to call it "meaningful" that's all that ever really matters.

You just don't understand how the world works is all. You need a little anchor for everything and you want everything to be grounded objectively. It's not. We deal with things the way we do, because that's how we are constructed, and it's only practical. In the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't matter anyway, but who gives a fuck about the grand scheme? We can barely make it past the moon, why would we need anything external to interact with our terrestrial affairs?

what you want to say is : we actually WANT to find the answers, but God shall be excluded as reasonable answer AT ANY COST .
That is not : lets lead us through the evidence, whereever it goes. Its more like : We want a naturalistic answer, whatever leads to God, is excluded .

Nothing leads to God, nothing leads to God, nothing leads to God. God does not logically follow from anything. If we ever reach the point where God really is the best explanation for everything then it would be settled. BUT GOD IS NOT. God has been a cop-out answer, and a shrug of dismissal of every important question throughout the history of mankind. It doesn't explain anything, and over time, we found better answers by actual inquiry. Why is the sky blue? Why does the sun rise? Is it because God did it? Is it because God leads the light on burning chariots across the sky? Is God the sun? If we kept stopping at God for an answer, we wouldn't know anything about anything.

Is plague just demons killing us? Are diseases just satan's work? Punishment for our sins?

DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS STUPID RELIGIOUS THINKING IS DANGEROUS TO KNOWLEDGE? Do you understand what sort of backward, undeveloped society we'd be living in if we still adhered to such thinking?

No, God has never been the best answer to anything, and it will never be. When dealing with nature, the answers have always been found in nature. The metaphysical has yet to show to us that it actually exists, let alone answers any of our deepest questions.


ps. sorry for grammar, in a dont give a fuck mood about it and multitasking

 

[borrofburi]

Even when I am perfectly open minded to something (and there's no egoism involved), it still takes a LONG time and a LOT of effort to convince me. The reason for this is not necessarily dogmatism or stubbornness; rather there are two primary reasons conversations do NOT affect immediate change (at least in me): (1) just because I can't refute position A in the moment does not make position A correct (2) just because I can't refute position A does not make position A correct (i.e. others might be able to refute it, so I have to do plenty of research).

Hmmmm... but would you say that losing a debate on something that is supported by multitude of people, research, evidence and arguments that shoots down all of your rebuttals and discredits all the research you do against the concept wouldn't make you slightly doubt your position, no matter how ridiculous it sounded to you?

Once you get to that point I would be changing my position. The problem, however, is that (1) there aren't always an obvious multitude of informed people who all agree on one point and (2) it takes time to shoot down all sorts of rebuttals. My point was not that I don't change, just that even the most rational of beings would still take a significant amount of time to change her position.

 

[blood_pardon]

Hey Japhia

Hi

usually we, Theists, are attacked in various forms of being less reasonable than atheists, believing in things, that are irrational. What can most be observed, is atheists, skeptics, and agnostics, using very much effort to try to debunk theism, and mainly christianity, as a valid and reasonable world view and belief system. But not much effort is done to present a BETTER world view. So i want to defy you, to present a consistent, reasonable , honest world view based on atheism, relying reasons and arguments, which are BETTER than theism. And specially adressing following issues :

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing ?
- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth
- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?
- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

considering :

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet
- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.
-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.
-please explain, what meaning your life has. And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and s to enseless ?


Please AVOID starting beating and arguing why theism is not valid for you. What i wish to see, is a consistent, logical and reasonable world view based on atheism, which
does not take God into consideration, which explains all presented phenomenas in a way, that stands to rigorous examination and scrutiny.

I 've read through about 5 pages so far and there has been a quite a bit of de-railing comments. You seem to be very busy answering everyone which is admirable, I dont have that kind of patience to hold like 9 conversations at once.

Has anyone met your challenge or has it all been copy and pasting/ de-rails?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Please do me the service of telling me what would falsify your belief?

If the skeletton of Jesus Christ would be found, with 100% proof it would be of Jesus, my faith would be worthless.

Moreover, the physical death of jesus does not actually disprove the deistic god you've spent the entire thread arguing for.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever read When it was Dark?

In any case, such a demand renders Christianity unfalsifiable. Such remains would have disintegrated completely by this point, as no special care was taken towards preservation. Even if they were found there is no way to conclusively prove their origin.

Unfalsifiability is a sign of extreme weakness in an idea.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Hey Japhia

Hi

usually we, Theists, are attacked in various forms of being less reasonable than atheists, believing in things, that are irrational. What can most be observed, is atheists, skeptics, and agnostics, using very much effort to try to debunk theism, and mainly christianity, as a valid and reasonable world view and belief system. But not much effort is done to present a BETTER world view. So i want to defy you, to present a consistent, reasonable , honest world view based on atheism, relying reasons and arguments, which are BETTER than theism. And specially adressing following issues :

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing ?
- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth
- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?
- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

considering :

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet
- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.
-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.
-please explain, what meaning your life has. And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and s to enseless ?


Please AVOID starting beating and arguing why theism is not valid for you. What i wish to see, is a consistent, logical and reasonable world view based on atheism, which
does not take God into consideration, which explains all presented phenomenas in a way, that stands to rigorous examination and scrutiny.

I 've read through about 5 pages so far and there has been a quite a bit of de-railing comments. You seem to be very busy answering everyone which is admirable, I dont have that kind of patience to hold like 9 conversations at once.

Has anyone met your challenge or has it all been copy and pasting/ de-rails?

I did, many pages ago, shoggoths.

Still no response.

I would associate yourself with this guy pardon, he seems quite willing to miss-represent well-known scientists as though they supported his beliefs.

 

[Story]

Once you get to that point I would be changing my position. The problem, however, is that (1) there aren't always an obvious multitude of informed people who all agree on one point and (2) it takes time to shoot down all sorts of rebuttals. My point was not that I don't change, just that even the most rational of beings would still take a significant amount of time to change her position.

True... and I see how that's actually a good thing. There is a line between being gullible and open minded. Skepticism is the best tool to be employed. Sometimes, stubbornly sticking to your point is actually healthy. It's a part of what gives credence to peer review.

Nevertheless the point of my post was that Japhia is likely at the stage where he has become aware of the multitudes of informed people and he has been trying to shoot down all sorts of rebuttals for a while. He has probably been reading up rebuttals that have satisfied him, only to see it shot down shortly after wards. I've been through this very process, it's not very nice. It's painful and scary to a degree you could not imagine. Interestingly enough, I still managed to remain cool and composed, despite all these rushing emotions. It's not the kind of pain you fear or even a fear you'd fear. It becomes an addiction, an obsession and evolves into throes of emotion that can lead to atheism, but usually doesn't.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe
- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

Actually we have. You don't read much, do you?

Edit, let me rephrase that: We have. How much have you actually read on these subjects?