Are you an atheist?

[Rich]

but another of our faults is the asignment of blame on a handy scapegoat!

Your'e not suggesting that Bush and Bliar are just scapegoats, are you?

 

[KenHigg]

"All characters in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental."

"All posters in this thread are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental."

 

[Rich]

"All characters in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental."

Spot on, including the reference to a god

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Your'e not suggesting that Bush and Bliar are just scapegoats, are you?

Now you've opened a can of worms!

For either (or both) of them to be blamed for the B*lls up that is the war on terror, the Iraq war, and the enconomies of the US and UK they would have to be solely responsible.

I am not saying they are completely blameless (far from it!)... but they are handy scapegoats - they've been removed from power (or are about to be) and the new government is "clean." The fact that the advisors and civil servants (and their American counterparts whatever they may be called) are still the same is handily overlooked!

 

[ColinEssex]

"All posters in this thread are fictitious, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental."

Do you believe in the good samaritan story? That's helping someone in their hour of need, or would you cut them dead and walk on by. Would you ignore someone asking for help?(That's a direct question so obviously it'll be ignored as usual)

Walk on by? Hmmm, I feel another song coming on.

Col

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Do you believe in the good samaritan story? That's helping someone in their hour of need, or would you cut them dead and walk on by. Would you ignore someone asking for help?(That's a direct question so obviously it'll be ignored as usual)

Walk on by? Hmmm, I feel another song coming on.

Col

Are you asking if I believe the story actually happened.. or are you asking if I believe in the sentiment or moral behind it?

I try to be helpful all the time

 

[Banana]

So, a question I'd like to ask atheists.


How do you explain the existence of principle of non-contradiction and the teleological argument?

 

[Rabbie]

So, a question I'd like to ask atheists.


How do you explain the existence of principle of non-contradiction and the teleological argument?

Banana, If I had the time to look up what you are talkin about I would be happy to answer you.

 

[Rabbie]

Do you believe in the good samaritan story? That's helping someone in their hour of need, or would you cut them dead and walk on by. Would you ignore someone asking for helpCol

I would hope I would help someone who needed help. Just as I hope someone would help me if I needed help. I think the point of the "Good Samaritan" parable was that you didn't need to be a member of a religious sect in order to do good deeds. Those that passed by on the other side were "religious" people so there is a definite anti-religious theme to the story.

 

[oumahexi]

Those that passed by on the other side were "religious" people so there is a definite anti-religious theme to the story.

And so it was. Jesus was pretty much "anti-religion". I think he must be turning in his grave to see what they've done with his teachings.

 

[Rabbie]

And so it was. Jesus was pretty much "anti-religion". I think he must be turning in his grave to see what they've done with his teachings.

But according to the Bible he rose from the grave and ascended into heaven

 

[Rich]

So, a question I'd like to ask atheists.


How do you explain the existence of principle of non-contradiction and the teleological argument?

By the same method Christians use to explain the existance of God

 

[Rabbie]

So, a question I'd like to ask atheists.


How do you explain the existence of principle of non-contradiction and the teleological argument?

The Teleological argument = Argument by design

Ie

1. Complexity implies a designer.
2. The universe is highly complex.
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.

Refutation

But in that case who created or designed the designer. and so on ad infinitum

 

[ColinEssex]

Are you asking if I believe the story actually happened.. or are you asking if I believe in the sentiment or moral behind it?

I try to be helpful all the time

Actually I was asking Ken. I didn't make it clear.

Col

 

[Rabbie]

Now you've opened a can of worms!

For either (or both) of them to be blamed for the B*lls up that is the war on terror, the Iraq war, and the enconomies of the US and UK they would have to be solely responsible.

I am not saying they are completely blameless (far from it!)... but they are handy scapegoats - they've been removed from power (or are about to be) and the new government is "clean." The fact that the advisors and civil servants (and their American counterparts whatever they may be called) are still the same is handily overlooked!

Are you suggesting that the Iraq war would have occurred without GWB consenting. He could have prevented it so he must take responsiblity.

 

[Banana]

Refutation

But in that case who created or designed the designer. and so on ad infinitum

But this doesn't answer the point about infinite regression.

If I may, I'd like to expand a bit on the steps.

1. Every being that exists has a cause. (e.g. if you and I are alive right, we had to be born. We didn't spontaneously appear from nowhere)

2. Every cause had to be bought in by another being. (e.g. we had to have a parent to give birth to us, else we couldn't even begin to start to exist.)

3. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. (We cannot cross infinity with so and so numbers of definite steps.)

4. Therefore, the first cause was bought in by a being that was uncaused. (e.g. to break the infinite regression, there has to be a being that has always existed from infinity)

5. This uncaused being meets the definition of God. (To be fair, this would only work for Abrahamic and Bramhaic religions' definition)

The point #3 is most important point of the whole argument. In a way this alludes to the heap paradox, because there is no point where we can said to across the infinity by adding so many steps. We can bound an area, revolve it about the axis and still manage to have infinite volume or some other creative methods but this does not resolve the question of getting *there*.

Furthermore, several scientists has since agreed that the universe had a definite starting point; a big bang. To be fair, there are some who say there are multiples of universes, or a Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> Big Crunch, so this is not necessarily the first ever starting point. But all we would have had succeeded was moving the point back in time. Moving it farther still doesn't transverse the infinity. IMO, I think the fact that we do not have a infinite amount of energy and the fact that they spontaneously flow into form of heat energy kills the idea of infinitely old universe, even one with multiple universes or contracting/expanding universe.

There's obviously more to it, but I think that's the gist.

 

[Rabbie]

Banana, There is an excellent refutation of this argument in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is too long to post here so I suggest you read it.

 

[Alisa]

The Teleological argument = Argument by design

Ie

1. Complexity implies a designer.
2. The universe is highly complex.
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.

Refutation

But in that case who created or designed the designer. and so on ad infinitum

Actually we need proceed no further than step one - complexity does NOT imply a designer. The rest of the argument requires no refutation, since the first premise is incorrect.

 

[Banana]

Banana, There is an excellent refutation of this argument in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is too long to post here so I suggest you read it.

Ah, yes. I read that book. Quite interesting but couldn't agree with Dawkins. For one, he didn't go into lengths discussing about how life could arise from nonliving. He made some interesting arguments about how pre-existing life could evolve into higher lifeform, but doesn't debate how non-living matter can spontaneously assemble into living materials and ultimately a primitive lifeform.

Furthermore, he worked within the assumption that there were mechanisms available to allow for evolution, when I would call those mechanisms in question. This is what Michael Behe did with Darwin's Black Box for which he argues that there is no explanation at molecular level for how various biological mechanisms can arise because of minimum function; take away one part, and everything just plain don't work. Dawkins and Dennett both argued that evolution still will work even if we didn't have an 'eye' but rather some cells that was sensitive to light just in a right place then add some component then end up with an eye. However, Behe pointed out that since we've been able to study biology at molecular level, it is no longer sufficient to cook up a theory and leave at it. Rather, every steps involved in act of 'seeing' must be explained in every step, what proteins is being used, and how do they get used, how is it regulated, and so forth. Once every step has been detailed, it then become very difficult to propose a simpler but working (if at lesser function) model that doesn't completely break down.

 

[Rabbie]

But this doesn't answer the point about infinite regression.

If I may, I'd like to expand a bit on the steps.

1. Every being that exists has a cause. (e.g. if you and I are alive right, we had to be born. We didn't spontaneously appear from nowhere)

2. Every cause had to be bought in by another being. (e.g. we had to have a parent to give birth to us, else we couldn't even begin to start to exist.)

3. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. (We cannot cross infinity with so and so numbers of definite steps.)

4. Therefore, the first cause was bought in by a being that was uncaused. (e.g. to break the infinite regression, there has to be a being that has always existed from infinity)

5. This uncaused being meets the definition of God. (To be fair, this would only work for Abrahamic and Bramhaic religions' definition)

The point #3 is most important point of the whole argument. In a way this alludes to the heap paradox, because there is no point where we can said to across the infinity by adding so many steps. We can bound an area, revolve it about the axis and still manage to have infinite volume or some other creative methods but this does not resolve the question of getting *there*.

Furthermore, several scientists has since agreed that the universe had a definite starting point; a big bang. To be fair, there are some who say there are multiples of universes, or a Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> Big Crunch, so this is not necessarily the first ever starting point. But all we would have had succeeded was moving the point back in time. Moving it farther still doesn't transverse the infinity. IMO, I think the fact that we do not have a infinite amount of energy and the fact that they spontaneously flow into form of heat energy kills the idea of infinitely old universe, even one with multiple universes or contracting/expanding universe.

There's obviously more to it, but I think that's the gist.

Your points 1 & 2 seem to be in contradiction to Points 3 & 4.

Your assumption in Point 4 seems to be just that - an unsupported assumption which I have no need of.