Are you an atheist?

[Rabbie]

OK, nobody else is, it seems, has asked the age old question, so as I am aged old, I'll do it.

Let's imagine for a moment there is a God, and that God created the earth, sun, stars etc. Where did it come from?

Don't you get it. The religious answer is that God created it. Every individual atom.

 

[Alisa]

OK, nobody else is, it seems, has asked the age old question, so as I am aged old, I'll do it.

Let's imagine for a moment there is a God, and that God created the earth, sun, stars etc. Where did it come from?

Exactly!
But I already know what the believers will say - they will say it is not for our piddly minds to comprehend where the great god came from.

 

[Rabbie]

Indeedy.

Let me try to flip the atheists argument on it's head. This is the argument that because of the overwhelming lack of evidence of God, the reasonable assumption is no God. It's the Occams razor, common sense approach.

When we look at the workings of a pocket watch what is the common sense approach? Was it luck that these parts came together or was it's origination contrived?

Then look at the universe which we keep discovering more and more structures to. A 'infinitely complex system' it has been referred to on this thread. What does the atheist do? Throws all common sense out of the window and claims 'luck'.

They wouldn't dare make such claims at a pocket watch would they? Why? Because the pocket watch and it's origination can fit within their frame of reference. Anything that goes beyond this frame of reference must be absurd.

I deny this absolute.

Fire at will.

Congratulations on a very fine rehash of Paley's argument. I believe this is a fine example of Argument from Personal Incredulity. See Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" for the counter argument.

 

[dan-cat]

I am not following you . . . what system? Do you mean the natural laws of physics and chemistry, etc.?




Where did god come from? Did the creation of god in the first place not require an enormous amount of luck (or misfortune, as the case may be)?

Evolution does not require luck - creatures that survive reproduce, creatures that don't, don't. It is very simple and does not require any luck at all. What "more powerful environment"?

Yeah, I think I've lost you.

Let me explain.

Evolution requires gazillions of attempts to succeed. Why?
Because the system that it is attempting to succeed within is choosy.
It's choosy because it is complex.
Complexity comes before evolution.
The system is in place and evolution is an opportunist of it.

This complex system has not evolved. It is evolution that requires it to succeed. Evolution is simply a slave.

 

[Rabbie]

Yes, ok, I get that, but who created God?? Does God have a God? And if God has a God then who created that God...

i think the religious answer is that God has always been.

My personal theory is that gods were invented by humans for all sorts of complex reasons - some good some not so good.

 

[oumahexi]

Exactly!
But I already know what the believers will say - they will say it is not for our piddly minds to comprehend where the great god came from.

Certainly not in mine. Well done by the way. I think your thread will continue long after we are all gone. Probably find some kid in 4045 will stumble over this old computer and start talking about the "Alisa" God, before you know where you are you'll be have buildings erected and PC's with windows (possibly stained glass, lol) and the priests will all wear gowns with the immortal words "www.access-programmers.co.uk" ...

 

[Alc]

I am glad, because you know what my next question was going to be don't you? Been where? Who created the where...

I'm starting to feel invisible, here.
Did I not ask that, back in post #1972?

 

[dan-cat]

What would be the system in which God came to exist? Presumably, since He created everything, He also created the system in which He himself exists. How could He have done that?

I don't know. All I'm saying is, is that the system must be in place FIRST before you can conform to it.

It's there, evolution is no answer to the pocket watch argument.

 

[Alc]

I don't know. All I'm saying is, is that the system must be in place FIRST before you can conform to it.

It's there, evolution is no answer to the pocket watch argument.

But isn't God supposed to have created everything?

If so, that would have to include the system in which He, Himself, exists.

Surely, that's impossible?

Also, I wasn't arguiing that evolution replaces a system, rather that it is part of the system.

 

[Alc]

I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. If there is a God, what purpose would it serve if it didn't evolve? And if it evolves, why would it not allow it's creation to evolve?

If God is perfect and infallible - as I've heard argued - why would there be a need to evolve?

 

[dan-cat]

I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. If there is a God, what purpose would it serve if it didn't evolve? And if it evolves, why would it not allow it's creation to evolve?

Well it can't really by [our] definition. There has to be something for it to conform to, in order for it to evolve.

 

[dan-cat]

But isn't God supposed to have created everything?

If so, that would have to include the system in which He, Himself, exists.

Surely, that's impossible?

We're kind of moving away from my original point here. Which is fine.

Also, I wasn't arguiing that evolution replaces a system, rather that it is part of the system.

Yes. I was arguing that 'the system' is so complex for evolution to be able to conform to it, that our natural reaction to it, as with the pocket watch, should be that it is designed. But it isn't [for some]. This complex system is stripped of any such connotation because our frame of reference can't deal with it.

 

[Alisa]

Yeah, I think I've lost you.

Let me explain.

Evolution requires gazillions of attempts to succeed. Why?
Because the system that it is attempting to succeed within is choosy.
It's choosy because it is complex.
Complexity comes before evolution.
The system is in place and evolution is an opportunist of it.

This complex system has not evolved. It is evolution that requires it to succeed. Evolution is simply a slave.

Yes, the conditions on earth, and in our universe are very complex - is that what you are talking about? It is true that the conditions on earth are complex, but that doesn't mean they are designed. There are simple explanations for why things are the way they are - we know why we have cycles of light and dark, why there is gravity, why there is air, etc. etc. All these things are a result of the way the universe and the earth formed. So yes, these "systems" or conditions are complex, especially for our puny brains to comprehend. Yes, the system did not "evolve" in the sense of evolutionary theory, which only applies to living things. "Evolution" is certainly not a slave, and it is not really a thing at all, it is simply a theory that explains the process by which we arrived at a world full of a multitude of complex living creatures. I still have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[Alisa]

Certainly not in mine. Well done by the way. I think your thread will continue long after we are all gone. Probably find some kid in 4045 will stumble over this old computer and start talking about the "Alisa" God, before you know where you are you'll be have buildings erected and PC's with windows (possibly stained glass, lol) and the priests will all wear gowns with the immortal words "www.access-programmers.co.uk" ...

You are hillarious

 

[Alc]

Yes. I was arguing that 'the system' is so complex for evolution to be able to conform to it, that our natural reaction to it, as with the pocket watch, should be that it is designed. But it isn't [for some]. This complex system is stripped of any such connotation because our frame of reference can't deal with it.

I don't just think it's a question of complexity.
Unless it's accepted that there's a reason for things (including humans) to exist, why would they have been designed?

 

[dan-cat]

Why? If it's able to create then surely it's able to create something that can create (which we do, from a molecular level, daily). If the human body can evolve sufficiently to create, for instance, a tumour, surely all of creation can evolve in more profound ways.

I understand what you are saying, but to evolve you have to conform. To confirm means you have to be subordinate to something higher. The higher you go, the more powerful the set of rules are that permeate through all the lower levels.

 

[Alisa]

I don't know. All I'm saying is, is that the system must be in place FIRST before you can conform to it.

It's there, evolution is no answer to the pocket watch argument.

You are trying to equate the watch to the natural laws that exist on earth. That is an interesting twist, because the traditional watchmaker argument equates the watch to some complex living creature on earth.

 

[dan-cat]

You are trying to equate the watch to the natural laws that exist on earth. That is an interesting twist, because the traditional watchmaker argument equates the watch to some complex living creature on earth.

I'm actually equating it to all the laws that form must conform to.

 

[Alisa]

I'm actually equating it to all the laws that form must conform to.

Like I said, an interesting twist.
I don't think your argument is valid though - complexity in and of itself does not require design - a snowflake is complex, but nobody designed it . . . It is just a product of the process by which is formed. Likewise, the physical laws of our universe our extremely complex. But that doesn't mean someone sat down and designed them. They are the way they are because of the way in which and the materials out of which our universe formed.

 

[KenHigg]

Wonder what it means (if anything) that in three short months this thread on atheism has 2000 posts and almost 20,000 views - ???