Existence - Random or with Reason?

Who are we...Why are we here...Time to take a few minutes and reflect

Debate on the existence of God

 

This is an extract of a discussion that took place between myself and some muslims and non muslims on facebook, in this case the discussion was regarding the existence of God. Please note that in this discussion I am under the pseudonym 'DARKIO KNIGHTIO', and the names of the other contributors are also the same as they were during the dialogue. I would also like to add that there was in no shape or form any editing to the conversations in order to make them favour one viewpoint over another, nor are they fabricated. This was a very long but thoroughly informative and genuine discussion on the existence of God and as a consequence I would like to think everyone who took part left with more food for thought...

 

 

Hamzah Izurfather replied to Ben's post on 30 July 2008 at 16:52

 

i was given a message conforming the existence:)
and ok not the center- but the point of expansion happy ? lol
and thank you for correcting me -_- but u got the idea my friend:P
and im sorry for my lack of vocabulary in the field of science so u gotta correct me alot :)

wait so are you saying the process happens on its own?

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied to Hamzah's post on 30 July 2008 at 16:54

 

//and may i remind you science says the evolution theory to be a fact //

If you wish to contest the theory of evolution, go publish your work in a scientific journal and win the nobel prizes in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, taxonomy and paleantology.

//and what characteristics cause an unliving thing to evolve into a living thing//

This is the theory of abiogenesis. Not evolution. This is what makes me think you have no understanding of science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Thats how abiogenesis happened, go figure.

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied to Hamzah's post on 30 July 2008 at 16:55

 

//and ok not the center- but the point of expansion happy//

No, because there is no point of expansion in 3D space either.

//and im sorry for my lack of vocabulary in the field of science//

Its not a lack of vocabulary, you just appear to have very little knowledge.

This is of course no crime at all, but then to dispute accepted scientific fact without even bothering to understand it is ludicrous.

//wait so are you saying the process happens on its own //

All natural processes happen 'on their own', its the definition of a natural process.

 

 

Hamzah Izurfather replied to Ben's post on 30 July 2008 at 17:09

 

than how did the big bang theory happen ? ! Was there not a single point where the universe began from?
if the universe is expanding it would have had to been joined at once- thus i mean the point of expansion would that not be correct ? the zero volume and infinite density area
and zero volume means nothingness does it not ? so the universe came from nothing - which means it HAD to be created - how does something appear out of nothing ?

the verse in the quran are right because it does not go against the scientific explanation of the universes creation - i guess I just screwed up in explaining and i am Extremely sorry for that

 

 

Hamzah Izurfather replied to Ben's post on 30 July 2008 at 17:21

 

many people have made very strong arguments over it but still it is taken as a fact of life
and that entire video left the creation of man to chance.......how do i believe that ? and it was wrong on one thing the bible isn’t the only book saying we originated from sand and mud- the Quran says we originated from dust and clay :l different but close and these are simply steps abiogenesis than evolution its like going through a time frame so these things should easily be able to fit each other at a certain point in time - and that just prove my other arguments things happen because of a reaction- evolution happened after abiogenesis as it result because now these life forms had to get used to the environment am i correct?

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied to Hamzah's post on 30 July 2008 at 17:40

 

//was there not a single point where the universe began from ? //

A single point in 10D space (which is meaningless to the human imagination) is my favourite explanation, but there other explanations, most of which add more dimensions.

//how does something appear out of nothing ? //

Do you know anything about Quantum mechanics? In quantum events, energy and mass can be created without any discernible cause.

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied to Hamzah's post on 30 July 2008 at 17:41

 

//and that entire video left the creation of man to chance//

Not chance, natural selection, which is a non random process by which frequencies of favourable alleles in a population change over time by reproduction with variation.

//evolution happened after abiogenesis as it result because now these life forms had to get used to the enviorment am i correct//

Yup, thats correct, but abiogenesis wasnt really caused, its an emergent phenomenon. It just happens. Most things in nature are like that.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 01 August 2008 at 14:16

 

“This is the theory of abiogenesis. Not evolution. This is what makes me think you have no understanding of science.”

Watched carefully, gave me a good giggle. This is what makes me think you have a brain of a very small child.

“Do you know anything about Quantum mechanics? In quantum events, energy and mass can be created without any discernible cause.”

Discernable? The creator cannot be sensed touched feel or tasted, hence the cause is not meant to be discernable if that’s what you mean. This is life - welcome to your test, which you are failing miserably

“Not chance, natural selection, which is a non random process by which frequencies of favourable alleles in a population change over time by reproduction with variation”

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random, selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. The very variation that leads to human creation is random, natural selection is from this pool of ‘random’ variations. The atheists reject the God of the gaps with the God of chance!

Chance = illogical, irrational, unlikely, unbelievably ridiculous odds, verging on the foolish
Creator/creative force = logical, rational, reasonable

If one were to ask exactly how to apply scientific thought the answer should soon be familiar, as we were all taught the scientific model at school. Although the terminology differs at times the stages are roughly the same across the globe. They begin with a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment. The next three steps of testing, observation and ongoing recording are repeated as often as necessary. Finally a conclusion is reached and an evaluation of the experiment conducted. The scientific model is widely held to be capable of assessing any issue.

Three aspects of the model stand out.

The first aspect is that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions.

The second aspect is that any results are speculative. The probability of error is an accepted constant in the scientific model so other conditions exist to minimise these facts. They include ensuring a fair test, ensuring the sample population is representative and also considering a control sample.

Thirdly is the requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.

From this we can see a variable must be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed for the scientific model to apply. Let’s examine these four steps in turn:

a) If variables cannot be identified the scientist would have nothing to test.
b) Without a variable isolated from other variables there is no way of knowing what the results of testing are a consequence of. One could be testing multiple variables. The trials would be useless.
c) If a variable can be identified and isolated but not manipulated then no experiment can proceed.
d) If a variable can be identified, isolated and manipulated but no observation is possible then no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can be verified and the true scientist would not waste the time or effort.

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

1. Reality
2. Sensation of the reality
3. Transference of the sensed reality to the brain
4. Linking the sensation with the previous information, which is the mind. The linking
is the actual process of thinking leading to thought
5. Judgement upon the reality

This is the process we all use to think about things. We would not utilise emotion or the scientific model to read a magazine, visit the WC or work out if the car was out of petrol. We would use the five-stage process outlined above and it is necessary to use this rational method to answer the greatest question.

The rational method is the basis of all thinking, even science. No experiment could be constructed without previous information (e.g. how to read and write). In fact the rational method can be found directly in many of the social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Science is incapable of testing human behaviour, as it requires tangible matter to experiment on. Social scientists either resort to prescribing Prozac for depression or follow a model of observation. Psychologists and sociologists make multiple observations of subjects over set periods without attempting to scientifically subject them to new conditions. An example of how to do so would be to take the human being out of the natural environment into a controlled environment (which incidentally is not natural for humans) and attempt to isolate what makes the human behave in certain ways. Periodic observation leading to a conclusion, without manipulation, is a part of the rational method not the scientific. Specific elements of the social sciences are also not scientific. Psychoanalysis (studying dreams etc.) fails as a science as its answers can never be verified and depend upon repeated observation without manipulation i.e. it is part of the rational method.

The rational method is clearly the natural thinking process at the base of other forms of thought (scientific, logical, philosophical, legislative etc.). It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth. Use the five-stage rational method to answer basic question such as if you exist (“cogito ergo sum”/“I think therefore I am”), if you have hair, if you have ever drunk water, if you can fly etc. The answers are certain if the sensation and linking to previous information is done correctly so now all that is left is to utilise it to find the answer to the greatest question.

1. We cannot sense (see, touch, hear, smell or taste) a Creator
2. Everything we can sense is dependent on something else and has a limit of some kind that it cannot surpass

We must be clear on the first point. We cannot sense a Creator. Some would have us believe in aliens or in ‘mother nature’ but this cannot be accepted as we have already denied emotion and blind imitation a role in this endeavour. Others would have us end the discussion here since no Creator can be sensed. Such people cite the phrase ‘seeing is believing’. The predicament with this is that this implies the opposite (i.e. ‘not seeing equals nothing to believe in’). This is blank, vacuous and weak.

Sensing a Creator is not a prerequisite to prove a Creator exists and never has been. We see many things in our daily lives without knowing who exactly is responsible but the result leads us to believe something definitely was responsible e.g. a sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.

Bearing in mind no one was there at the beginning – we can’t test what happened, or recreate it. In the absence of this opportunity, logic and rational thinking are the major tools for reaching a conclusion. They point to a over all creative force behind the universe. See Aristotle and Plato…

“Yup, thats correct, but abiogenesis wasnt really caused, its an emergent phenomenon. It just happens. Most things in nature are like that.”

Was not caused? Just happened – but o wait nothing is random? Where the possibility may point to a creator..QUICK label it something. Erm erm ‘emergent phenomenon’ of course that must be it! It just happens, things just happen! You actually talk all the scientific clap trap then when it boils down to it you show your hand – chance lol apologies if no one believes this rubbish

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 01 August 2008 at 14:16



Re: your whole thing on Quantum Mechanics

An experiment in a lab showing movement of gas particles apparently proves that the universe does not need a cause. Problem: The movement of particles occurred from matter already in existence. When we refer to the creation of the universe, we refer to a time when there was nothing – no matter, no particles – NOFIN. How are you going to compare a time where matter exists to where matter doesn’t exist? The system is already in motion in the lab when the particles move, the system had not even been CREATED before matter came into existence. The cause is needed for that matter to exist

Hence saying there is no need for the universe to have a cause simply because of the movement of particles in a lab is a ridiculous, short sighted and utterly desperate attempt to prove there is no God. Two totally different situations. Regarding the idea that matter always existed LOL impossible. There can’t be something which is infinite in the real world, maybe on your calculator but not in reality.

The idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be actualised; it will never be the case. A line on a graph that tends towards infinity will edge closer to the axis (towards a possible infinite) but will never get to the axis let alone cross it (actual infinite). Even Aristotle argued against an actual infinite; a fact which the Arab philosopher Al-Kindi famously used against him in his refutation.

George Cantor, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 19th Century, initiated the mathematics of the infinite (along with Weierstrass and Dedekind) known as transfinite arithmetic. Though the discipline aims to deal with the paradoxes of infinity ‘it offends common sense at every point’ (Monk, 1997). Even if we acknowledge that real numbers are greater than natural numbers (because natural numbers are a sub-set of the reals) and that there is no such thing as the next point in a continuous series of points can there really be ‘higher infinities’?

While Cantor argued for higher infinity he denied actual infinity and his work on set theory is fundamentally problematic for supporters of actual infinity. Set theory can be understood utilising the examples of axes. All things that can be used to attack others can be placed in a collection or set called ‘weapons’. The set called ‘weapons’ has subsets such as swords, guns and axes.

To a set theorist the sentence ‘all axes are weapons’ is really saying ‘the set of axes is a subset of weapons’. In other words ‘every member of the first set (axes) is a member of the second (weapons)’. A dilemma arises when we discover that Cantor proved that for any set, another set with more members (the original set’s power set – consisting of all its subsets) is constructible. If a set has n members then there will be at least 2n subsets of it and 2n is always greater than n.

This leads us to the Cantor Paradox that states that a set of all sets cannot exist since each attempt at a total set would immediately produce a larger one. Thus there is no greatest set (cf. Zuckerman, 1974) and no infinity.

Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:

“…the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea”.
(Hilbert, 1964, p139)

Mathematicians who work with the concept of actual infinity, do so by adopting some arbitrary rules, like "the whole is not always greater than the part", and "subtraction and division are not allowed", to avoid the absurdities and contradictions that come with an actual infinite number of anything. And these rules don't apply to the real world. Actual infinity only works in the abstract realm, and only with some special rules.

However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. If the universe has always existed then the claim is that there has been an unlimited, infinite length of time before now; this known as regressus ad infinitum or infinite regression, which means continual subtraction by one. It is helpful in this instance to think of time as a chain of events. Things happen in sequential order, one moment after another so an infinite length of time can be equated with an endless chain of events. The claim that the universe has always existed is a claim that the universe has always existed up this moment. This means an eternity has passed up to this moment. This means we are currently at the end of an endless chain of events. This is impossible.

If an endless chain of events had to occur before this point we would never exist since an endless chain could never finish. I would not be writing these words and you would not be reading them now. This is so because the event in the unlimited chain of events immediately preceding our current actions (indeed our very existence) would depend upon the one before it and the one before it but this chain would never get to this moment as it is eternal and endless.

Therefore, since a beginningless past would be an actual infinite number of things (events) and since an actual infinite number of things cannot exist in the real world, it follows logically that the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.

Since we do exist, I am writing this to you Ben and you are reading this response the contradiction of the claim of infinite regression should now be apparent. Don’t be too ashamed to admit this, minds much greater than yours accept this so it should not be a problem for you based on academic research

The limited universe we observe cannot have existed infinitely, this is impossible. For this limited universe to have come into existence there must be an external independent uncaused cause. The creator. Without this first cause we would have infinite regression, which is not possible. To defeat this impossibility there has to be a first cause responsible for the creation.

So now you’re going to get all uppity and excited you’re probably jumping off your seat and screaming when you ask the question "What caused the creator?" Well ‘genius’ this only makes sense if there was some indication that "the creator" had a beginning. There is nothing that indicates that the cause of the Big Bang had a beginning. In fact since time did not exist beyond the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must have existed timelessly. Thus it could have no beginning, and hence no cause. You may want to say this about the universe, but you can't, since as we have seen; the evidence is the universe had a beginning.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 01 August 2008 at 14:16



Paul Davies (former fool) wrote in a book of his that I read that virtual particles can pop into existence from nothingness through quantum tunneling, and goes on to suggest that in the same manner the whole universe popped into existence. His argument against God's creating can now be turned against his hypothesis. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator." No time, no quantum events. No quantum events = need for first cause. First cause = creator.

However he has recently given up being a fool and said that laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” Still more recently he posed this question: "If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?" He concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."

Read more in his book The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature
Its also argued apparently that scientists have a good understanding of the development of the universe back to when it was only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 (i.e., 10-34) second old. We may see some probing back to 10-43 seconds, but that represents the practical limit of research. It is argued (by fools like Richard Gott) that there is an infinite loss of information about events before10-43 seconds. With this total loss of information, he says, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes." In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, some fools see an opportunity to replace God with chance, or, more specifically, with random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field.

This question remains, however: If the universe had zero information before 10-43 seconds, how did it acquire its subsequent high information state without the input of an intelligent Creator? A Creator is required, too, to explain the existence of the primeval radiation field.

So there is no answer to the creation of space time matter energy, because this would be before the 10 or so seconds the scientists know about. Instead of leaving the option open for a creator, the most logical conclusion – former fools such as Steven Hawking and physicist James Hartle suggest that a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function, so can the universe be described. Thus, the singularity disappears, and yet the entire universe still pops into existence at the beginning of time. No singularity eh? What rubbish

This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time

In his book A Brief History of Time (1988), Hawking reformulated his escape from the singularity:

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. .. .The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. ... Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would [we] encounter no singularities.... in real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.

In other words, the real world has singularities – only in your imaginary world do singularities not exist. God, who according to the Quran transcends "real time," would not be confined to boundaries and singularities, but human beings and the physical universe, both of which are limited to real time, would be so confined. Hence, Hawking's famous query ("What place, then, for a creator?”) notwithstanding, there is still no escape from the Quranic argument. The law of science breaks down when it reaches a certain point, there is a certain level of knowledge after all. The creator transcends all and is not subject to the rules of creation or the laws he creates.

Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential to behave either as particles or as waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of such an entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). In choosing to determine the position of the entity, the human observer loses information about its momentum.

The observer does not give "reality" to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that causality in this case is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.

This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in the "observer-as-creator" propositions arising from quantum physics. Some other flaws include these:

• Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not to macro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe as a whole.
• The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture.
• The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see any trace of evidence that a reversal might have taken place beyond the scope of our observation. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years ago is nothing short of absurd.
• The idea that the physical cosmos has always been is not supported by string theory or hypothetical models of how higher dimensional entities may have caused physical matter to exist. What is being proposed are models of how the beginning of the three-dimensional creation came to happen. The question of what the cause was may be answered in some way, but that answer points to a causer. The complexity of the process and the number of parameters that have to be controlled at both the quantum and macro scale certainly do not suggest blind chance as the causal agent.
• If the method of creation is that vibrating superstrings were created to produce the physical cosmos by a series of transformations, such a discovery would simply show us the profound uniqueness and enormous capacity of our Creator.
• In short you are willing to accept an abstract creator, but not God, Allah, Jehovah, Ishwar, Yahweh etc etc.. Do you realize that these are simply names for the creator in different languages? LOL of course Allah being the most perfect representation in language form of the idea of a independent all powerful creative force.
• Creation by way of a system put in place by an all powerful creator is a very strong argument, no matter how many generalizations, misunderstandings, lies are thrown at it. It more than stands up to anything you can bring to the table. What religion to believe? That’s a totally different issue

 

 

Darkio Knightio wrote on 01 August 2008 at 14:16

 

You as an atheist cannot deny that atheism has an incurable flaw in the area of knowledge and rationality. Rationality = an idea is known and justified on the basis of reason (as opposed to tradition or emotional grounds). i.e. the idea is logical and not foolish. A careful analysis of your views reveals a problem so serious that it fails as a legitimate worldview worthy of adherence by rational persons. It is a worldview that is fundamentally irrational

No disrespect Ben, but your worldview has a fatal flaw that should cause you to reconsider your point of view. If you disagree, at the very moment you attempt to refute my point of view, you lose the debate

If atheism is true, then human reason must be the result of natural forces. Natural forces are not rational, nor can they be the result of a rational cause (or intelligent mind). It would follow, then, that human reason is the result of non-rational causes. If human reason is the result of non-rational causes, there is strong reason to distrust human reason, especially in its theoretical exercises. Atheism itself is an exercise of theoretical reason. If it is true, there are strong reasons to distrust theoretical reasoning. If theoretical reasoning should be distrusted, then particular applications of it should be distrusted, too. If atheism is true, we have strong reasons to distrust that it is true.

How could intelligent minds arise by chance out of mindless matter in motion?

You cannot consistently answer. You will simply assert that the chemical reactions in your brain are true and that the chemical reactions in my brain are false. But how can chemical reactions be true or false? Are they not all simply chemical reactions coming from mindless matter in motion- neither true nor false?

Ultimately, you must realise that according to your view, chaotic chemical reactions of mindless matter in motion cannot be objectively true. If you make the claim that your views are “true or truer,” then you are inconsistent with your own view. Any assertion of “truth” for you as an atheist is a contradiction because in your view there can be no reason or rationality above physical and material causes.

No account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory, which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound- a proof that there are no such things as proofs- which is nonsense.

You merely assume a difference in value between your truth claims and mines, by making any arguments at all is inconsistent, and demonstrates the irrationality of your own worldview, which denies an ordered and rational life of the mind. In order for you to be consistent, you would have to stop making truth claims, but even this attempt at consistency assumes the need for consistency, which is again inconsistent.

To close, let me say boldly that the existence of objective truth and rationality clearly confirms the bankruptcy of atheism as a worldview. To abandon logic and rational thinking in the face of fanciful theories yes THEORIES is absurd.

So basically one can prove God exists. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of absolute certainty, it may be true that we can't prove or disprove God's existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute mathematical certainty, so certainty is neither a reasonable or necessary standard. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think we can show that it is highly probable that God exists.

The premises of the argument need not be certain, merely more plausible than their denials. It follows that merely having a possible alternative explanation does not defeat a probabilistic God argument. What one needs is a more probable alternative explanation.

The problem we have is your unwillingness to accept that any first cause, the all powerful creative force that started it all is an interventionist God. Rather if push came to shove you would only accept an abstract creator who simply created that’s it – not a personal God. Fair enough that’s your choice, but first you have to accept that the argument of a creator existing – abstract or personal whatever is a strong argument – no matter how many quotes and fallacies are thrown at it. It is equally valid to, if not more than the theory of no creator existing simply because the road via logic and rational thinking to your method of creation is a centillion (I’m being kind here) times longer and bumpier than the road to the creation via creator. (Religion not included)

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 01 August 2008 at 16:18

 

 

Ahh, long post is long, but thankfully well formatted!

//The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random, selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way//

so far so good... but then...

//The atheists reject the God of the gaps with the God of chance!//

And that my friend is a massive contradiction. Your argument against my position is based on the fact that my position requires a belief in chance events, but you have admitted that this is not actually the case. We can safely ignore the next few paras, all of them based on that flawed premise.

Next you give a long summary of rational thought, with which I am wholly familiar, and then go on to mount a very odd argument:

//It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth//

You say of the rational method and then...

//Bearing in mind no one was there at the beginning – we can’t test what happened, or recreate it.//

Which has a few problems:

1. It assumes the universe has a beginning in any meaningful sense, and did not pre-exist the big bang in another form.
2. If a creative force exists as holy books describe, we would in fact be able to test his/her/its existence by virture of prayer.
3. Most importantly it contradicts your statement on rational thought, which as you admit is the only source of true knowledge. If it is impossible to examine the beginnings of the universe rationally, then no knowledge about it is possible. I do not believe that to be the case, but this is beside the point.

// sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.//

And of course a creation implies a creator, but this argument is tautological. Prove to me that the universe is created, then the argument can be used.

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 01 August 2008 at 16:21

 

//Was not caused? Just happened – but o wait nothing is random? Where the possibility may point to a creator..QUICK label it something. Erm erm ‘emergent phenomenon’ of course that must be it! It just happens, things just happen! You actually talk all the scientific clap trap then when it boils down to it you show your hand – chance lol apologies if no one believes this rubbish//

Go read the wikipedia entry on the anthropic principle and quit whining about chance. Yes its amazing that life originated, no the fact that it is improbable does not point to a creator.

Emergent phenomena is a useful phrase to describe uncaused natural events, such as movements by a flock of birds, its not just some phrase wot I made up.

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 01 August 2008 at 16:39

 

//When we refer to the creation of the universe, we refer to a time when there was nothing – no matter, no particles – NOFIN//

And we already disagree! I believe that the universe has always and will always exist, and I see no reason for it to be otherwise.

//infinite length of time before now; this known as regressus ad infinitum or infinite regression, which means continual subtraction by one.//

Not neshasharily. Time is one of they funny old concepts, we percieve it as a continuum but in fact this is not how it really is. Time is just one of many directions the 3D of the universe can take in the 4/5th dimensions, and as a dimension not a continuum, it has altogether different properties.

//In fact since time did not exist beyond the Big Bang//

Aaaaaaaaaaaha! Now thats just blatantly false. The Big Bang, as you well know, was an expansion of spacetime. That implies that at T0, all the spacetime in the universe existed as a singularity, not that it did not previously exist.

This is quite a neat refutation of your infinite regress problem, because 'time' 'started' with the big bang but existed with 0 dimension beforehand, thus there is no problem with an infinitely old universe.

//Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible.//

If the universes spacetime were contained in a singularity, A quantum event would always be occurring.

//It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time//

Logic exists by definition, independent of the universe it is used to describe.

//The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation //

I dispute that. The cause is as unknowable as the cause of the decay of a radioactive nucleus, we know it will happen (ad infinitum) but not when. It is uncaused, so it is with quantum events. The cause is not just hidden, there is none.

The fact that we can observe the phenomenon and make predictions about it is irrelevant.

//Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not to macro, systems. //

Fine, but the singularity universe as I propose was pretty micro.

//Time and causality move inexorably forward//

The universe has no preferred direction, as you well know. The time we percieve is one of infinite possible directions. To call it 'forward' is disengenuous.

//If the method of creation is that vibrating superstrings were created to produce the physical cosmos by a series of transformations, such a discovery would simply show us the profound uniqueness and enormous capacity of our Creator.//

Blah blah blah, unfalsifiable hypothesis = no truth value.

//In short you are willing to accept an abstract creator//

No. Willing to accept that we DONT KNOW.

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 01 August 2008 at 16:48

 

//If you disagree, at the very moment you attempt to refute my point of view, you lose the debate//

Ahh, mercy mercy, I submit! Lol. Intellectual arm twisting will get you nowhere with me sonny jim.

//How could intelligent minds arise by chance out of mindless matter in motion?

You cannot consistently answer//

Watch me.

//You will simply assert that the chemical reactions in your brain are true and that the chemical reactions in my brain are false.//

No. That is a ridiculous notion. Chemical reactions in the brain are neither true, nor false, they are the physical proxies of ideas, which exist independently of reality. They are manifest physically when they are believed or elucidated, but the idea itself is to be evaluated, not its physical proxies.

//chaotic chemical reactions of mindless matter in motion cannot be objectively true//

No, but then I dont believe in 'objective' or 'complete' truth so that aint really a problem. And as we've discussed, ideas are true or false, chemical reactions are merely existent and demonstrate ideas.

//which denies an ordered and rational life of the mind//

No because the mind as a set of ideas exists independently of the physical world.

//the existence of objective truth //

Where is it? I aint seen any.

//So basically one can prove God exists//

No ya cant, and you didnt even try! You just attempted to disprove strict materialism.

//The problem we have is your unwillingness to accept that any first cause//

I'll gladly believe in a creator, when evidence is provided for his existence. Being a creator, that ought not to be a problem for him.

//to your method of creation //

I do not believe in any creation, naturalistic or otherwise.

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 01 August 2008 at 16:50

 

But never mind picking holes in your arguments, lets present the killer argument against a creator god, and it doesnt take two enormous posts to elucidate.

If God exists as an uncaused first cause, outside of time and space, which you have established he must be, then he must be unknown.

The cause of the universe, if it has one, is unknown.

Thus to say that god is the cause of the universe is merely to replace one unknown with another.

This gets us nowhere.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 12:56

 

"And that my friend is a massive contradiction. Your argument against my position is based on the fact that my position requires a belief in chance events, but you have admitted that this is not actually the case.”

THAT'S RIGHT - CHANCE. Admitted that's not the case? Where? I think not.

I repeat:

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is RANDOM, selection acts ON THAT VARIATION. Without the reliance on the randomness the nothingness the pure chance events there is no variation. Chance is the basis, your whole belief is based on the foundation of CHANCE.

You have evidence, gained via scientific research and you then proceed to string these facts together. The philosophy use to bind these facts is chance pure and simple. The very basis is chance, the foundation is chance, and the whole thing is nothing but chance this chance that chance all over the place, all on the floor gimmie some more. Ok?

“We can safely ignore the next few paras, all of them based on that flawed premise."

We? Who is this ‘we’ you refer to? I sense you are playing to an audience. You are sliding dangerously close to ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM. No we here son, it’s me against you. You can ignore them if you don’t like the sound of them, that would make me happy. LOOK AT THE SMILE ON MY FACE :-)

"Next you give a long summary of rational thought, with which I am wholly familiar"

HAHA GOOD ONE

"1. It assumes the universe has a beginning in any meaningful sense, and did not pre-exist the big bang in another form."

It would be good to read the whole post then reply, the answers are there SON

"2. If a creative force exists as holy books describe, we would in fact be able to test his/her/its existence by virture of prayer."

Adding an argument in which gives the impression that your argument is strong when infact it has nothing to do with my post. You are verging something dangerous here, something that may kill you...IGNORATIO ELENCHI. This is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. My post talks about the creator argument, pure and simple. Not religion but I knew you would try it, nevermind! MEMBERS WE SHALL INGORE THIS POINT IT MEANS NOTHING - zilch

"3. Most importantly it contradicts your statement on rational thought, which as you admit is the only source of true knowledge. If it is impossible to examine the beginnings of the universe rationally, then no knowledge about it is possible. I do not believe that to be the case, but this is beside the point."

INCORRECT BENNIFER - LET ME ELABORATE FURTHER

The proof of a Creator is in whether we can find evidence of creation.

This can only be proved or disproved by applying rational thought. So far the first conclusion (cannot sense a Creator) is of little help. So any answer will have to come from the second conclusion, which is the deep enlightened view on all we sense i.e. everything is limited and dependent.

Is everything we can sense limited Ben?

We should examine the statement and particularly what a limit means in this context. Here’s a passable working definition:

Whatever is limited has a dependency somewhere or how. It is limited if it depends on something else. This can be in many ways. Does it depend on a space to exist within? Something is limited if it is contingent and requires something peripheral to it in order to bring it into existence i.e. a cause. It cannot sustain itself forever and deteriorates accordingly. We can find or deduce either a beginning or end point or both. The space it occupies can be measured and its attributes quantified. It has boundaries it cannot exceed and obstacles it cannot overcome. It is conditional; unable to prevent itself from being affected and swayed by external factors. It can be contained and is subject to constraints and thresholds. It is limited since its constituent parts are limited as they can be measured. Also it can produce or reproduce but cannot create something else out of nothing. It can be increased and/or reduced. In short it is finite since its restrictions are inherent and unavoidable. Such a thing can be marked out as limited and dependent i.e. created.

So is everything we can sense limited and dependent? Let us examine a few options. Atoms require a space to exist within. Human beings are limited as we cannot fly, see into the future or escape death. Space, and the entire universe, consists of limited things such as atoms planets, stars and comets which themselves are measurable and we know the sum of limited things must be limited.

To ask if cold is limited is to ask an incoherent question. Cold cannot be measured as it is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing i.e. heat. Heat can be measured (the SI measurement is in joules), can be increased and, like all other forms of energy, requires a cause to initiate it. When we want to feel warmer we switch on radiators or light campfires. Heat results from something and is therefore limited.

Light and sound are waves. Sound is a mechanical wave. A mechanical wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location to another location. A light wave can travel through a vacuum since it does not require a medium. Both are characterised by definable properties. Light waves have intensity (brightness), polarisation (angle or vector) and frequency (colour) so the colour red is the reflection of light at a specific wavelength.

Sound waves are characterised by velocity, frequency, its wavelength and its amplitude so the intensity of sound is measured in decibels.

Both the speed of light and sound are measurable. Furthermore light is definitely limited otherwise it would always be daylight or to put it another way it would never be dark. By the same token if there is ever silence then sound must also be limited.

Can we think of infinite length? Length is measurement of something and is not a thing itself. The same can be said of numbers, which are simply a chronological form of measurement of other things. The question should not be if numbers reach infinity but if the items represented by numbers can reach infinity. We cannot guess out of our own desire for it to be true (that would be irrational, emotional belief) and we have no such previous information. Also numbers themselves cannot be without limit since every number is finite, as is the following number. Since whenever we proceed upwards we proceed towards another finite number we can never exceed the barrier of infinity.

Are ideas such as love limited? This can be answered by reference to the working definition of a limit. Is the idea of love able to exist independently of anything else or is it contingent and dependent on something else to initiate it? Ideas are inherently conditional on a mind to think of them. Ideas have no independent existence external to a mind so they are limited. Therefore love, like all other ideas, is limited. Of course if someone was willing to attempt to prove that an idea, like love, had an independent existence they are most welcome to try but both the rational and scientific methods require a reality to examine and ideas are clearly not tangible.

We can conclude that everything we can all sense is limited to some degree. One may wonder why this conclusion is important but it matters as it narrows down the options available in our search for a conclusive answer to the greatest question.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 12:57



AHA BUT BEN Do limited things equal a Creator?

Now we accept that all things we can sense are limited and have the rational framework of thinking in place there can now only be four possible answers to the greatest question:

1. The universe has existed for an infinite length of time so no creation ever took
place regardless of the existence of limited things (No Creator)
2. Limited things bought other limited things into existence (No Creator)
3. Limited things all depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual
dependencies (No Creator)
4. Limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited cause (Creator)

We can be sure there are no other possible answers and that these four choices are all mutually exclusive i.e. that none of these options can be true at the same time as another. Therefore, let us examine these alternatives in turn beginning with the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite length of time. O wait I have already refuted it. LETS MOVE ON SHALL WE

The second answer i.e. that limited things bought other limited things into existence if true would mean there was no need for a Creator but it contradicts reality. Could a limited thing bring itself into existence without need of something else? Could it survive and subsist without dependency on other things? Could a limited thing have always existed? Could a limited thing bring other things into existence from nothing?

These notions flatly contradict the previous information we possess on limited, dependent things. The previous information we have is that limited things do not and cannot bring themselves other things into existence and that there is always some dependency. This is part of the definition of a limited thing.

Arguing that the original limited object could have always existed (without a cause) means it is not limited, rather it is unlimited. This is the same as the first assertion that there was no start point and the universe has always existed. In effect it is another claim for an unlimited chain of events before this point and we have already refuted this.

The third answer was that all limited things depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies. The proposal is that all limited things manage their dependencies in a flawless system whereby each limited thing supports another in some intricate web. Therefore the claim is there is no need for a Creator, as this web would mean no requirement for a beginning or a cause. While is suggests that all limited things would continue to exist forever due to the support each limited thing receives from others this clearly is not the case as things die out, fade and deteriorate constantly.

Instead it is often illustrated with other examples such as when humans are buried where they become fertiliser for the trees and plants so they can themselves eat the plants before being buried. The most famous example is the water cycle where for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water.

The flaw here is that nothing in the cycle can exist until something initiates the cycle. We know A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn’t exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in the form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

If it is agreed that these three options have been rebutted then we arrive at the fourth and final option, which was that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.

This is the proof that there is a Creator Ben.

This unlimited cause (Creator) can only be one. If there are two or more then none of these causes can be unlimited. If the causes can each be separated, isolated and counted then they cannot be unlimited. The cause can only be unlimited if it is one, alone without partner, all-powerful, without beginning or end.

We can conclude this section by adding that the greatest question can be answered conclusively without resorting to emotion or by stretching the scientific model into realms it cannot deal with. Belief does not have to be emotional. In fact if it is built on rational thought, then is inherently built upon the greatest faculty of humanity, the mind.

Why can we not sense the Creator I hear you mutter Ben?

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

It could not be possible to sense something unlimited. No one would rationally argue the five senses of human beings could pick up anything beyond the universe. To perceive or sense the Creator would to contend that the Creator is within the bounds of the known universe. By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe (otherwise we would have found a limit). The unlimited has no boundaries, constraints or restrictions.

"And of course a creation implies a creator, but this argument is tautological. Prove to me that the universe is created, then the argument can be used."

Have done mate, have done. Tautological? If you are sitting there, with no knowledge about what the word creator and creation mean then the word in its purest simplest linguist langauge form seems similar, repetetive and circumlocutionary. HOWEVER BEN YOU KNOW WHAT CREATION AND CREATOR MEAN - THE ARGUMENT IS MORE THEN SIMILARITY IN WORDS THAT SOUND NICE TOGETHER. CREATION IS A RESULT OF THE ACTION OF THE CREATOR. PRODCUER = CREATOR, CREATION = PRODUCT. In a tight debate, logic cannot be defeated. So you are correct creation implies creation, and to go against this is illogical. Are you anti logic Ben?

“Go read the wikipedia entry on the anthropic principle and quit whining about chance. Yes its amazing that life originated, no the fact that it is improbable does not point to a creator.”

The anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence imposes on the kind of theoretical universe that can support human life. Our present universe is of course the only one we can ever actually observe, but we can speculate about such things as the probability that our universe formed within the finely tuned limits that support human life. Our human understanding dictates that the only kind of universe we can occupy is one that is just like the one we are in. If it were a completely different kind of universe, no human would occupy it.

ERM OK?

Yes it is amazing life originated. Don’t simplify things to suit your weak argument. It’s not a case of life originating being improbable pointing to a creator. The argument is that YOU RECKON life originated by CHANCE out of nothing. I can’t emphasise the word CHANCE enough here, yes that’s right CHANCE and out of NOTHING. I reckon life originated from a creative force. Your argument is more improbable than mines, henceforth that is what is amazing. With all things considered you choose the most improbable solution, instead of the more probable solution. Therefore your solution being MORE improbable then the solution of a creator means life originating is more likely to point to a creator rather than your ‘theory’. Imagine only one finger, my middle finger. It can only point at one, it’s going to point to the most probable – A CREATOR.

“Emergent phenomena is a useful phrase to describe uncaused natural events, such as movements by a flock of birds, its not just some phrase wot I made up.”

Firstly we’re not talking about a flock of birds, you used the term emergent phenomena in relation to abiogenesis so don’t get it twisted homie. Secondly it’s your assumption that life originating was an uncaused natural event, this is purely your assumption and is not a fact. And finally you used the term in reference to abiogenesis as mentioned. That’s like labelling something that doesn’t exist, something which has very little evidence if any at all to prove its truth as a factual process which is REAL. It is nothing but a stupid theory to help atheists explain how life originated WITHOUT a creative hand. It’s like the atheist I used to live with, he was starving for months on end then ended up using all the crap in the bin to make a Sunday dinner. Moral of the story; when atheists are in doubt, they resort to crap – and make it out to be something ‘real.’ Bearing this in mind, I’m sure you have a dictionary on hand so you probably did not make it up. GOOD BOY

“And we already disagree! I believe that the universe has always and will always exist, and I see no reason for it to be otherwise.”

Impossible. See infinite regression. Read what I wrote, then read it again. When you are done, read it again then print it off and read it again. Read it off the paper then repeat to yourself, then get someone to test you. Then stick it on the wall and memorise it by heart.

“Not neshasharily. Time is one of they funny old concepts, we percieve it as a continuum but in fact this is not how it really is. Time is just one of many directions the 3D of the universe can take in the 4/5th dimensions, and as a dimension not a continuum, it has altogether different properties.”

Speculative physics.

Time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 12:58



“Aaaaaaaaaaaha! Now thats just blatantly false. The Big Bang, as you well know, was an expansion of spacetime. That implies that at T0, all the spacetime in the universe existed as a singularity, not that it did not previously exist.”

Time I refer to is the time as we know it now. Even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. A different time frame altogether means the quantum events we witness in our time today have no relevance to the time frame at the time of creation. Hence your reliance on quantum mechanics as evidence of no need for a first cause fail AGAIN because the time we are talking about where you stipulate quantum events led to the universe being created is nothing like the time where your gas particles moved. Two totally different periods, the first known to man.

Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10�� seconds AFTER the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10�� seconds) after the Big Bang will likely remain pure speculation. So Ben, you have pure speculation. PUREST FORM OF PURE SPECULATION.

“This is quite a neat refutation of your infinite regress problem, because 'time' 'started' with the big bang but existed with 0 dimension beforehand, thus there is no problem with an infinitely old universe.”

Matter cannot exist infinitely. Neither can time as we know it. The time prior to creation is nothing like you can comprehend. The creator is independent of time, and is not subject to the rules of the creation. This does not refute infinite regression. Finite things cannot last forever. NEVER. It is YOU who assumes that nothing exists outside that singularity, and as such it goes to show how closed your mind is despite claiming to be ‘open minded’. You ask for evidence, but you have a hard core view which you will not change. HOW FARCICAL.

Theories such as string theory and M-theory predict that physical space in general has in fact 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively. The extra dimensions are spacelike. We perceive only three spatial dimensions, and NO physical experiments have confirmed the reality of additional dimensions. SPECULATION, that goes against logic. We always come back to it, the same point. Observations show design indicates designer, in life there is nothing in the real world that lasts forever. The world is made up of finite things like the universe, so to assume all the finite things = infinite is ludicrous. The finite things require an infinite creator. Logic = creation has a creator. NO LOGIC = creation does not have creator.

“If the universes spacetime were contained in a singularity, A quantum event would always be occurring.”

Again talking about a time where nothing existed. No matter, no time as we know it. Even if time existed, a quantum event would not be possible as I mentioned quantum event you observed as a basis for creation without a creator was in our time, not in THAT time which is entirely unknown to us – let alone if it existed.

“Logic exists by definition, independent of the universe it is used to describe.”

The void is being used to describe the universe and its qualities, the law it follows is logic. What are you making an issue of here? You’re giving me a lesson about logic, or disagreeing with my point that the void is subject to the law? If it is the latter then make yourself known, if it is giving me a lesson on logic then IGNORATIO ELENCHI. This is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, not related to the topic but only an attempt by you to again try an make it appear like your argument is strong when actually it is irrelevant to the discussion.

“I dispute that. The cause is as unknowable as the cause of the decay of a radioactive nucleus, we know it will happen (ad infinitum) but not when. It is uncaused, so it is with quantum events. The cause is not just hidden, there is none.”

O YOU DO, DO YOU. Lets say the cause is unknowable, so you are saying because we cannot find out what the cause is today right now in 2008-08-01 that this means there is no cause? Decay of a radioactive nucleus for an everlasting time? Happening once the system is in place and matter is already in existence in our time as we know it. A quantum event happening today is your basis for the quantum event that may have happened at the start of creation. An incorrect basis to rely on, different situations and one not supporting of the other. There is no cause you say? Again asserting your view with a blatantly blatant assertion which aims to force your opinion at home whilst at the same time you are apparently looking for answers. NEWSFLASH: IF YOU ALREADY HAVE AN ANSWER, YOU WILL STICK WITH IT.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 12:59

 

“Fine, but the singularity universe as I propose was pretty micro.”

PRETTY? DAMN FINE BABY!

“The universe has no preferred direction, as you well know. The time we percieve is one of infinite possible directions. To call it 'forward' is disengenuous.”

Time and causality move forward, this is how we observe things and this is the world we live in this is how time operates to us. This is logical YES IT IS. Your reliance on the infinite possible and obsession with anything and everything speculative apart from that which is obvious, observable and logical means you yourself have an illogical way of thinking and hence I suggest you reevaluate your thought process. I bet you’d bet on the on legged horse if there was one in the grand national. THERE IS A POSSIBILTY IT WILL WIN I HEAR YOU SAY. You were probably a Tim Henman fan.

“Blah blah blah, unfalsifiable hypothesis = no truth value.”

SOUNDS LIKE A CLOSED MIND TO ME, BEARING IN MIND HALF THE STUFF YOU SAY HAS NO TRUTH VALUE WHATSOEVER. WHERE IS THE TRUTH VALUE IN SPECULATION LOL I’LL TELL YOU, THERE IS NONE.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0LpD3PRsdSY

“No. Willing to accept that we DONT KNOW.”

YOU SAID YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR POSITION IF EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO YOU. BUT NO, NO MATTER WHAT IS SHOWN YOU WILL FOREVER CLING TO THE CONSTANT DOUBT THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR EXISTENCE AND YOUR BELIEF. SO I’LL ASK YOU AGAIN ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT AN ABSTRACT CREATOR?

“Ahh, mercy mercy, I submit! Lol. Intellectual arm twisting will get you nowhere with me sonny jim.”

You will submit don’t worry about that MUHAHAHAHAHA. Self defeat, you lose.

“Watch me.”

I’M WATCHING YOU @-@

“No. That is a ridiculous notion. Chemical reactions in the brain are neither true, nor false, they are the physical proxies of ideas, which exist independently of reality. They are manifest physically when they are believed or elucidated, but the idea itself is to be evaluated, not its physical proxies.”

So you agree that the chemical reactions in my brain which are physical proxies of ideas which manifest physically in the real world are truer than the chemical reactions in your brain which are physical proxies of ideas which manifest physically in the real world? NOW THAT IS SOMETHING

“No, but then I dont believe in 'objective' or 'complete' truth so that aint really a problem. And as we've discussed, ideas are true or false, chemical reactions are merely existent and demonstrate ideas.”

You are not quite seeing the problem with atheism. You said it’s not random- so you are redifining atheism. This is something you have to do in order to have any case. Atheism by definition is irrational- everything is matter in motion, not guided by any sort of intelligence. Thoughts in your view do not result from an immaterial mind but somehow result from the chemical reactions and electrical stimuli of the brain and central nervous system. There is absolutely no way in a naturalistic world that we would have any reason to assume that the movement of atoms in our brains produces actually true propositions. And if we could produce true propositions, in your view we could not trust them.

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Irn Bru and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else

“No because the mind as a set of ideas exists independently of the physical world.”

See above. Also: In the atheistic view there can be no reason or rationality above physical and material causes. So any thought process is meaningless and has no meaning or value. Hence your own rational though process has no value according to your own view. The ideas existing independently is irrelevant, essentially they are nothing. You are NOTHING BEN.

“Where is it? I aint seen any”

Any objective standard which is presented or proposed is met with constant doubting, uncertainty. If it can be doubted then it is more truer then something which would satisfy a reasonable standard of proof. You propose your own theory as valid by doubting other theories. This is how you operate. This is very sad.

“No ya cant, and you didnt even try! You just attempted to disprove strict materialism”

CUTTING OUT A SHORT SNIPPET OF THE ARGUMENT, WITHOUT THE REST.

How dishonest. Let me repeat:

So basically one can prove God exists. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of absolute certainty, it may be true that we can't prove or disprove God's existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute mathematical certainty, so CERTAINTY IS NEITHER A REASONABLE OR NECESSARY STANDARD. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think we can show that it is HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT GOD EXISTS.

The premises of the argument NEED NOT BE CERTAIN, merely MORE PLAUSIBLE than their denials. It follows that merely having a possible alternative explanation does not defeat a probabilistic God argument. What one needs is a MORE PROBABLE ALTERNATIVE explanation.

More than enough evidence has been provided to show a creator exists – or for hardcore doubters like you, MAY exist. If you prefer me to follow your model, then I have raised MORE than enough doubt in your theory to prove that my theory is more accurate than yours. It is strange how you operate by doubting others arguments, yet when someone uses the same on yours you hold on to it so tight refusing to concede any ground. Your own methodology is flawed, as you assume by doubting others it proves your view is correct. Your view on its own is ridiculous, and when compared to mines much more improbable. A reasonable person bases belief on accumulation of evidences to form an argument or whole case. Your basis is based on constant subtraction of evidence and doubting, after which you resort to the most ridiculous far fetched illogical irrational solution to form your argument. If someone states your case is foolish, your response is to cast doubt on the others argument. NOTE: Anyone can say why? Why? For an eternity, it doesn’t take much intelligence to constantly question and doubt everything. Doing this does NOT make your argument more valid. Sure one can doubt, and raise doubts. But to turn the doubts in to a new belief system whilst rejecting the core knowledge which forms the argument itself which was being doubted (not disproven or refuted) – stupid. As such this is the flawed foundation upon which your atheist beliefs exist.

“I'll gladly believe in a creator, when evidence is provided for his existence. Being a creator, that ought not to be a problem for him.”

Once again Ben assume the false position, arms folded nose up in the air, cross those little legs. It’s like saying ok your taking penalties against me. I take one and you move the goals, then I take another and you move them again THEN YOU MOVE IT AGAIN WHENEVER I TAKE A PENALTY. SO YOU SAY I NEVER SCORE, BUT FACT IS I WOULD SCORE BUT FOR YOU MOVING THE GOALPOSTS. You have no intention of believing, accepting or recognising any evidence which goes against your view. You gladly accept chance, random events, unexplained ‘emergent phenomenon’ and mere speculation when it comes to your bogus semi science wrapped views. When it comes to accepting half the same for a creator argument which is altogether more logical and rational, you refuse to accept and apply a ridiculously high standard of proof. Regarding the creator coming to give you evidence himself – what a ridiculous foolish thing to say, why would he come to you, you’re nothing but a result of random mutation after all.

Ben if I came and sat in front of you, how would you prove to me that you exist Ben?

“I do not believe in any creation, naturalistic or otherwise.”

You believe in things which are preposterous

“But never mind picking holes in your arguments”

Wow trying to convince yourself you have a strong case whilst convincing the reader at the same time, impressive. If you see holes in mines you need eyes checked. You would be better off dealing with the canyons in yours MUHAHAHA. Try harder junior.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben’s post on 02 August 2008 at 13:08

 

BEN'S KILLER ARGUMENT EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION IT'S BEN'S KILLER ARGUMENT AGAINST A CREATOR GOD - ATTENTION - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION KILLER BEN AGAINST CREATOR GOD ARGUMENT - KILLER ARGUMENT GOIN ON OVER HERE:

“lets present the killer argument against a creator god, and it doesnt take two enormous posts to elucidate”

I’ll post 10 long posts if I want to, I will write a book, scream it on the streets, and tattoo it on my head. Anything to get my point across in the fashion I deem necessary. Killer argument? You have nothing – nothing to do with your intellectual strength. NOTHING. HIT ME HIT MEEE

“If God exists as an uncaused first cause, outside of time and space, which you have established he must be, then he must be unknown.”

Why must he be? This is a false assumption which you reach through? He remains unknown through your method of investigation – as he will not come down and sit in a lab for you to experiment on. He remains unknown through empirical study but is known through reason logic and rational thinking. That’s 3 to 1, I win. He could remain unknown unless he reveals himself to us. I mean he could do this right? OFCOURSE HE COULD. You can investigate what he reveals

“The cause of the universe, if it has one, is unknown.”

Unknown to the ignorant and closed minded. But known at the most minimal level of knowledge as a creative power or force (as you will believe). Known at a more personal detailed level through the creators own words. It is for you to decide if the words are his or a fabricated and man made

“Thus to say that god is the cause of the universe is merely to replace one unknown with another.”

God is a name formulated in the language. You pick your name, what do you accept as a cause? A creative force or higher power? If you would accept one – you name the label. The cause is the creator itself. It is not unknown, it is known and if you want to know about that which is unknown to you, then just say and I shall make it known to you that which you do not know. A separate discussion, which can add weight to the argument of a creator outside our realm and at the same time make you aware of this cause and its qualities, attributes etc…After investigating that which I make known to you, you can decide if the unknown is still unknown. You will know soon Ben, soon you will know.

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 02 August 2008 at 13:49

 

Much as I approve of sarcasm, and I do, its better when its shorter.

//Why must he be? This is a false assumption which you reach through? He remains unknown through your method of investigation //

Outside of space-time? Because if he wasnt he'd be part of the universe and you would have to explain where he came from.

//but is known through reason logic and rational thinking.//

In your humble opinion, as you know I and many many others do not agree.

//It is for you to decide if the words are his or a fabricated and man made//

Man made and oh so clearly man made. Pro natal ethics, pro-martial ethics, no knowledge not available to a 7th century illiterate merchant/1st century tax collector. But thats for another thread.

//But known at the most minimal level of knowledge as a creative power or force //

Which is outside the span of human understanding except as an abstract concept, and thus totally useless. Explanations should add to the great sweep of human knowledge, a creative force does not. If it does exist, it is irrelevant. That is why my position is an agnostic irrelevantist.

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 02 August 2008 at 15:55

 

And I will come back on the rest when I have a minute, but surfs up right now.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 17:25

 

“Much as I approve of sarcasm, and I do, its better when its shorter.”

WHY SO SERIOUS?

”Outside of space-time? Because if he wasnt he'd be part of the universe and you would have to explain where he came from.”

Correctemundo. Your definition of unknown? Something that can’t be touched felt sensed and experimented on. In that sense, yes unknown. But the creator is outside our realm

I repeat:

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

It could not be possible to sense something unlimited. No one would rationally argue the five senses of human beings could pick up anything beyond the universe. To perceive or sense the Creator would to contend that the Creator is within the bounds of the known universe. By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe (otherwise we would have found a limit). The unlimited has no boundaries, constraints or restrictions.

However we cannot rest now. The question of a Creator is the greatest because it affects the direction of our lives. So the next stage of the discussion is critical. We cannot pretend to have any conception of what is beyond our senses. That would contradict the rational method. We need to be informed by the unlimited Creator. It is completely irrational to think otherwise but since we cannot sense the Creator we have to now decide on the next step. One option is to guess blindly, using one’s own limited mind to decide right and wrong, on why we were created, if there is a purpose, what we should expect in terms of accountability, punishment and reward etc. This step cannot be discouraged enough. One would not hear a knock at the door and just ‘guess’ it was a visit from the local dentist to pull out one’s front teeth. One would not buy a can of cola and just ‘guess’ the can was full of nerve gas. So why guess when it comes to the answer to the greatest question? Human beings are rational, using thought to elevate the social condition. We have already refuted emotion, blind imitation and leaps of faith and instead emphasised using reason and ration. It is still necessary to hold to this principle.

If the system we live in shows us things have a purpose, working for cash, eating to survive, sex for pleasure and so ON then it is logical and rational to conclude the whole system containing our mini purpose driven systems also has a purpose. The purpose would be obtained from the source of creation; the source of creation is the creator.

”In your humble opinion, as you know I and many many others do not agree.”

LLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL yes humble opinion indeed. Bearing in mind it’s all there to see in the discussion, how rational and logical thinking proves a creator – you have not only a humble opinion but an incorrect opinion too. Coming to ANY other conclusion is just foolish. People can judge for themselves after reading. Many many many many many many many many many many x a billion agree with me.

”Man made and oh so clearly man made. Pro natal ethics, pro-martial ethics, no knowledge not available to a 7th century illiterate merchant/1st century tax collector. But thats for another thread.”

Man made? So clearly? Not so clear JERKY. You see I recall you telling me to watch you, so I have been watching you…Ben. You had a discussion about one of these supposed claimed revelations from the creator, the Quran. You can find it below:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15331001146&topic=5476&start=30&hash=e51e2a448645f40b7266052d67ed9e6c

Post 58 onwards, you discuss it with someone. From objective reading, subjective reading, skim reading, brief reading, thorough reading – it points to something unlikely to be from a man made source. Seeing as the revelation itself also claims to be from the creator, it highlights life existing for a purpose which fits with logic and rational thinking, and lays down logical guidelines for mankind to follow – it qualifies as a revelation from God. Furthermore it allows you to know that which is unknown. The creator does not have to show himself to reveal his intentions or will, he can and did choose a human amongst other humans to reveal to so they could spread his message. As the creator cannot be part of his creation, this was a NEAT way of getting the message to us.

Last time I checked one of the conditions you laid down for any supposed revelation of God is that it had to contains no errors, internal or external, had information which could not have been known at the time, and the message had been preserved. Only then would it amount to circumstantial evidence, and with all other evidences provided would prove the revelation is from the creator. From careful reading I see you got to the point of errors, INTERNAL contradictions that apparently exist in the Quran. See:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15331001146&topic=5656

To declare it man made, but not fully testing the validity of the claim that the revelation is not man made is FOOLISH. I suggest you back your shit up.

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 02 August 2008 at 17:30



Pro natal ethics? What it promotes birth? REALLY WHERE? And how does this show the revelation is not from the creator? Pro-marital ethics? SO IT PROMOTES MARRIAGE – HOW HEINOUS, WHY HOW EVIL. Could it be that PERHAPS, as it is a book from the creator for the CREATION it deals with all aspects of life? And 2 of those aspects which are quite important if you think about it is first BIRTH, without which you wouldn’t be here BEN. Secondly relationships between individuals, one form being MARRIAGE? And you propose that because it contains such information it excludes any possibility it has for being from the creator LLOLL you have STRANGE IDEAS BEN. If there was such a thing as god, and he did reveal his will – it would most certainly deal with these issues. All this being silly I almost forget to mention your ASSUMPTION or insinuation that such things are BAD? Giving birth and marriage are bad BEN? Note: encouragement of relationships, not obligation which is punishable if not carried out. Your basis in this regard to reject the revelation from the creator is totally ridiculous, non sensical and has all the hallmarks of something you read somewhere and decided to adopt because it sounded ‘neat’. WELL IT AINT MUHAHAHAHA

No knowledge available? Are you being dishonest Ben? Things already discussed with you by others – things shown to you and you ignore them and continue to propagate your false assertion? When it comes down to the crunch you will say ‘DUNNO WHERE IT CAME FROM – BUT IT WASN’T THE CREATOR THAT’S FOR SURE’. That’s what a closed mind does to you. Again:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15331001146&topic=5476&start=30&hash=e51e2a448645f40b7266052d67ed9e6c

It DOES have information which could not have been known to the person you refer to. It also has information which would be HIGHLY IMPROBABLE to be known that person. It also has information which talked about future events, mentioned science UNKNOWN in the world and the region at that time. That amounts to a falsifiable prediction, which over ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER has not been falsified. It’s a miraculous revelation, and is open to debate if you think otherwise. But O WAIT you have already had the debate? Do you have the memory of a gold fish? Do you just discard information that doesn’t suit your worldview? Whatever happened to learning things and refining ones knowledge – thought you like things that add to the sweep of human knowledge? Knowing about a creative force, which created you for a purpose, would certainly add to your knowledge. To dismiss it is foolish. You’re not a fool are you Ben?

And back to the ethics which you propound are not capable of being from a creative force and thus points to the ‘fact’ that the revelation is man made. Ethics and morals – all coming from the meaning of the word custom; ethics and morals change according to the time period they are in and where they are practiced. The only ethics and morals which are reliable, sound and correct are those that exist for all time dealing with the creation, legislating for them in all situations. If there is a creator, then his law would be the best law. Law’s which aim to bring benefit to the majority and prevent harm. These are sensible, reasonable and logical laws. If any law was going to come from a creator, any ethical or moral value system – it would be the one contained in the revelation of God, the Quran. A complete and thorough code for human existence, relations and conduct.

From objective reading, subjective reading, skim reading, brief reading, thorough reading – it points to something unlikely to be from a man made source and MORE IMPORTANTLY, shows that the system is fair logical and is the BEST system to live by. If it can be defined as the BEST system, then certainly one cannot dismiss it being from the creator, as the creator should theoretically be able to provide the BEST system to live by. It is MAGNIFIQUE

As you have already discussed it and it has been shown to you how your man made system is flawed in comparison to the creator system, why ignore this and continue to stick with your false hypothesis about the Quran being fabricated and containing a flawed ethical code?

”Which is outside the span of human understanding except as an abstract concept, and thus totally useless. Explanations should add to the great sweep of human knowledge, a creative force does not. If it does exist, it is irrelevant. That is why my position is an agnostic irrelevantist.”

Yes the creator himself is outside our understanding. BUT if he has revealed his will to us, then he has revealed information to us which will AID our understanding. A creative force in it self, the way you define it means nothing. But with more knowledge on the creative force, and the motivation and reason for creation which is contained in the creators revelation (which can be verified and investigated) it will increase your knowledge by:

Showing you the purpose of life. You are a bit fuzzy on the HOW but you will in time be clearer on the WHY, then hopefully the HOW too. Then you will be truly enlightened. If you want the HOW then the WHY is also something which adds to the great sweep of human knowledge.

"And I will come back on the rest when I have a minute, but surfs up right now"

The rest? I recall you saying:

"But never mind picking holes in your arguments, lets present the killer argument against a creator god, and it doesnt take two enormous posts to elucidate."

YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF GOOD SIR. 'THE REST' HAS VALUE NOW BUT BEFORE APPARENTLY YOU COULD SUM THE WHOLE THING UP IN THE KILLER ARGUMENT. IS IT NOT SO KILLER ANYMORE?

Confusion Ben, despair. Never looked all that to me anyway. Enjoy the surf, watch out for the sharks Ben. They sense weakness.

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 03 August 2008 at 11:59

 

//WHY SO SERIOUS?//

My style, deadpan. Doesnt come across well on the intertubes.

//Your definition of unknown? Something that can’t be touched felt sensed and experimented on. In that sense, yes unknown. But the creator is outside our realm//

Yeah, thats fair enough.

//By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe //

Now this is a problem I have with the 'oh, you cant examine god because he's outside the universe'. The analogy I use is that of dimensions, no we could not percieve or concieve of a force that applied in the 5th dimension, but it would nevertheless have effects on the dimensions below. Perhaps we could not examine the creator directly from our limited perspective, but his actions in our world would be testable and predictable, or unpredictable, untestable and unfalsifiable in which case they would be irrelevant.

//The question of a Creator is the greatest because it affects the direction of our lives//

Not mine. I derive my ethics humanistically, and have come to accept that this incredible universe is essentially purposeless, and to have a purpose would make it far less incredible anyway.

//ON then it is logical and rational to conclude the whole system containing our mini purpose driven systems also has a purpose//

No it is not. This is an inductive argument, and we have already established that a creative force could not be examined by an inductive or scientific method.

Besides, given initial conditions we have naturalistic reasons why our mini systems have a percieved 'purpose', a purpose that we only percieve because of our human reference frame, but which when looked at from outside the box looks very trivial.

//you have not only a humble opinion but an incorrect opinion too. Coming to ANY other conclusion is just foolish//

Hey, way to argue rationall! Why build up credibility by arguing well to throw it away with cheap paragraphs like that?

As to Koranic contradictions, point them out to a muslim and you get exactly the same response as if you point them out in the bible to a christian. Rationalising, twisting, turning, wriggling and squirming. I read the Koran at face value, and there are apparent contradictions.

//Pro natal ethics? What it promotes birth? REALLY WHERE//

Pro natal ethics: An ethical system designed to increase birth rates, including provision for polygamy, marrying of underage girls, punishments for homosexuality and adultery (which undermines a males incentive to look after his supposed offspring) etc. Such systems would always aid their followers to simply 'outbreed' other systems.

//Pro-marital ethics//

No, pro Martial. Pro war. Specifically, pro-war against anybody who disagrees with said belief system, which again is what we would expect of a man made system.

//Giving birth and marriage are bad BEN//

No, and that is not my argument and you know it. My 'man made religion' hypothesis predicts that religion should contain ethical systems that promote the survival of said system, thus pro-martial and pro-natal ethics are strong circumstantial evidence for my hypothesis.

//No knowledge available? Are you being dishonest Ben? Things already discussed with you by others //

I'll find the quote from another thread where some guy, in response to my rebuttal of his 'knowledge in the Quran claims' said basically, 'oh yeah, well it isnt supposed to contain extra knowledge anyway'. Convincing stuff for sure.

//As you have already discussed it and it has been shown to you how your man made system is flawed in comparison to the creator system//

I see no harm in waiting for the experiments at CERN, or future experiments and research to yield some sort of unified theory which might point us towards an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Sticking an unknowable force, that exists outside space and time, in the gaps in our knowledge has been done by the religious for thousands of years and has never got anyone anywhere.

//A creative force in it self, the way you define it means nothing//

Not the way I define it, the way it defines itself.

//YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF GOOD SIR. 'THE REST' HAS VALUE NOW BUT BEFORE APPARENTLY YOU COULD SUM THE WHOLE THING UP IN THE KILLER ARGUMENT.//

You have clearly had proper arguments before, you know that the accepted format is proposal, rebuttal+alternative proposal, rebuttal+alternative proposal etc. Dont try and intimidate me by virtue of caps lock!

//Confusion Ben, despair. Never looked all that to me anyway. Enjoy the surf, watch out for the sharks Ben. They sense weakness.//

Ha, basking sharks (the only ones I have to worry about here) are not so hot at that. And it was damned good I tell thee, epic good lols. My philospoher friend jack says hi, and tells you (somewhat disparagingly) to read Roger Penrose 'The road to reality' and go away.

I say, time for another surf sesh, looking forward to your rebuttal.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 03 August 2008 at 16:41

 

”My style, deadpan. Doesnt come across well on the intertubes”

HAHAHA GOOD ONE

”Yeah, thats fair enough.”

Do you see how closely I observe you Ben?

”Now this is a problem I have with the 'oh, you cant examine god because he's outside the universe'. The analogy I use is that of dimensions, no we could not percieve or concieve of a force that applied in the 5th dimension, but it would nevertheless have effects on the dimensions below. Perhaps we could not examine the creator directly from our limited perspective, but his actions in our world would be testable and predictable, or unpredictable, untestable and unfalsifiable in which case they would be irrelevant.”

The effect in the dimensions below would be the very function and process which makes the universe ‘tick’ along, the movement of planets, the sun rising, THE WORKS. Now you don’t like the interventionist God, the things I attribute to God

There are about four hundred billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and there are probably more than a hundred billion galaxies in our present observable universe, and there is quite possibly endless more beyond. The andromeda galaxy, which is our nearest neighboring galaxy, is over two million light-years away, it takes that many years for light to travel from there to here. Light travels so fast that it journeys from our moon to our planet earth in just one and a third seconds, yet from even the nearest galaxy light must journey more than two million years to reach us. Our milky way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter, so out there about twenty times that distance is andromeda galaxy, with even more than four hundred billion stars. There are more than a hundred billion galaxies further beyond in all directions in the realm that constitutes our observable universe at the time of this writing. How can we begin to comprehend one hundred billion galaxies and all the stars and other things they contain in our observable universe? Each galaxy like a mini-universe, an island universe, so large in and of itself, and with such vast distances out to its neighbor galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy alone is so indescribably vast. The orbit of our planet around our sun compared to the size of our galaxy is reckoned to be like the size of a pinhead compared to the size of North America. One light-year is 5.88 trillion miles, or 9.46 trillion kilometers. Nine trillion, four hundred and sixty billion (9,460,000,000,000) kilometers light travels in one year, and it would take light more than two million years to get to our neighbor galaxy andromeda, and so far away beyond us are so many other galaxies, etcetera.

The system that creates and allows all this (and much much more) to function is the creator. But the fact that we cannot yet even comprehend the enormity of the universe and its effects, how could we go further and comprehend the infinite? To touch and sense and experiment upon? NO CHANCE. We’re not meant to. Why not let the creator speak to you?

So again the things that I will attribute to the creator – life, the function of the earth, the universe and our very existence is something you would come back and attribute to your natural self created self developed system. The universe with all its creations, both animate and inanimate, has a near flawless design, unique systems, and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos:

A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician

The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth. Indeed, the slightest variation in the distance between the two bodies could give rise to significant imbalances. For example:

- If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.

- If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.

- A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breathe

The distribution of heavenly bodies in the universe is designed exactly to conform to the needs of human life. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, American astronomer George Greenstein explains the importance of the huge voids in space and the distances between heavenly bodies:

All that wasted space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. It is a precondition for our existence. Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm. Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different.

The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes-one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing

If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter, life would never have come into being. This is because the atoms in solid matter are compact, relatively motionless, and do not allow the dynamic molecular activity needed for living organisms to develop. The atoms in gasses have no stability and move freely, preventing the functioning of the complex mechanisms of living organisms.

The suitability of Earth's environment for the sustaining life is too wondrous to ever be explained by chance occurrences. Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry, says the following in this regard:

The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness

God has created the amount of water in the world in the way most appropriate for the survival of living things. The 18th century English natural scientist John Ray, writes the following in this regard:

… [I]f there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half Quantity of Vapors, and consequently we could have but half as many Rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of Vapors which are raised, as well as to the heat which raised them. The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land

To claim that all these events resulted from chance events, a person would have to be completely deluded.

And I could go on and on and on. You would come back with supposed imperfections, but they would not take away from the perfections. The fact is there is an order to the creation that is beyond something that results from chance. If we agree it is by chance, the odds for it being such would be something truly MASSIVEGIGANTICENOURMAS.

Testable actions? Something that would prove a creator exists? What do you suggest Ben.

If life is a test, then there has to be a ‘testing element’. If we have all the answers, then one part of the test which is faith in the unseen, which will differentiate between believers and unbelievers, will not exist. If this part of the test does not exist, the whole test is pointless. If the test is pointless, life is pointless and creation has no purpose. There was and is never meant to be proof for God which is 100%, this would negate the purpose of existence.

This would also fit in with the fact that we cannot sense the unlimited, and fully comprehend. We can’t even fully comprehend our universe, let alone the creator. Whatever dimension the creator resides in, it is beyond us. There has to be another method of examining the validity of the argument that he exists, one of those is to examine his revelation.

“Not mine. I derive my ethics humanistically, and have come to accept that this incredible universe is essentially purposeless, and to have a purpose would make it far less incredible anyway.”

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition. It is up to humans to find the truth whilst rejecting reliance on the irrational or illogical.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 03 August 2008 at 16:43



The human is created by the creator, and as such the human condition is also a result of that creation. The only universal morality which is applicable to the humans is that which is created specifically for the human condition with their very nature in mind. This principle should be universally applied to all humans, as humans are essentially the same and by nature they have the same core values or morals. Every single law in Islam recognises the human condition, and legislates for it as a whole – more than any other man made system could EVER do. It is up to humans, such as you Ben to find the truth YOURSELF. No one is telling you to blindly believe in illogical irrational ideas. Belief in a creator is more logical and rational than your currently held belief, so essentially you are going against humanism.

The universe having a purpose would not change the environment you live in, nor would it change the universe itself. It would however show YOU why things are the way they are, why they exist and why YOU exist. Without this knowledge you will die with the false idea that life has no purpose, and subsequently realise in the next life which is more longer, more important and ultimately the goal for every human – that you made a VERY BIG mistake. Of the two destinations in the next life, you would end up in the least desirable. Least is an understatement but let’s just say you will be feeling the heat MUHAHAHA. Not that I want you to Ben, me an you – were more alike than you think

In short, having a purpose will help you in the long run. Life is short, you will die Ben. Think long term….

”No it is not. This is an inductive argument, and we have already established that a creative force could not be examined by an inductive or scientific method.”

PURPOSE is what we are talking about, don’t cloud it HOMIE – NOT GOD, PURPOSE. The scientific method is irrelevant here. Inductive reasoning and logic based on our observations is enough of an argument to suggest that life may have a purpose. Any conclusion that goes against this is illogical, and as such should be ignored. So to repeat, LIFE HAS A PURPOSE BASED ON LOGIC – PURE LOGIC.

”Besides, given initial conditions we have naturalistic reasons why our mini systems have a percieved 'purpose', a purpose that we only percieve because of our human reference frame, but which when looked at from outside the box looks very trivial.”

Well what other frame should we percieve it from? If logic is based on our observations – why would be step outside the human box (when we are human) and then jump in another box (alien spaceship hovering above earth looking at humans) and conclude that whatever we do is purposeless. Remember, logic is based on OUR observations in the current state we are in, or experiences in OUR life. What we perceive is what the reference frame is, anything else is no longer relevant. Inductive reasoning is sufficient to establish that logically life has a purpose. I’m not prepared to travel to mars to look at the earth and then start seeing how trivial our actions are. That is just CRAZY BEN. Besides, if we strip it to the core – humans need to eat, and drink to survive – hence there is a purpose to the core things we need to do. SEE BEN DO YOU SEE?

”Hey, way to argue rationall! Why build up credibility by arguing well to throw it away with cheap paragraphs like that?”

I DON’T WANT CREDIBILITY, I DON’T WANT FRIENDS, I DON’T WANT MONEY, I HAVE NO MOTIVATION. I CAN’T BE NEGOTIATED WITH, I JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR FALSE VIEWS BURN, BEN. MY ARGUMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

”As to Koranic contradictions, point them out to a muslim and you get exactly the same response as if you point them out in the bible to a christian. Rationalising, twisting, turning, wriggling and squirming. I read the Koran at face value, and there are apparent contradictions.”

AGAIN BEN, ARE YOU AFRAID OF PUTTING THEM FORWARD – THAT TOPIC IS STILL OPEN. DO SHOW THESE CONTRADICTIONS DO SHOW BEN DO SHOW – PLEASE DO SHOW. DO NOT COMPARE THE QURAN TO THE BIBLE, IN TERMS OF CONTRADICTIONS THE BIBLE CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE REFUTATION OF MERIT. DO NOT JUDGE ON THIS BASIS - SHOW YOUR HAND, SHOW THESE CONTRADICTIONS. AS OF NOW, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS EMPTY RHETORIC, A PAPER TIGER. I CRUSH THEE

”Pro natal ethics: An ethical system designed to increase birth rates, including provision for polygamy, marrying of underage girls, punishments for homosexuality and adultery (which undermines a males incentive to look after his supposed offspring) etc. Such systems would always aid their followers to simply 'outbreed' other systems.”

To increase birth rates with provision for polygamy? This is not the reason for the provision Ben. Open a topic on it Ben, PLEASE OPEN A TOPIC ON IT BEN.

Marrying of underage girls? Does Islam make it an obligation or promote/encourage the marriage of underage girls? What verse of the Quran please – do elaborate

Punishments for homosexuality? CORRECT BEN. It is not natural, against the nature of humans, and causes many o so many social problems Ben. Primary reason for punishment is not related birth rates, but a whole range of issues including the harms that result. See an interesting topic I found on it:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic.php?uid=5158579986&topic=4430

Punishments for adultery? You have already discussed this with someone, the reasons were made clear. It is not linked to birth rates. If anything, the Islamic code prevents extra births outside marriage so it cannot be described as pro-natal.

Out of the 4 reasons you base Islam being a pro-natal system, if I’m being STRAIGHT UP none are related to birth rate increase – if you knew Islam and the reasons for the principles (not that reasons you assume based on your study of man made belief systems which you then apply to Islam) you would realise this. If I am being NICE TO YOU BEN BECAUSE I CAN BE NICE, I would say only one out the 4 is possibly related to pro-natal ethics. Either way, this is insufficient to establish your claim that Islam is based on pro-natal ethics, which would in turn show it is man made belief system.

Besides, showing a link to pro natal ethics in itself is not a strong argument in showing Islam is man made. Rather it simply shows a similarity in certain aspects, which when looked at in detail are not similarities at all

Hence you PHAIL.

”No, pro Martial. Pro war. Specifically, pro-war against anybody who disagrees with said belief system, which again is what we would expect of a man made system.”

PRO WAR O HELL YEAH, GIMMIE A HELL YEAH. Seriously though, what you have said is false. Islam does not say ‘go to war’ with anyone who disagrees with you. If you have some evidence I would LOVE TO SEE IT BEN MWAH x

Seeing as Islam is not supportive of this system you allege (hallmark of man made-ness) then once again I can confirm to you that your argument collapses. Islam is not man made.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 03 August 2008 at 16:46



”No, and that is not my argument and you know it. My 'man made religion' hypothesis predicts that religion should contain ethical systems that promote the survival of said system, thus pro-martial and pro-natal ethics are strong circumstantial evidence for my hypothesis.”

They would show similarity if they existed, not prove that Islam is man made. Seeing as they don’t exist in Islam 1) at all or 2) the scale you propose which would directly link it to those ethical systems, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT ISLAM IS NOT MAN MADE PEOPLE. FALSE ALARM.

If anything Islam encourages living with people of other belief systems in peace, allowing people freedom of religion, and even recognises other faiths as somewhat valid. Ofcourse being the truth of all truths the MOTHER OF ALL TRUTHS Islam does ask us to give the message to others. But the default position regarding non believers is the following:

Proclaim, (O dear Prophet Mohammed - peace and blessings be upon him), “O disbelievers!”
Neither do I worship what you worship.
Nor do you worship Whom I worship.
And neither will I ever worship what you worship.
Nor will you worship Whom I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is mine.
(Surah Kafiroon - chapter 109)

”I'll find the quote from another thread where some guy, in response to my rebuttal of his 'knowledge in the Quran claims' said basically, 'oh yeah, well it isnt supposed to contain extra knowledge anyway'. Convincing stuff for sure.”

YOU DO THAT BEN. I repeat there is information in the Quran which is utterly convincing by way of the fact that Muhammad could not have known it. Science, predictions, prophecies and the very nature of the text of the Quran makes it so that it could not have been from the hands of a man, Again I will say, no matter what convincing arguments are presented – you will simply say ‘I DON’T KNOW WHERE IT COME FROM – BUT IT WAS NOT THE CREATOR’. This is your default position which you will retreat to no matter what.

(INSERT LEVIATHON DEBATE HERE)

Denial is not a good thing

”I see no harm in waiting for the experiments at CERN, or future experiments and research to yield some sort of unified theory which might point us towards an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Sticking an unknowable force, that exists outside space and time, in the gaps in our knowledge has been done by the religious for thousands of years and has never got anyone anywhere.”

What is your definition of anywhere? Once CERN or others find out for arguments sake, the building blocks of the universe and where life came from – where well that get you Ben? You will have knowledge, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is just useless WHATS THE POINT BEN. To find out the how, and then discover the WHY is what you need BEN. There would be no HOW if there was not a WHY. The why is a personal thing for you to discover BEN, forget about the thousands of years and religions doing this and that. This creative force is knowable Ben, just relax and open your mind

DON’T YOU THINK IT IS FUNNY THAT THOUSANDS OF YEARS HAS PASSED AND PEOPLE HAVE IGNORED LOGIC AND RATIONAL THINKING IN SEARCH FOR HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO EXIST, YET NOW YOU ARE PREPARED TO WAIT FOR A POSSIBLE FURTHER ONE THOUSAND YEARS AND WHAT THEN? THE GREATER MINDS DON’T NEED TO EXPERIMENT ON THINGS AND FIDDLE ABOUT TO DISCOVER THINGS – THE GREATER MINDS USE REASON LOGIC AND INTELLECT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ARISTOTLE AND PLATO THEN WHY NOT YOU BEN?

”Not the way I define it, the way it defines itself.”

You define it is a creative higher power who would not interfere with the universe it created, and most certainly not send down any messages to mankind for their benefit. Such a creative force in itself would mean nothing. YOUR OWN DEFINITION HINDERS YOU BEN. This is why you see no value in learning or accepting any creative force. But you are looking at the wrong force Ben, the RIGHT force created, revealed and you will return to this force one day BEN where you will have your questions answered, and you will answer questions – o so many questions Ben.

”You have clearly had proper arguments before, you know that the accepted format is proposal, rebuttal+alternative proposal, rebuttal+alternative proposal etc. Dont try and intimidate me by virtue of caps lock!”

DOES THIS INTIMIDATE YOU BEN, ARE YOU AFRAID? IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK THAT I’M TRYING TO SCARE YOU BEN? ARE YOU INTIMIDATED?

”Ha, basking sharks (the only ones I have to worry about here) are not so hot at that. And it was damned good I tell thee, epic good lols. My philospoher friend jack says hi, and tells you (somewhat disparagingly) to read Roger Penrose 'The road to reality' and go away.”

IF I COULD BE ANYTHING ELSE I WOULD BE A GREAT WHITE BEN.

Tell Jack ‘hi’ in a camp voice, then slap him across the face for his rudeness. Then walk off out the room and don’t turn around to look at him and his red face. Then shout as you’re walking away ‘you don’t know Jack, Jack. Go to the screen an read the last sentence’

Read me Jack: Road to reality? I AM REALITY….’JACK’. I WILL NEVER GO AWAY, I WILL ALWAYS BE HERE. WE’RE DESTINED TO DO THIS FOREVER

HA HA HE HE HU HA

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 05 August 2008 at 10:41

 

//Do you see how closely I observe you Ben//

Now that's just creepy... I'll have my hunting crossbow loaded for when I see the rustle in the bushes that means you're staking out my house!

//The system that creates and allows all this (and much much more) to function is the creator.//

But as you readily admit, we know exactly how the universe evolved from about 1 times ten to the minus 34 seconds after T0, so there is no cause for god to explain all this.

Besides, saying god is behind the complexity of the universe has about as much scientific merit as saying it is governed by magic, it has no explanatory power.

//To touch and sense and experiment upon? NO CHANCE. We’re not meant to. Why not let the creator speak to you?//

Rollox. This is what clearly marks your position as the vacuous intellectual dead end it really is. We're not meant to experiment eh, not meant to advance human understanding, not meant to find out things. We're meant to take it all on blind faith.

Religion has been doing this for thousands of years, and it hasnt advanced human welfare one jot, and never will. You dont just think the scientific method is innapropriate to examine first causes, you dont trust it at all.

//If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.//

Rollox, go learn your orbital mechanics. I'm no ill educated noob you can baffle with pseudo science, dont bother advancing rubbish like that.

//If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. //

The earth/moon system is a dynamic one where the moon is constantly moving away from the earth, at about 4cm per year. At some point it would always end up at the right distance.

//All that wasted space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. //

You fool, the universe is constantly expanding! Thus at one point or another, of course there will be the appropriate distribution.

//If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter//

You fool, are you claiming that there could be a universe where high temperatures did not exist?

//The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen //

You fool, the reason why we percieve all these as being suitable for self replicating life is that they are the most common things in the universe, and any life that would ever arise in this universe would always be composed of them.

//The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land//

You fool, the earth is a dynamic, self regulating system! The amount of water is not a constant, but is affected by chemical processes. It has previously been next to nothing.

Besides, if there were different quantities of fresh water, there would simply be more water efficient forms of life!

Your arguments for a fined tuned universe are quite simply a load of tosh, we know precisely how and why all this stuff happened and it does not need
a creator to explain it in the least. I suggest you get a scientific education, or at least a subscribtion to the new scientist!

//was and is never meant to be proof for God which is 100%//

Loltings, you claim earlier that god cannot be examined by the scientific method, but is easily 'derived' from rational thought. Any accurate philosophical proof is 100% accurate, so either you drop this claim, or you drop the proofs.

//Belief in a creator is more logical and rational than your currently held belief, so essentially you are going against humanism. //

What utter rubbish. I established above why your 'fine tuned universe' examples are ridiculous, and your 'rational proofs' are far from convincing.

//Without this knowledge you will die with the false idea that life has no purpose, //

And you will go to your death in the paranoid, intellectually vacuous belief that a great reward awaits you for your blind faith and arrogance.

Your entire argument here is based on the premise that I am wrong, so I see little point in refuting it.

//In short, having a purpose will help you in the long run. Life is short, you will die Ben. Think long term….//

Oh and you can take pascals wager and shove it.

//Inductive reasoning and logic based on our observations is enough of an argument to suggest that life may have a purpose.//

But it suggests precisely the opposite, that life arose entirely naturalistically as did the competitive and pro-creative forces that keep it going.

//Well what other frame should we percieve it from//

That of a perfect observer, the default philosophical position.

//I DON’T WANT CREDIBILITY, I DON’T WANT FRIENDS, I DON’T WANT MONEY, I HAVE NO MOTIVATION. I CAN’T BE NEGOTIATED WITH, I JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR FALSE VIEWS BURN, BEN//

I hope you also want to turn off the caps lock key.

//AGAIN BEN, ARE YOU AFRAID OF PUTTING THEM FORWARD //

Not in the slightest, but previous experience pointing them out to both christians and muslims informs my view of what will happen thereafter. Thus I dont bother anymore. The contradictions seem clear enough to me, and the refutations seem to me to be weak. If the boook was divine, it would be clearly and unambiguously so, in any language, and surely anyone reading it would be moved by its profound and obvious wisdom.

The fact that most people are not is refutation enough for any subjective argument on Koranic perfection.

//Punishments for homosexuality? CORRECT BEN. It is not natural, against the nature of humans//

And in that sentence alone, you are revealed for the bawling, fearful, primitive minded faux-intellectual that you are. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural, and has evolutionary origins, and promotes social stability, you continue to spout your hateful, prejudiced rhetoric.

//Besides, showing a link to pro natal ethics in itself is not a strong argument in showing Islam is man made. //

If the evidence fits my hypothesis, which it does, entirely, then I would say it is a strong hypothesis.

//Once CERN or others find out for arguments sake, the building blocks of the universe and where life came from//

Again, you betray your crass lack of scientific understanding. We know exactly what the origins of life are,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Watch and enjoy.

And we also know the fundamental building blocks of the universe, CERN is to test 'how' they exist and hopefully why, by aiding us in building up a unified theory.

//This creative force is knowable Ben, just relax and open your mind//

Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before, used to believe it myself before I learnt about psychology.

//YET NOW YOU ARE PREPARED TO WAIT FOR A POSSIBLE FURTHER ONE THOUSAND YEARS //

I would rather wait forever for the truth than fill the gap in my knowledge with a paranoid, primitive fantasy.

//IF IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ARISTOTLE AND PLATO THEN WHY NOT YOU BEN?//

I think Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Keynes, Freud and Dawkins are just as great intellectuals, and their method has a better record for producing knowledge that actually advances human welfare.

//Such a creative force in itself would mean nothing. YOUR OWN DEFINITION HINDERS YOU BEN//

It is self defining. If a creative force is outside the universe, it is outside the unieverse. If it is in the universe, by your own logic, it is limitied and cannot create it!

//DOES THIS INTIMIDATE YOU BEN,//

Well, it more irritates me because its marginally harder to read, but it comes across as attempting to shout the other guy down, a slightly daft strategy on a forum like this...

//Tell Jack ‘hi’ in a camp voice, then slap him across the face for his rudeness//

I agree with him after this last post, go read some proper science. And your posts are becoming progressively ruder, less interesting and more intellectually vacuous. I preferred it at the start of our debate, where you had the courtesy to hide your agressive fanaticism under a veil of intellectual integrity.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 05 August 2008 at 15:15

 

“Now that's just creepy... I'll have my hunting crossbow loaded for when I see the rustle in the bushes that means you're staking out my house!”

I’m glad you’re creeped out - you have no idea

“But as you readily admit, we know exactly how the universe evolved from about 1 times ten to the minus 34 seconds after T0, so there is no cause for god to explain all this.”

LOL yet amazingly you overlook the actual beginning and the possibility that it was the result of a creative force, and attribute it to CHANCE or all together ignore it. You find no cause to God for explain all this because science knows what happened afterwards, that’s not the point and you know it. We are talking about what caused the whole process to begin – your abiogenesis is laughable, and quantum mechanics not applicable.

“Besides, saying god is behind the complexity of the universe has about as much scientific merit as saying it is governed by magic, it has no explanatory power.”

The complexity of the universe is a practical and factual illustration that it could not have come about by chance. If you observe and accept the complexity and still say it did come about by chance, the odds are far greater and higher for the chance existence than they are for the universe coming about due to a creative force. As a result you believe something which is less likely than the alternative, and that makes you very confused indeed. Of course wrong as well how could I forget; it makes you wrong. Magic is in the realm of the ridiculous, and would fit nicely with your belief in chance and existence out of nothing. You’re in good company Ben

“Rollox. This is what clearly marks your position as the vacuous intellectual dead end it really is. We're not meant to experiment eh, not meant to advance human understanding, not meant to find out things. We're meant to take it all on blind faith.”

Not meant to experiment? NOT MEANT TO ADVANCE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING? Now you are just getting all emotional Ben, I ask you to calm down and take a deep breath – wax on, wax off. I NEVER said don’t experiment – I said there is a certain level of knowledge and certain things which cannot be experimented upon, as the creator is infinite it would be impossible to touch sense taste feel or experiment on him in a lab he is one of them.

You agreed and said:

“no we could not percieve or concieve of a force that applied in the 5th dimension, but it would nevertheless have effects on the dimensions below. Perhaps we could not examine the creator directly from our limited perspective”

So what in the blue hell are you blabbering on about? So you agreed if there was such a creative force, unlimited and infinite it would be outside our sense and hence we could not experiment upon. Again you are forgetting things discussed only days previously, I am worried for you Ben. It’s like you clenched your little fist and blurted out all your anti-creator rhetoric, hopefully you feel better now you got it out your system.

BEN’S LAST COMMENT WAS AN EMOTIONAL OUTBURST AND HAS NO MERIT – PLEASE IGNORE

“Religion has been doing this for thousands of years, and it hasnt advanced human welfare one jot, and never will. You dont just think the scientific method is innapropriate to examine first causes, you dont trust it at all.”

NOW THAT IS A MASSIVE ASSUMPTION BEN – YOU ARE LETTING YOUR EMOTIONS GET THE BETTER OF YOU. I never said the scientific method cannot be trusted, you are MAKING IT UP BEN.

I repeat what I said:

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

So basically, it can be used in some situations however in others it may not be used and hence we require other methods and approaches. So basically Ben, your laughable leap to the defence of science is needless – as I never attacked it in the first place. You basically imagined the attack in your own head, the attributed it to me.

Regarding the point about religion doing this for thousands of years and not advancing human understanding? I disagree of course, but for the purposes of the current discussion your comment should be ignored on the basis that it is IGNORATIO ELENCHI. This is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. My post talks about the creator argument, pure and simple and any reference to religion is to prove that a creator exists. ESSENTIALLY, YOU ARE USING A IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT (RELIGION ADVANCING WELFARE) TO BACK UP YOUR FALSE ARGUMENT (THAT I SAID DON’T EXPERIMENT AND INVESTIGATE) TO COME TO A ENTIRELY FALSE CONCLUSION (THAT I SAID DON’T USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BECAUSE I DON’T TRUST IT AN I HATE IT SO BAD O MAN O MAN). BASICALLY NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAS ANY RELEVENCE. NEXT.

“Rollox, go learn your orbital mechanics. I'm no ill educated noob you can baffle with pseudo science, dont bother advancing rubbish like that.”

Ok let me rephrase BEN the point I was trying to make

If the moons orbit was significantly closer to earth, life on the planet would be very different. The moon's gravity would have a more dramatic slowing effect on the earth. The moon would always be over the same position of the earth and the earth day would be much longer. There would be no tides in the ocean, so all the life forms that depend on certain tides to spawn would not exist. A solar eclipse would also be much different.

If the moon's orbit was closer to the Earth, depending on how much closer, life on earth would definitely be different. For instance, shortly after the moon forming impact of 4.5 billion years ago when the moon first formed it orbited only 14,000 miles away from the earth. Its gravitational pull was so strong that in the oceans, if any existed at all at this point, every wave would have been a tsunami. There would also be more erosion and other tidal effects.

“The earth/moon system is a dynamic one where the moon is constantly moving away from the earth, at about 4cm per year. At some point it would always end up at the right distance”

We’re not talking about the current system, which allows for this. IF it was closer or further away, not the process currently observed THEN their would be dangerous side effects BEN

 

 

“You fool, the universe is constantly expanding! Thus at one point or another, of course there will be the appropriate distribution.”

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. THE FALLACY CONSISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE SOMEONE BY MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HIM.

Regarding the ‘wasted space’ comment, I suggest you go back and read – I repeat for you BEN:

IN HIS BOOK THE SYMBIOTIC UNIVERSE, AMERICAN ASTRONOMER GEORGE GREENSTEIN EXPLAINS – HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, IF YOU DON’T KNOW GO TO THE EXPERTS. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

“You fool, are you claiming that there could be a universe where high temperatures did not exist?”

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. THE FALLACY CONSISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE SOMEONE BY MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HIM.

Regarding the comment on solid and gaseous states of matter, I repeat:

If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter, life would never have come into being. This is because the atoms in solid matter are compact, relatively motionless, and do not allow the dynamic molecular activity needed for living organisms to develop. The atoms in gasses have no stability and move freely, preventing the functioning of the complex mechanisms of living organisms.

It’s a hypothesis for an alternate universe that may exist which would be essentially different from ours. If the laws of the universe were different, then everything would be different. You are basing your OMG SHOCK HORROR AT NO HIGH TEMPERATURES based on the laws of the universe as they are now. The alternative suggested is something different entirely. Open your mind BEN.

Besides I suggest you go back and read – I repeat for you BEN:

IN HIS BOOK THE SYMBIOTIC UNIVERSE, AMERICAN ASTRONOMER GEORGE GREENSTEIN EXPLAINS – HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, IF YOU DON’T KNOW GO TO THE EXPERTS. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

“You fool, the reason why we percieve all these as being suitable for self replicating life is that they are the most common things in the universe, and any life that would ever arise in this universe would always be composed of them.”

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. THE FALLACY CONSISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE SOMEONE BY MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HIM.

Regarding your comment on all these things being suitable, it’s the fact that all these properties exist in the first place that is so amazing – that the universe and its properties are so perfect as to allow for life. Open your mind BEN and stop looking at it from your dead end hit the brick wall universe and nothing beyond view. Its not just a matter of perception, it’s fact that these are the perfect properties –and the amazing thing is they ARE MOST COMMON IN THE UNIVERSE LIKE DUH CREATOR PUT THEM THERE. MORE LIKELY THEN THEY APPEARED BY CHANCE

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 05 August 2008 at 15:15



Besides I suggest you go back and read – I repeat for you BEN:

LAWRENCE HENDERSON, A PROFESSOR IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, SAYS THE FOLLOWING IN THIS REGARD:

The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness

HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, IF YOU DON’T KNOW GO TO THE EXPERTS. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

“You fool, the earth is a dynamic, self regulating system! The amount of water is not a constant, but is affected by chemical processes. It has previously been next to nothing.

Besides, if there were different quantities of fresh water, there would simply be more water efficient forms of life!”

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. THE FALLACY CONSISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE SOMEONE BY MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HIM.

Regarding you comment LOL I have to LOL the whole point is that it is not a self regulating system, it is governed and controlled by the creator. Any process is put in motion by the creator and as such the current level of water is sufficient and perfect to maintain the current level of life.

Besides, I suggest you go back and read:

The 18th century English natural scientist John Ray, writes the following in this regard:

… [I]f there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half Quantity of Vapors, and consequently we could have but half as many Rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of Vapors which are raised, as well as to the heat which raised them. The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land

HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, IF YOU DON’T KNOW GO TO THE EXPERTS. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM (THOUGH HE IS DEAD SO MAY TAKE QUITE A WHILE)

“Your arguments for a fined tuned universe are quite simply a load of tosh, we know precisely how and why all this stuff happened and it does not need a creator to explain it in the least. I suggest you get a scientific education, or at least a subscribtion to the new scientist!”

I suggest you firstly learn to read closely Ben. You are making the fatal mistake of assuming you are more intelligent then you actually are child, and this is making you look very foolish indeed. You also are making a habit of trying to force your version of the WHY home, whilst ignoring the entire premise of the discussion – you are intentionally looking at the argument from your narrow minded chance based illogical irrational point of view, whilst not considering the alternative. Yet you claim you seek knowledge and understanding lol. I understand you kids like to test out your brains and ideas, but in that case you should not claim to be seeking knowledge with an open mind.

THE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT A LOAD OF TOSH, THEY ONLY SEEM THAT WAY TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ATTRIBUTE THEM TO A SELF DEVELOPED SYSTEM AND I DO NOT. THE COMPLEXTIES AND AMAZING FEATURES CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY, WHEREVER SOMETHING IS AMAZING YOU WILL SAY “YES IT IS AMAZING – NO THIS DOES NOT IMPLY CREATOR”, OR YOU WILL GO ON TO EXPLAIN THE SYSTEM OR PROCESS WHEREBY THE AMAZING EVENT OCCURS AND THEN USE THAT AS A PROOF FOR THE CREATOR NOT PLAYING A PART. THE SYSTEM, THE PROPERTIES, THE UNIVERSE – ALL WERE CREATED AND PUT IN MOTION, REGULATED BY THE CREATOR. ALL YOU DESCRIBE CANNOT BE A RESULT OF CHANCE – AND THAT’S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO – OUT OF NOTHING, BY CHANCE. HOW SILLY

I SUGGEST YOU WELCOME LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT INTO YOUR LIFE, AND DO NOT ABANDON IT EVER AGAIN IN THE FACE OF STUPID SILLY THEORIES ABOUT THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE. USE YOUR WHOLE BRAIN, AND DON’T BE AFRAID TO APPLY SCIENCE WITH LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT 8-)

“Loltings, you claim earlier that god cannot be examined by the scientific method, but is easily 'derived' from rational thought. Any accurate philosophical proof is 100% accurate, so either you drop this claim, or you drop the proofs.”

LOLTINGZ I noticed you don’t read very well, you get very excited like a child then blurt out everything just incase you forget. When I said 100% proof, I said 100% proof for you – as you rely on the scientific mode of thought and study, my rational and logical proof will not be 100% for you. Everyone has different standards of proof, so there won’t be 100% for everyone. As we can’t use the scientific method to examine the creator, we have to rely on logical thought and rational thinking. This is one part of the argument which will be the proof, the rest can be derived from other persuasive arguments.

IM GLAD YOU SAID ACCURATE PHILISOPHICAL PROOF IS 100% ACCURATE (STATING THE OBVIOUS REALLY AREN’T YOU BEN?) – THIS MEANS YOU ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR VIA LOGIC AND THE RATIONAL THOUGHT PROCESS

LET ME ELABORATE:

If Atheism is false (likely it is based on logic and rational thinking), then because of the law of the excluded middle, some form of theism is true. Here is MY expanded argument:

If objective truth exists, then relativism is irrational.
If atheism is relativistic, then atheism is irrational.
If objective truth exists, then either God exists or He does not. (There is no middle ground- the law of the excluded middle)
Objective truth exists
Atheism is relativistic
Therefore
Relativism is irrational
Atheism is irrational
God exists (theism, in some form, is true if atheism is irrational, there is no middle ground)

DO YOU SEE BEN, DO YOU SEE? YOU SEE?

“What utter rubbish. I established above why your 'fine tuned universe' examples are ridiculous, and your 'rational proofs' are far from convincing.”

The tuned universe argument still stands, just happens to be you attribute the tuning to chance whilst I use my brain an attribute it to a creative force. The rational proofs are totally convincing, and they crush any logic or rational thought that supports atheism - CRUSH

LOL do you see the flaw in your whole view BEN. Your belief is established by doubting others, yet in the furious fist clenching frenzy that is doubting God you ignore the fact that your own beliefs by the same logical and rational standards you apply to the creator argument, ARE PATHETIC. THAT’S RIGHT, IF YOU APPLIED HALF THE CRITIQUE OF THE SAME BASIS ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS – YOUR WORLD WOULD FALL APART. BUT YOU WILL NEVER DO THAT BEN, BECAUSE THAT IS THE INCUREABLE FLAW IN YOUR WHOLE CASE. HA HA HE HE HU HA

“And you will go to your death in the paranoid, intellectually vacuous belief that a great reward awaits you for your blind faith and arrogance.”

If I am following logic and you are not, THEN YOU’RE THE ONE WITH BLIND FAITH BEN LOL. Intellectually vacuous? A favourite word of yours but sadly describing the wrong thought process, it is best suited to your own views. Great reward awaits me hmmm maybe, can’t say the same for you. Now arrogance, that is a strong word. Read your post, you use the word ‘fool’ 4 times – now that is arrogance, but it’s ok I like that. Use of such language shows doubt and insecurity – otherwise why would one need to represent themselves through such emotive terms? Someone's coming apart at the seams...

WHY SO SERIOUS?

“Your entire argument here is based on the premise that I am wrong, so I see little point in refuting it.”

CORRECT – I QUOTE YOU BEN “I am wrong”

“Oh and you can take pascals wager and shove it.”

WIN WIN BEN WIN WIN – THINK ABOUT IT.

“But it suggests precisely the opposite, that life arose entirely naturalistically as did the competitive and pro-creative forces that keep it going.”

AGAIN BEN TALKING ABOUT PURPOSE YOU KEEP GETTING CONFUSED ARE YOU OK BEN. NOT TALKING ABOUT LIFE ARISING OR WHAT NOT, IM TALKING ABOUT LIFE HAVING A PURPOSE – PURPOSE – BEING LOGICAL, REGARDLESS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOW LIFE AROSE.

“That of a perfect observer, the default philosophical position.”

Human logic, observer is the human. That’s the perfect observer.

“I hope you also want to turn off the caps lock key.”

WHY?

“Not in the slightest, but previous experience pointing them out to both christians and muslims informs my view of what will happen thereafter. Thus I dont bother anymore. The contradictions seem clear enough to me, and the refutations seem to me to be weak. If the boook was divine, it would be clearly and unambiguously so, in any language, and surely anyone reading it would be moved by its profound and obvious wisdom.”

I REPEAT:

AGAIN BEN, ARE YOU AFRAID OF PUTTING THEM FORWARD – THAT TOPIC IS STILL OPEN. DO SHOW THESE CONTRADICTIONS DO SHOW BEN DO SHOW – PLEASE DO SHOW. DO NOT COMPARE THE QURAN TO THE BIBLE, IN TERMS OF CONTRADICTIONS THE BIBLE CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE REFUTATION OF MERIT. DO NOT JUDGE ON THIS BASIS - SHOW YOUR HAND, SHOW THESE CONTRADICTIONS. AS OF NOW, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS EMPTY RHETORIC, A PAPER TIGER. I CRUSH THEE

“The fact that most people are not is refutation enough for any subjective argument on Koranic perfection”

Perfection? Now that is up to the reader. Contradictions? This is not a subjective test – this can be verified objectively. Literary excellence? See:

(INSERT LEVIATHON DEBATE HERE)

“And in that sentence alone, you are revealed for the bawling, fearful, primitive minded faux-intellectual that you are. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural, and has evolutionary origins, and promotes social stability, you continue to spout your hateful, prejudiced rhetoric.”

LOL O REALLY BEN, OVERWHELMING EH

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic.php?uid=5158579986&topic=4430

Do check it out

Bawling? I’m not crying Ben, I never cry. Fearful? Of what exactly Ben? Primitive minded faux-intellectual? So I’M a fake intellectual for having an opinion different from yours LOL so everyone who thinks differently from you is primitive? NOW WHO IS ARROGANT BEN. Calm yourself, learn to accept beliefs other than yours. You are not alone, I am here to stay…

“If the evidence fits my hypothesis, which it does, entirely, then I would say it is a strong hypothesis.”

LOL BUT IT DOESN’T BEN THAT’S THE POINT – IT DOES NOT. YOU ASSUME IT DOES, BECAUSE OF YOUR STAMPS WORTH OF KNOWLEDGE ON ISLAM AND YOUR BIG MASSIVE LEAPS OF ASSUMING THINGS. Try harder junior

“Again, you betray your crass lack of scientific understanding. We know exactly what the origins of life are,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Watch and enjoy.

And we also know the fundamental building blocks of the universe, CERN is to test 'how' they exist and hopefully why, by aiding us in building up a unified theory.”

Abiogenesis dude are you being serious? Don’t make me laugh – look back, I have already seen this video and I do not wish to see it again I like the music though. Don’t try an inflict your foolish ideas on me through silly youtube videos Mr. ‘scientist’ LOL mr scientist I like that

The how is exactly what is in question the HOW and the WHY. If this was already known, everyone would believe it including me. I would be the FIRST TO ACCEPT IT. BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU WAIT YOUR THOUSAND YEARS. In that time please re read my posts.

“Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before, used to believe it myself before I learnt about psychology.”

You went backwards Ben how could this happen? HOW? WHO DID THIS TO YOU TELL ME! Psychology? It’s not nurtured Ben, its natural. Creative force is natural…You believed once you shall believe again, there is hope yet for you Ben.

“I would rather wait forever for the truth than fill the gap in my knowledge with a paranoid, primitive fantasy.”

It wont come to you Ben you must search for it with a open mind, and heart of course. Your terms to refer to belief in a creator are a clear example of you attempting to create the impression belief in God is somehow illogical when actually it is your own belief which amounts to fantasy – I mean CHANCE EVENTS OUT OF NOTHING COME ON LOL. Your words have no bearing on the discussion, they just make you seem childish

“I think Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Keynes, Freud and Dawkins are just as great intellectuals, and their method has a better record for producing knowledge that actually advances human welfare.”

I repeat:

THE GREATER MINDS USE REASON LOGIC AND INTELLECT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ARISTOTLE AND PLATO THEN WHY NOT YOU BEN?

Any other method used to try an answer if a creator exists is flawed. They may have found knowledge, but they (some) attribute the sources to events and creation to ridiculous hypothesis which no sane minded person should believe. Don’t worry about welfare right now, or religion - just God will do fine.

“It is self defining. If a creative force is outside the universe, it is outside the unieverse. If it is in the universe, by your own logic, it is limitied and cannot create it!”

You assume that by being outside the universe the creative force would therefore not have the ability to interfere in, regulate and control the universe. Because it is outside our realm, we cannot experiment on it. But it has the power to do all things, and would be able to send its message to humankind – which it has done. It’s a lot to comprehend Ben, have a drink

 

Darkio Knightio wrote on 05 August 2008 at 15:15

 

“Well, it more irritates me because its marginally harder to read, but it comes across as attempting to shout the other guy down, a slightly daft strategy on a forum like this...”

EXACTLY BEN I MEAN HOW CAN YOU SHOUT SOMEONE DOWN ON THE INTERNET? ITS TYPED WORDS THAT APPEAR – ITS TEXT, AND TEXT IS NOT SHOUTING. SURELY IF IT IS BIGGER THEN YOU CAN READ IT MORE CLEARLY? I DON’T MEAN TO INTIMIDATE YOU BEN

“I agree with him after this last post, go read some proper science. And your posts are becoming progressively ruder, less interesting and more intellectually vacuous. I preferred it at the start of our debate, where you had the courtesy to hide your agressive fanaticism under a veil of intellectual integrity.”

The last post was not related to science so not sure what this ‘JACK’ means. I read Ben I read a lot, including science. I would say my posts are not very rude at all, quite interesting and as intellectually valid as the posts I respond to.

AGGRESSIVE FANATICISM? WHAT GIVES YOU THIS IDEA. WHATEVER I SAY, I BACK IT UP. YOU DON’T AGREE, THAT’S YOUR CHOICE. YOUR NON AGREEMENT DOES NOT DECLARE MY POSTS INTELECTUALLY VACUOUS OR FANATIC, IT SIMPLY IMPLIES YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE MY POINT OF VIEW OR YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY READING EVERYTHING AND BEARING IT IN MIND WHEN MOVING FORWARD. THE MORE WE DISAGREE, THE MORE OUR POSITIONS MOVE APART AND THE LESS WE HAVE IN COMMON TO DISCUSS – HENCE IT TURNS INTO A PERSONAL BATTLE, WHICH I WONT LOSE

DID I OFFEND YOUR FRIEND JACK IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? ARE YOU BOTH OFFENDED TOGETHER? SITTING TOGETHER? OFFENDED?

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 05 August 2008 at 16:26

 

//your abiogenesis is laughable//

Hang on, peter stoszak (renowned harvard medical school microbiologist) and his proven and widely accepted theory is laughable is it? Well by all means, publish your critique in the scientific literature, dont wase your time with me.

//that’s not the point and you know it. //

It was in fact your point, I agree that it is irrelevant and flawed.

You then go on to accuse me of hypocrisy for slamming you on the grounds that your god hyothesis has no scientific method, when earlier I said that a creative force as you describe it cannot be examined scientifically.

This of course is precisely my point. Saying that there must be a force 'beyond our understanding' gets us nowhere ontologically, it is an unfalsifiable, untestable and useless dead end of a hypothesis.

//“You fool, the universe is constantly expanding! Thus at one point or another, of course there will be the appropriate distribution.”

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. THE FALLACY CONSISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE SOMEONE BY MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HIM.

Regarding the ‘wasted space’ comment, I suggest you go back and read – I repeat for you BEN:

IN HIS BOOK THE SYMBIOTIC UNIVERSE, AMERICAN ASTRONOMER GEORGE GREENSTEIN EXPLAINS – HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, IF YOU DON’T KNOW GO TO THE EXPERTS. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH HIM GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.//

Now this is truly exceptionally Ironic. I have not in fact used an ad-hominem fallacy, as although I insulted you as part of my statement, the argument I used against you was not contingent on any characteristic or qualification of you personally.

In fact, you go on to use an ad-hominem moments later in your supposed 'refutation', which you proceed to do in all subsequent similar paragraphs. Not only is this hypocrisy, but it ignores all the arguments I made against you. Would you perhaps care to refute them, not compare my intellect to a bunch of famous people.

//Regarding your comment on all these things being suitable, it’s the fact that all these properties exist in the first place that is so amazing – that the universe and its properties are so perfect as to allow for life. Open your mind BEN //

Try opening your mind to the anthropic principle. Lets think about the 'no god' hypothesis. If there were no god, we would expect sentient life to be composed of common elements in the universe, and reliant on the properties of said elements. Shock horror, it is.

//Read your post, you use the word ‘fool’ 4 times – now that is arrogance//

A shameless copy of Thunderfoot's video on Ben Stein. Its a rhetorical structure I happen to like. If you havnt watched thunderfoot, do. You'd hate him!

//You also are making a habit of trying to force your version of the WHY home, whilst ignoring the entire premise of the discussion – you are intentionally looking at the argument from your narrow minded chance based illogical irrational point of view, //

I invite anyone reading this discussion to examine impartially who is more guilty of this sort of presumption.

//WHEREVER SOMETHING IS AMAZING YOU WILL SAY “YES IT IS AMAZING – NO THIS DOES NOT IMPLY CREATOR”//

Correct. Improbable things happening does not normally imply a design or conscious direction.

//
If objective truth exists, then relativism is irrational.
If atheism is relativistic, then atheism is irrational.
If objective truth exists, then either God exists or He does not. (There is no middle ground- the law of the excluded middle)
Objective truth exists
Atheism is relativistic
Therefore
Relativism is irrational
Atheism is irrational
God exists (theism, in some form, is true if atheism is irrational, there is no middle ground) //

Ah, excellent, premises and conclusions.

Firstly, it does not follow that relativism is irrational even if objective truth exists, as it may exist but be unknowable, in which case relativism is still rational.

Secondly, a belief system being 'irrational' does not make it factually false if you are framing the discussion as a critique of atheist methodology, which in this case you are.

//The tuned universe argument still stands, just happens to be you attribute the tuning to chance //

No. I do not believe the universe is fine tuned for life, or for its current state in any way shape or form. The current state is 'fine tuned' for the universe.

//LOL do you see the flaw in your whole view BEN. Your belief is established by doubting others, //

Atheism is not a worldview.

//yet in the furious fist clenching frenzy that is doubting God//

You mistake my irritation at your more unneccesary personal attacks, repitions and excessive use of caps-lock as my fury at an imaginery deity. Trust me, its hard to get angry about something you dont actually believe exists.

//CORRECT – I QUOTE YOU BEN “I am wrong”//

You quote mine me, something your co-religionists are exceptionally prone to doing, and the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.

//Do check it out//

What, all the supposed 'evidence' that homosexuality is an abominable sin, despite the fact that homosexuals typically are far less likely to be criminals, suffer relationship problems or suffer domestic violence, as well as the clear physiological link between particular genes and homosexuality. Oh, and the well rehearsed evolutionary rationale for it. And the fact that it is found throughout the animal kingdom.

But heck, if you think you have a revolutionary new understanding of homosexuality and its causes/problems(?!?!), publish your work in a journal of biology, sociology or psychology and gain critical acclaim.

//Calm yourself, learn to accept beliefs other than yours//

Again, you should learn to distinguish a scathingly worded post from genuine agitation, to does you no credit to continually imply that my beliefs are wrong because I am somehow hysterical.

// BECAUSE OF YOUR STAMPS WORTH OF KNOWLEDGE ON ISLAM //

I've come to accept that no muslim will ever accept that I have sufficient knowledge of Islam until I believe that it is entirely true. Bluntly, your ad-hominem dismissal of my knowledge does not constitute an argument.

//You went backwards Ben how could this happen? HOW? WHO DID THIS TO YOU TELL ME! Psychology? It’s not nurtured Ben, its natural. Creative force is natural…You believed once you shall believe again, there is hope yet for you Ben.//

You seem to be confusing backwards with forwards. What happened was I read books, went to lectures, surfed the intertubes and learnt about the natural universe. By learning about well supported theories that make testable predictions based on physical evidence, I came to better understandings of how things work. As you may have gathered, I value this process rather highly.

//actually it is your own belief which amounts to fantasy – I mean CHANCE EVENTS OUT OF NOTHING COME ON LOL//

Is a ridiculously spurious strawman of my position, not something I have ever argued and a very disengenuous misconstruance of the scientific position.

//You assume that by being outside the universe the creative force would therefore not have the ability to interfere in, regulate and control the universe//

By what mechanism? Fail to provide a mechanism for a thing outside the universe influencing the universe and your idea is simply dead in the water.

//Ben, have a drink//

Arguably the most sensible thing you have ever said!

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 05 August 2008 at 16:35

 

Oh, and since you are so fond of accusing me of making personal attacks against you, here is a list of what your post contained against me:

//Magic is in the realm of the ridiculous, and would fit nicely with your belief//

//Now you are just getting all emotional Ben,//

//So what in the blue hell are you blabbering on about//

//I am worried for you Ben. It’s like you clenched your little fist and blurted out all your anti-creator rhetoric, hopefully you feel better now //

//BEN’S LAST COMMENT WAS AN EMOTIONAL OUTBURST AND HAS NO MERIT //

//HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU//

//LOLTINGZ I noticed you don’t read very well, you get very excited like a child then blurt out everything just incase you forget. //

// Someone's coming apart at the seams...//

//NOW WHO IS ARROGANT BEN//

//Your words have no bearing on the discussion, they just make you seem childish//


Regrettably you seem to think that continuous ad-hominem's are a substitute for proper argument, or that they will have any effect on me whatsoever.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=9

Is good ownage of all arguments by fine tuning.

 

 

//IT SIMPLY IMPLIES YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE MY POINT OF VIEW OR YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY READING EVERYTHING AND BEARING IT IN MIND WHEN MOVING FORWARD//

Genuinely when someone disagrees with something, it meanst that they have found it to be false.

Your statement about my lack of debating ability is an unfalsifiabl hypothesis.

//DID I OFFEND YOUR FRIEND JACK IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? ARE YOU BOTH OFFENDED TOGETHER? SITTING TOGETHER? OFFENDED?//

Nah, he was amused by the fact that I bother to post on this forum, and he thought that your earlier posts were quite interesting if flawed but that you have become very belligerent and hostile, if you must know.

Oh and as for your homophobia, yeah, thats pretty offensive.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 06 August 2008 at 14:26

 

”Hang on, peter stoszak (renowned harvard medical school microbiologist) and his proven and widely accepted theory is laughable is it? Well by all means, publish your critique in the scientific literature, dont wase your time with me.”

Ok so now I could waste my time going into abiogenesis, and creating enough doubt in the most foolish theory since the FSM but quite frankly I don’t have the will power. The only thing proven was what happened in the lab, unless he was there at the start – which he wasn’t – he has not proved a thing. Just another illogical stupid theory – this time suggesting life from non life. Similar to quantum mechanics in the sense that we are talking about totally different situations and times, now and BACK THEN – no such theory developed through scientific study under conditions of today can be classified as ‘proven’ in the timeless universal sense to provide a solid explanation for back then. The great lengths people will go to propose a hypothesis that gives an answer, any answer other than a creative force.

All that needs to be said is the following:

The early pre-biotic life was filled with organic molecules, the building blocks of life (Says your video). Organic molecules are quite common in space. The pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids. Under a range of PH they SPONTANEOUSLY form stable vesicles. The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of types of different nucleotides and so on and so forth. These are the foundation for the subsequent origin of life.

I said where did the building blocks of the universe come from – that’s everything EVERYTHING. Where did these organic molecules come from? Where did the ‘space’ they are common in come from, where did the simple fatty acids come from? Where did the hundreds of types of different nucleotides come from?

Abiogenesis does not answer any questions AT ALL. It totally ignores the creation of the universe, or the origins of the universe It self. When abiogenesis is said to have taken place, the universe is already in existence and the building blocks of ‘life’ are already in place. WHERE DID THEY ALL COME FROM, THIS IS THE POINT. WHERE DID THE PRE-BIOTIC SOUP COME FROM. WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE, MATTER AND EVERYTHING ELSE COME FROM.

The creative force who created – that’s where. Any other answer is not plausible.

It's unfortunate that someone of your level of intelligence missed the whole point

And you are right I will publish my own critique, you will be the first to have a copy – stay tuned ;-)

”It was in fact your point, I agree that it is irrelevant and flawed.”

No I think you will find my point is who created the whole system – that’s where the creator would come in. You are incorrect BEN.

”You then go on to accuse me of hypocrisy for slamming you on the grounds that your god hyothesis has no scientific method, when earlier I said that a creative force as you describe it cannot be examined scientifically.”

INDEED

”This of course is precisely my point. Saying that there must be a force 'beyond our understanding' gets us nowhere ontologically, it is an unfalsifiable, untestable and useless dead end of a hypothesis.”

WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT OTHER METHODS WOULD BE NEEDED TO APPROACH THE ISSUE – ONE WHICH IS NOT INVOLVING EXPERIMENTATION AS THE CREATOR WOULD BE UNAVAILBLE FOR TESTING. SO WHY RAISE THE SAME ARGUMENT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH. RATIONALLY AND LOGICALLY SPEAKING A CREATOR CAN BE PROVEN TO EXIST. AN ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCES TO MAKE A CASE WOULD SHOW THIS. JUST BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE USED DOES NOT MEAN A CREATOR CANNOT EXIST – DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE?

”Now this is truly exceptionally Ironic. I have not in fact used an ad-hominem fallacy, as although I insulted you as part of my statement, the argument I used against you was not contingent on any characteristic or qualification of you personally.”

Your argument consisted of two parts – 1) you fool 2) the rest. The ‘you fool’ to try an attack my credibility and make it appear I don’t know what I am talking about, and the rest for whatever reason. Hence AD HOMINEM argument as a whole. ‘You fool’ is most certainly a personal attack and insult. SHAME ON YOU DIRTY SHAME

”In fact, you go on to use an ad-hominem moments later in your supposed 'refutation', which you proceed to do in all subsequent similar paragraphs. Not only is this hypocrisy, but it ignores all the arguments I made against you. Would you perhaps care to refute them, not compare my intellect to a bunch of famous people.”

DID I? NO SHIT! WHERE? I DID REFUTE THEM? Your points merely stated a system which is in operation, it is simply a difference of opinion as to whether the system is self developed or created and regulated – hence there was no need for a refutation as such. But I did clarify my position on it for you babes. CELEBS? THEY ARE SCIENTISTS – AND THEIR OPINION IS VALID AS A RESPONSE TO YOURS. I ASSUME AS EXPERTS THERE VIEWS HAVE VALUE, ONE WAS FROM HAVARD. O WAIT DIDN’T YOU USE A HAVARD PROFESSIONAL TO BACK UP ON OF YOUR ARGUMENTS? AYE YOU DID

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 06 August 2008 at 14:28



”Try opening your mind to the anthropic principle. Lets think about the 'no god' hypothesis. If there were no god, we would expect sentient life to be composed of common elements in the universe, and reliant on the properties of said elements. Shock horror, it is.”

You’re basically telling me that if there was no god, the life in the universe would be made up of the common elements in the universe. ERM OKKK, so what’s your point? I have already read the anthropic principle, and this is not the discussion we are having. Not about some theory you like, we’re looking at what is most likely – and the fact remains that the properties exist to support life, and the logical, rational and statistical probability support a creative force being behind more than any other alternative theory. Why should I subscribe to something I don’t believe is correct? WHY BEN WHY? WHY WOULD I?

”A shameless copy of Thunderfoot's video on Ben Stein. Its a rhetorical structure I happen to like. If you havnt watched thunderfoot, do. You'd hate him!”

I WILL CHECK IT OUT – DO AWAY WITH THE PLEASANTRIES, LET YOUR TRUE COLOURS SHINE THROUGH. I LIKE YOU, YOU HAVE ABIT OF FIGHT IN YOU

”I invite anyone reading this discussion to examine impartially who is more guilty of this sort of presumption.”

I INVITE PEOPLE TO READ THIS DISCUSSION AND LEAVE COMMENT – WHO’S ARGUMENT IS MORE CONVINCING – DO IT READERS DO IT, DON’T HOLD BACK. YOU WILL NOT BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN YOUR COMMENTS

”Correct. Improbable things happening does not normally imply a design or conscious direction.”

Tight debate. Logic cannot be defeated. Design indicates designer. Creation implies creator. This is not tautological. This is logical. LOGIC WINS LOGIC WINS!!! ILLOGIC IS SLAIN.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pBAasek8NR4

”Ah, excellent, premises and conclusions.”

I know

”Firstly, it does not follow that relativism is irrational even if objective truth exists, as it may exist but be unknowable, in which case relativism is still rational.”

Objective truth is knowable, just happens to be you don’t know it…yet. Stop doubting, start applying a reasonable standard on all things, remove the need for certainty for things beyond scientific enquiry, use logic and rational thought, open your mind and heart, free your mind. Anyway, as objective truth is knowable, relativism is irrational.

”Secondly, a belief system being 'irrational' does not make it factually false if you are framing the discussion as a critique of atheist methodology, which in this case you are.”

If it is irrational it is false because (I repeat)

You are not quite seeing the problem with atheism. You said its not random- so you are redifining atheism. This is something you have to do in order to have any case. Atheism by definition is irrational- everything is matter in motion, not guided by any sort of intelligence. Thoughts in your view do not result from an immaterial mind but somehow result from the chemical reactions and electrical stimuli of the brain and central nervous system. There is absolutely no way in a naturalistic world that we would have any reason to assume that the movement of atoms in our brains produces actually true propositions. And if we could produce true propositions, in your view we could not trust them.

Atheism is irrational in the sense that does not support an a priori guaranty of the correctness of any of our reckonings. It is irrational at the very core, the methodology and the belief on how the universe began, life began, live evolved etc etc…Chance, randomness, nothingness, and more chance all highly improbable but forwarded as a belief system. Irrational hence atheism is factually false.


”No. I do not believe the universe is fine tuned for life, or for its current state in any way shape or form. The current state is 'fine tuned' for the universe.”

Yes. I believe the universe is fine tuned to a certain degree for life, for now and forever. Changes past, present or future regulated by the creator. The current state, humans and so on are also created with the capability to live in and survive in this universe.

”Atheism is not a worldview.”

Your view of the world, the universe, existence. Your unbelief LOL do you see the flaw in your whole view BEN. Your belief is established by doubting others

”You mistake my irritation at your more unneccesary personal attacks, repitions and excessive use of caps-lock as my fury at an imaginery deity. Trust me, its hard to get angry about something you dont actually believe exists.”

I DON’T DO PERSONAL ATTACKS, REPITITIONS ARE DUE TO YOU IGNORING WHAT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POSTED, CAPS LOCK? YOU DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH YOU BEN, THIS IS CLEAR

”You quote mine me, something your co-religionists are exceptionally prone to doing, and the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.”

ANYONE READING IT WOULD SEE YOUR QUOTE AND THEN MINES UNDERNEATH – IT HAS NO VALUE, IT WAS A JOKE BEN – YES BEN, A JOKE. I AM THE JOKER HE HA HU HUH?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9JuVjI6gPPI

WHY SO SERIOUS?

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 06 August 2008 at 14:30



”What, all the supposed 'evidence' that homosexuality is an abominable sin, despite the fact that homosexuals typically are far less likely to be criminals, suffer relationship problems or suffer domestic violence, as well as the clear physiological link between particular genes and homosexuality. Oh, and the well rehearsed evolutionary rationale for it. And the fact that it is found throughout the animal kingdom.”

LOL OK THIS SHOULD BE GOOD – OPEN A TOPIC ON HOMOSEXUALITY BEING NATURAL, AND LETS SEE IF IT NATURAL (WHICH IT IS NOT)

Just to add though you said:

“despite the fact that homosexuals typically are far less likely to be criminals, suffer relationship problems or suffer domestic violence”

IGNORATIO ELENCHI. This is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. I said it is not natural, your argument has nothing to do with this point.

“Oh, and the well rehearsed evolutionary rationale for it And the fact that it is found throughout the animal kingdom.”

I don’t believe in this evolutionary rationale – animals are animals, we are humans – there is a difference. Some animals are cannibals such as the bull shark – so are we to assume it is natural to eat each other on the basis of irrational animalistic behaviour? Nope - human behaviour should not be motivated and based on the model of animal behaviour. Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. Out of these species, in how many has homosexual behaviour been observed – around 1500? And on that basis it is natural you say? I think not

Open a topic on it

”But heck, if you think you have a revolutionary new understanding of homosexuality and its causes/problems(?!?!), publish your work in a journal of biology, sociology or psychology and gain critical acclaim.”

I will my friend I will I am capable of this YOU WILL REMEMBER ME ONE DAY, UNTILL THEN PURLEAZE CHECK THE LINK I GAVE YOU and read in the name of your lord, read.

”Again, you should learn to distinguish a scathingly worded post from genuine agitation, to does you no credit to continually imply that my beliefs are wrong because I am somehow hysterical.”

If you are hysterical you are insecure, if you are scathing you have something to fear and respond to in a scathing hostile fashion, hence you guard your beliefs o so tight. Who would have thought it, the Muslim is open and the atheist is hostile to criticism WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SUCH A THING

”I've come to accept that no muslim will ever accept that I have sufficient knowledge of Islam until I believe that it is entirely true. Bluntly, your ad-hominem dismissal of my knowledge does not constitute an argument.”

NO MUSLIM? NEIN!!! I SHALL ACCEPT THEE, BUT SERIOUSLY YOU DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM – THIS IS A PLAIN FACT. IT IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK, BUT ANYONE IN THE KNOW ABOUT ISLAM CAN LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND COME TO THIS CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR WEIRD IDEAS WHICH ARE CLASSIC ANTI ISLAMIC VIEWS. YOU CAN BE AN ATHEIST, AND STILL UNDERSTAND THE ISLAMIC PRINCIPLES. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. IT IS ONLY A PERSONAL ATTACK IF YOU ARE UNDER THE FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. (Like you)

”You seem to be confusing backwards with forwards.”

Nope pretty sure you went backwards

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gMWRv9O43Fg

“What happened was I read books, went to lectures, surfed the intertubes and learnt about the natural universe. By learning about well supported theories that make testable predictions based on physical evidence, I came to better understandings of how things work. As you may have gathered, I value this process rather highly.”

Yes indeed, but as I keep saying, the testable method is not the best method when answering the greatest question – DOES GOD EXIST, WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE, DO WE HAVE A PURPOSE. But you have a thirst for knowledge which may lead you down the truth path once again and this is encouraging, but right now you are also very closed minded. This is a very sad state of affairs

”Is a ridiculously spurious strawman of my position, not something I have ever argued and a very disengenuous misconstruance of the scientific position.”

If you strip away the theories, the big words, the fancy scientific terms and the endless hypothesis – the core causes of your life would be CHANCE EVENTS OUT OF NOTHING. Universe out of nothing, matter out of nothing, abiogenesis out of chance and non life, evolution O MY WORD chance random and more chance, massive odds and a total disagreement of logic and rational thought. It is pretty accurate to describe your position.

Key word PRETTY

”By what mechanism? Fail to provide a mechanism for a thing outside the universe influencing the universe and your idea is simply dead in the water.”

Mechanism? the creator has power to do all things, and if you can’t test him then you are not about to get near enough to test his mechanisms. Once belief in a creator is established, and one is willing to accept his infinite power, one can or can not believe in this mechanism, with further evidence from his revelation. If the revelation is accepted, then the mechanism will be explained. Logically speaking if there was a god, he would have some part to play in the universe and world. If a creator has power to create and do all things, then one of his qualities is wisdom. A wise creator would not create the universe, life and humans without any purpose – just as a man wouldn’t build a factory, hire workers and then just leave them to it without assigning roles. To say the creator would not have a mechanism by which he controlled and regulated is to attribute foolishness to the creator, and all powerful creator cannot be foolish. NEVER!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N6RMQy7pBtM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAv6lPG17E&feature=related

”Arguably the most sensible thing you have ever said!”

MOST SENSIBLE? SO I HAVE SAID OTHER SENSIBLE THINGS THEN YOU AGREE, OF COURSE.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 06 August 2008 at 14:32



“Oh, and since you are so fond of accusing me of making personal attacks against you, here is a list of what your post contained against me:”

OK THEN LETS HAVE A LOOK GODDDD, SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT LET THINGS GO

”Magic is in the realm of the ridiculous, and would fit nicely with your belief”

LOL THAT’S A GOOD ONE. THERE ARE SIMILARITIES THOUGH IN THE SENSE THAT MAGIC AND ATHEISM MAKE THINGS APPEAR OUT OF NOTHING. MAGIC HAS THE RABBIT OUT THE HAT, ATHEISM HAS THE UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING, OR IS IT THE PRE-BIOTIC SOUP OUT OF NOTHING, OR IS IT LIFE OUT OF NOTHING – SHIT MAN SO MUCH NOTHINGNESS GETS CONFUSING

”Now you are just getting all emotional Ben”

You were though

”So what in the blue hell are you blabbering on about”

HOW IS THIS A PERSONAL ATTACK? I JUST ASKED WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE

”I am worried for you Ben. It’s like you clenched your little fist and blurted out all your anti-creator rhetoric, hopefully you feel better now”

THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK, IT IS ONLY A PERSONAL ATTACK IF ME SAYING CLENCHING OF SAID FIST AMOUNTS TO ABUSE (WHICH IT ISNT) AND BLURTING OUT IS ABUSE (WHICH IT ISNT – IT MEANS RELEASED OR SAID). I EVEN SAID I HOPE YOU FEEL BETTER AT THE END, THAT’S NICE

”BEN’S LAST COMMENT WAS AN EMOTIONAL OUTBURST AND HAS NO MERIT”

IT HAD NO MERIT IT WAS A FALSE ASSUMPTION BY YOU, BASED ON A FALSE ACCUSATION, WHICH LED TO A FALSE CONCLUSION. YOU GOT EMOTIONAL AND I ACCEPT THIS IS WHY YOU SAID IT. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL ABUSE

”HE SAID IT BEN HE DID NOT ME IT WAS HIM HE DID IT. HE IS A LOT MORE LEARNED THAN YOU”

WELL I ASSUME THAT BECAUSE HE WAS A HARVARD PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE HE WOULD BE MORE LEARNED THAN YOU, I DID NO REALISE YOUR EGO WAS SO BIG THAT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK. IM SORRY FOR YOUR CURRENT STATE

”LOLTINGZ I noticed you don’t read very well, you get very excited like a child then blurt out everything just incase you forget.”

THE FACT THAT I HAVE TO REPEAT FROM MY PREVIOUS POSTS TO ANSWER YOUR RECENT QUESTIONS PROVES YOU DON’T READ WELL. YOU ARE YOUNG SO I CALLED YOU A CHILD, HARDLY AN INSULT JUST FACTUAL. IT APPEARED YOU SPOKE BEFORE THINKING

”Someone's coming apart at the seams...”

IT HAPPENS TO US ALL DON’T BEAT YOURSELF UP OVER IT, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK JUST RECOGINITION OF THE SITUATION

”NOW WHO IS ARROGANT BEN”

SO CALLING SOMEONE ARROGANT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK? IS IT NOT JUST AN OBSERVATION BASED ON YOUR ATTITUDE AND COMMENTS? YES IT WAS. HARDLY A PERSONAL ATTACK

”Your words have no bearing on the discussion, they just make you seem childish”

THE WORDS BEING REFERRED TO INDEED HAD NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION BUT THEY WERE SIMPLY DISPARAGING AND FALSE DESCRIPTIONS OF MY BELIEF, AND WERE USED INTENTIONALLY TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION MY BELIEF IS ILLOGICAL OR IRRATIONAL. AS YOU ARE A YOUNGSTER, ALL YOUR WORDS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS CHILDISH

”Regrettably you seem to think that continuous ad-hominem's are a substitute for proper argument, or that they will have any effect on me whatsoever.”

EFFECT? WELL YOU SAW IT FIT TO MENTION THEM ALL TO ME ONE BY ONE SO OBVIOUSLY IT HAS HAD SOME EFFECT LOL NEVERMIND EH TIME TO LET GO

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9ykNV77Hq8o

I STAND BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS, I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY LABELLED YOU ANYTHING ABUSIVE OR ANYTHING AT ALL FOR THAT MATTER, OTHER THAN A CHILD WHICH YOU ACTUALLY ARE

ONE OF YOUR ‘YOU FOOL’S IS MORE OF A PERSONAL ATTACK THEN ALL OF MY COMMENTS PUT TOGETHER.

“Is good ownage of all arguments by fine tuning.”

Fine tuning exists, and if you for the purposes of this discussion dismiss all of it – it shows how dishonest you really are. You can either put it down to chance, or say it was from a creator – but there is a great deal of fine tuning in our universe, which is amazing whichever way you look at it. Fine tuning, along with other arguments forms THE argument for a creator. Fine tuning is not THE argument.

The imperfections do not cancel out the perfections, if the perfections exist then you have to accept there is a degree of fine tuning. I say there is some order created and to an extent it is finely tuned, this cannot be denied. To attribute this fine tuning in the most fundamental parts of the universe to chance is less likely then it is to attribute to a creative force

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=guHodt-7Q7A

I Repeat:

So basically one can prove God exists. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of absolute certainty, it may be true that we can't prove or disprove God's existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute mathematical certainty, so CERTAINTY IS NEITHER A REASONABLE OR NECESSARY STANDARD. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think we can show that it is HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT GOD EXISTS.

The premises of the argument NEED NOT BE CERTAIN, merely MORE PLAUSIBLE than their denials. It follows that merely having a possible alternative explanation does not defeat a probabilistic God argument. What one needs is a MORE PROBABLE ALTERNATIVE explanation.

More than enough evidence has been provided to show a creator exists – or for hardcore doubters like you, MAY exist. If you prefer me to follow your model, then I have raised MORE than enough doubt in your theory to prove that my theory is more accurate than yours. It is strange how you operate by doubting others arguments, yet when someone uses the same on yours you hold on to it so tight refusing to concede any ground. Your own methodology is flawed, as you assume by doubting others it proves your view is correct. Your view on its own is ridiculous, and when compared to mines much more improbable. A reasonable person bases belief on accumulation of evidences to form an argument or whole case. Your basis is based on constant subtraction of evidence and doubting, after which you resort to the most ridiculous far fetched illogical irrational solution to form your argument. If someone states your case is foolish, your response is to cast doubt on the others argument. NOTE: Anyone can say why? Why? For an eternity, it doesn’t take much intelligence to constantly question and doubt everything. Doing this does NOT make your argument more valid. Sure one can doubt, and raise doubts. But to turn the doubts in to a new belief system whilst rejecting the core knowledge which forms the argument itself which was being doubted (not disproven or refuted) – stupid. As such this is the flawed foundation upon which your atheist beliefs exist.

LOL do you see the flaw in your whole view BEN. Your belief is established by doubting others, yet in the furious fist clenching frenzy that is doubting God you ignore the fact that your own beliefs by the same logical and rational standards you apply to the creator argument, ARE PATHETIC. THAT’S RIGHT, IF YOU APPLIED HALF THE CRITIQUE OF THE SAME BASIS ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS – YOUR WORLD WOULD FALL APART. BUT YOU WILL NEVER DO THAT BEN, BECAUSE THAT IS THE INCUREABLE FLAW IN YOUR WHOLE CASE. HA HA HE HE HU HA

”Genuinely when someone disagrees with something, it meanst that they have found it to be false.”

You have a habit of not reading everything I write, otherwise why would I refute your latest posts with cut an paste jobs from my older ones. Its all there, check it out. You falsely find what I say to be false, when in fact it is true

”Your statement about my lack of debating ability is an unfalsifiabl hypothesis.”

LETS LEAVE IT FOR THE READERS TO DECIDE SHALL WE

”Nah, he was amused by the fact that I bother to post on this forum, and he thought that your earlier posts were quite interesting if flawed but that you have become very belligerent and hostile, if you must know.”

IS HE AMUSED? THEY ARE INTERESTING THANKS ‘JACK’. THEY ARE NOT FLAWED ‘JACK’. I’M NATURALLY A HOSTILE CHARACTAR ‘JACK’

”Oh and as for your homophobia, yeah, that’s pretty offensive.”

HOMOPHOBIA? I’M NOT AFRAID OF HOMOSEXUALS OR HOMSEXUALITY BEN/JACK.

SORRY BABES xXx

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AbAX9A8Cq0k

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 06 August 2008 at 18:25

 

//I said where did the building blocks of the universe come from – that’s everything EVERYTHING. //

Well, the CERN experiments ought to give us a fair idea. But as soon as we know that, you'll just be asking for the origin of whatever phenomena led to them, trying to make the case for a creator based on the fact that we dont know everything.

//The great lengths people will go to propose a hypothesis that gives an answer, any answer other than a creative force. //

No, because you see people have been proposing a creative force for thousands of years, and the scientific community has never adopted it because it explains nothing and is not supported by any falsifiable evidence.

//JUST BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT BE USED DOES NOT MEAN A CREATOR CANNOT EXIST – DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE?//

I agree that a creative force might exist, but to claim knowledge of it is ridiculous as you have admitted that no evidence for it could, or should exist.

Also, you keep on making the argument that Allah cannot be evidenced by science, yet keep using the scientific method of observation (fine tuning) in order to demonstrate him to me.

//Why should I subscribe to something I don’t believe is correct?//

Well manifestly you wouldnt, but I never said you would so I fail to see your point...

My point is that the fact that the probability of life existing in this particular state is small does not support the creation hypothesis in any way.

//I WILL CHECK IT OUT – DO AWAY WITH THE PLEASANTRIES, LET YOUR TRUE COLOURS SHINE THROUGH. I LIKE YOU, YOU HAVE ABIT OF FIGHT IN YOU//

Well, much as it pains me to admit it, this discussion is more stimulating than the vast majority of tosh one encounters here. However, I like pleasantaries, and I like deadpan, gentlemanly humour.

// Design indicates designer. Creation implies creator. This is not tautological//

How in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that not tautological? Please do explain.

//as objective truth is knowable//

Evidence for this claim?

// There is absolutely no way in a naturalistic world that we would have any reason to assume that the movement of atoms in our brains produces actually true propositions//

this, strangely, is an ad hominem attack on humanity in general! A proposition exists on its merits, and is not at all affected by its derivation. Logic and reason exist independent of the minds of those who elucidate them.

//Your view of the world//

Has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Your universe of perception is so theocentric I imagine it is hard to concieve of constructing your worldview with no reference to any first cause or the origins of the universe.

//I will my friend I will I am capable of this YOU WILL REMEMBER ME ONE DAY//

Well, as you insist on hiding behind an admittedly amusing pseudonym I probably wont will I...

//If you strip away the theories, the big words, the fancy scientific terms and the endless hypothesis //

Then indeed, my worldview which is based on the scientific method, has nothing left, because what you describe is the total sidelining of science.

And all you have shown from this paragraph is that I am not afraid to admit that I dont know. Yet.

//Mechanism? the creator has power to do all things, and if you can’t test him then you are not about to get near enough to test his mechanisms. //

Precisely my point, which is why your explanation is tantamount to saying it was done by magic. It certainly has just as little explanatory power.

//If the revelation is accepted, then the mechanism will be explained.//

That makes sense. Convince someone to accept one thing on no evidence whatsoever, and they might well accept a whole bunch of other stuff!

//To say the creator would not have a mechanism by which he controlled and regulated is to attribute foolishness to the creator, and all powerful creator cannot be foolish. NEVER!//

Thats interesting. You admit that the creator cannot be examined scientifically, yet you claim to know things about him that could only ever be determined by the scientific method.

//OK THEN LETS HAVE A LOOK GODDDD, SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT LET THINGS GO//

And yet others think it's amusing to point out the hypocrisy of the position adopted by their opponents in a debate.

//otherwise why would I refute your latest posts with cut an paste jobs from my older ones.//

I really dont know, to me it suggests that you havnt read my posts. Perception is a strange thing isnt it?

//I’M NATURALLY A HOSTILE CHARACTAR//

Yes, I had noticed that.

//HOMOPHOBIA? I’M NOT AFRAID OF HOMOSEXUALS OR HOMSEXUALITY BEN/JACK.//

You know perfectly well that this is not the accepted popular usage of the word.

//SORRY BABES xXx//

Are you flirting with me?

Toodles XxXxX

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:05

 

”Well, the CERN experiments ought to give us a fair idea. But as soon as we know that, you'll just be asking for the origin of whatever phenomena led to them, trying to make the case for a creator based on the fact that we dont know everything.”

I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS WAITING AROUND FOR CERN, when we already know the scientific mode is not always suitable for discovering certain types of information as is the case now. We know that logic and rational thought point undoubtedly to a creative force existing, and we know that TO LOOK FOR CERTAINTY AS A STANDARD FOR EVERYTHING IS RIDICULOUS, UNREALISTIC AND IMPOSSIBLE. Over reliance on one single method to answer a complex a question as does a creator exist is idiotic. We have brains, we have developed numerous methods and approaches – the only correct way forward is to apply them all to achieve a reasonable standard of proof, and then to open our minds and believe – not doubt in what we find. Stop pushing the marker further and further, set a standard and then apply it.

CERN and others have been trying since day dot, and they are not any closer to answering THE question. They can formulate theories, discover what happened AFTER and for that they are truly amazing and they deserve acclaim, and they may yet discover strong evidence for a creator through their experiments. But we live in the here and the now, the present – and AS THERE IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR A CREATOR, why continue not to believe.

What you want from CERN will never happen. They will never gift wrap the creator for you in a box so the world’s top scientists can experiment on him to find out if he is for real or a fraud. This will NEVER happen; the infinite cannot and will never be seen in our lifetime. But refusing to believe simply because of that is wrong; when it is highly probable a creator does exist. Seeing is not always believing.

Logic and rational thought will determine that there must be a start to any phenomena CERN discover BEN, not me. So if I ask where did (insert CERN discovery here) come from – I am merely asking logical and rational questions. To not ask these questions you would have to be very confused indeed.

Once CERN or others find out for arguments sake, the building blocks of the universe and where life came from – where well that get you Ben? You will have knowledge, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is just useless WHATS THE POINT BEN. To find out the how, and then discover the WHY is what you need BEN. There would be no HOW if there was not a WHY. The why is a personal thing for you to discover BEN, forget about the thousands of years and religions doing this and that. This creative force is knowable Ben, just relax and open your mind

DON’T YOU THINK IT IS FUNNY THAT THOUSANDS OF YEARS HAS PASSED AND PEOPLE HAVE IGNORED LOGIC AND RATIONAL THINKING IN SEARCH FOR HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO EXIST, YET NOW YOU ARE PREPARED TO WAIT FOR A POSSIBLE FURTHER ONE THOUSAND YEARS AND WHAT THEN? THE GREATER MINDS DON’T NEED TO EXPERIMENT ON THINGS AND FIDDLE ABOUT TO DISCOVER THINGS – THE GREATER MINDS USE REASON LOGIC AND INTELLECT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ARISTOTLE AND PLATO THEN IT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU BEN

”No, because you see people have been proposing a creative force for thousands of years, and the scientific community has never adopted it because it explains nothing and is not supported by any falsifiable evidence.”

Explains nothing? So are we to make up theories so they explain things. We can’t prove the existence of a creator via the scientific method so let us develop theories that would explain things, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, irrational, far fetched and highly unlikely they are. LET US IGNORE LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT AND RELY ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Life came from non life, and then life evolved. Because of the flaw in the scientific method in discovering certain types of information, we now must believe any theory which is observable by science only. SCIENTIFIC METHOD ONLY PLEASE NOTHIN ELSE, PLEASE IGNORE LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT THANK YOU.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:08



The scientific method is not the only way of discovery and reaching reasonable conclusions. As such logically and rationally one can prove the existence of a creator, the evidence relied upon by atheists can be used as evidence by the creationists in equal measure. It is just a matter of applying your own philosophy to string together the facts and evidence to reach a conclusion. The only reason the atheist philosophy exists is because of the flawed scientific method, and the over reliance in that method by certain people (YOU)

WORSE CASE SCENARIO: WE HAVE NO PRO ATHIEST EVIDENCE NO PRO CREATION EVIDENCE, ALL WE HAVE IS EVIDENCE. YOU CAN USE IT TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE, I CAN USE IT TO SUPPORT MINE. DEADLOCK PEOPLE WE HAVE DEADLOCK. HOWEVER, AS LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT AGREE WITH A CREATOR EXISTING MORE THAN THE ATHEIST ARGUMENT – THIS MAKES THE CREATOR ARGUMENT MORE PROBABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE (ATHIEST ARGUMENT). THE CREATOR ARGUMENT IS CLEARLY THE STRONGER AND MORE LIKELY ONE TO BE TRUE.

Let me repeat (again) to show you why the scientific method is flawed and hence it cannot be used to dismiss entirely the existence of a creator:

If one were to ask exactly how to apply scientific thought the answer should soon be familiar, as we were all taught the scientific model at school. Although the terminology differs at times the stages are roughly the same across the globe. They begin with a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment. The next three steps of testing, observation and ongoing recording are repeated as often as necessary. Finally a conclusion is reached and an evaluation of the experiment conducted. The scientific model is widely held to be capable of assessing any issue.

Three aspects of the model stand out.

The first aspect is that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions.

The second aspect is that any results are speculative. The probability of error is an accepted constant in the scientific model so other conditions exist to minimise these facts. They include ensuring a fair test, ensuring the sample population is representative and also considering a control sample.

Thirdly is the requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.

From this we can see a variable must be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed for the scientific model to apply. Let’s examine these four steps in turn:

a) If variables cannot be identified the scientist would have nothing to test.
b) Without a variable isolated from other variables there is no way of knowing what the results of testing are a consequence of. One could be testing multiple variables. The trials would be useless.
c) If a variable can be identified and isolated but not manipulated then no experiment can proceed.
d) If a variable can be identified, isolated and manipulated but no observation is possible then no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can be verified and the true scientist would not waste the time or effort.

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

1. Reality
2. Sensation of the reality
3. Transference of the sensed reality to the brain
4. Linking the sensation with the previous information, which is the mind. The linking
is the actual process of thinking leading to thought
5. Judgement upon the reality

This is the process we all use to think about things. We would not utilise emotion or the scientific model to read a magazine, visit the WC or work out if the car was out of petrol. We would use the five-stage process outlined above and it is necessary to use this rational method to answer the greatest question.

The rational method is the basis of all thinking, even science. No experiment could be constructed without previous information (e.g. how to read and write). In fact the rational method can be found directly in many of the social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Science is incapable of testing human behaviour, as it requires tangible matter to experiment on. Social scientists either resort to prescribing Prozac for depression or follow a model of observation. Psychologists and sociologists make multiple observations of subjects over set periods without attempting to scientifically subject them to new conditions. An example of how to do so would be to take the human being out of the natural environment into a controlled environment (which incidentally is not natural for humans) and attempt to isolate what makes the human behave in certain ways. Periodic observation leading to a conclusion, without manipulation, is a part of the rational method not the scientific. Specific elements of the social sciences are also not scientific. Psychoanalysis (studying dreams etc.) fails as a science as its answers can never be verified and depend upon repeated observation without manipulation i.e. it is part of the rational method.

The rational method is clearly the natural thinking process at the base of other forms of thought (scientific, logical, philosophical, legislative etc.). It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth. Use the five-stage rational method to answer basic question such as if you exist (“cogito ergo sum”/“I think therefore I am”), if you have hair, if you have ever drunk water, if you can fly etc. The answers are certain if the sensation and linking to previous information is done correctly so now all that is left is to utilise it to find the answer to the greatest question.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:12



1. We cannot sense (see, touch, hear, smell or taste) a Creator
2. Everything we can sense is dependent on something else and has a limit of some kind that it cannot surpass

We must be clear on the first point. We cannot sense a Creator. Some would have us believe in aliens or in ‘mother nature’ but this cannot be accepted as we have already denied emotion and blind imitation a role in this endeavour. Others would have us end the discussion here since no Creator can be sensed. Such people cite the phrase ‘seeing is believing’. The predicament with this is that this implies the opposite (i.e. ‘not seeing equals nothing to believe in’). This is blank, vacuous and weak.

Sensing a Creator is not a prerequisite to prove a Creator exists and never has been. We see many things in our daily lives without knowing who exactly is responsible but the result leads us to believe something definitely was responsible e.g. a sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.

This can only be proved or disproved by applying rational thought. So far the first conclusion (cannot sense a Creator) is of little help. So any answer will have to come from the second conclusion, which is the deep enlightened view on all we sense i.e. everything is limited and dependent.

Is everything we can sense limited Ben?

We should examine the statement and particularly what a limit means in this context. Here’s a passable working definition:

Whatever is limited has a dependency somewhere or how. It is limited if it depends on something else. This can be in many ways. Does it depend on a space to exist within? Something is limited if it is contingent and requires something peripheral to it in order to bring it into existence i.e. a cause. It cannot sustain itself forever and deteriorates accordingly. We can find or deduce either a beginning or end point or both. The space it occupies can be measured and its attributes quantified. It has boundaries it cannot exceed and obstacles it cannot overcome. It is conditional; unable to prevent itself from being affected and swayed by external factors. It can be contained and is subject to constraints and thresholds. It is limited since its constituent parts are limited as they can be measured. Also it can produce or reproduce but cannot create something else out of nothing. It can be increased and/or reduced. In short it is finite since its restrictions are inherent and unavoidable. Such a thing can be marked out as limited and dependent i.e. created.

So is everything we can sense limited and dependent? Let us examine a few options. Atoms require a space to exist within. Human beings are limited as we cannot fly, see into the future or escape death. Space, and the entire universe, consists of limited things such as atoms planets, stars and comets which themselves are measurable and we know the sum of limited things must be limited.

To ask if cold is limited is to ask an incoherent question. Cold cannot be measured as it is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing i.e. heat. Heat can be measured (the SI measurement is in joules), can be increased and, like all other forms of energy, requires a cause to initiate it. When we want to feel warmer we switch on radiators or light campfires. Heat results from something and is therefore limited.

Light and sound are waves. Sound is a mechanical wave. A mechanical wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location to another location. A light wave can travel through a vacuum since it does not require a medium. Both are characterised by definable properties. Light waves have intensity (brightness), polarisation (angle or vector) and frequency (colour) so the colour red is the reflection of light at a specific wavelength.

Sound waves are characterised by velocity, frequency, its wavelength and its amplitude so the intensity of sound is measured in decibels.

Both the speed of light and sound are measurable. Furthermore light is definitely limited otherwise it would always be daylight or to put it another way it would never be dark. By the same token if there is ever silence then sound must also be limited.

Can we think of infinite length? Length is measurement of something and is not a thing itself. The same can be said of numbers, which are simply a chronological form of measurement of other things. The question should not be if numbers reach infinity but if the items represented by numbers can reach infinity. We cannot guess out of our own desire for it to be true (that would be irrational, emotional belief) and we have no such previous information. Also numbers themselves cannot be without limit since every number is finite, as is the following number. Since whenever we proceed upwards we proceed towards another finite number we can never exceed the barrier of infinity.

Are ideas such as love limited? This can be answered by reference to the working definition of a limit. Is the idea of love able to exist independently of anything else or is it contingent and dependent on something else to initiate it? Ideas are inherently conditional on a mind to think of them. Ideas have no independent existence external to a mind so they are limited. Therefore love, like all other ideas, is limited. Of course if someone was willing to attempt to prove that an idea, like love, had an independent existence they are most welcome to try but both the rational and scientific methods require a reality to examine and ideas are clearly not tangible.

We can conclude that everything we can all sense is limited to some degree. One may wonder why this conclusion is important but it matters as it narrows down the options available in our search for a conclusive answer to the greatest question.

AHA BUT BEN Do limited things equal a Creator?

Now we accept that all things we can sense are limited and have the rational framework of thinking in place there can now only be four possible answers to the greatest question:

1. The universe has existed for an infinite length of time so no creation ever took
place regardless of the existence of limited things (No Creator)
2. Limited things bought other limited things into existence (No Creator)
3. Limited things all depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual
dependencies (No Creator)
4. Limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited cause (Creator)

We can be sure there are no other possible answers and that these four choices are all mutually exclusive i.e. that none of these options can be true at the same time as another. Therefore, let us examine these alternatives in turn beginning with the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite length of time. O wait I have already refuted it. LETS MOVE ON SHALL WE

The second answer i.e. that limited things bought other limited things into existence if true would mean there was no need for a Creator but it contradicts reality. Could a limited thing bring itself into existence without need of something else? Could it survive and subsist without dependency on other things? Could a limited thing have always existed? Could a limited thing bring other things into existence from nothing?

These notions flatly contradict the previous information we possess on limited, dependent things. The previous information we have is that limited things do not and cannot bring themselves other things into existence and that there is always some dependency. This is part of the definition of a limited thing.

Arguing that the original limited object could have always existed (without a cause) means it is not limited, rather it is unlimited. This is the same as the first assertion that there was no start point and the universe has always existed. In effect it is another claim for an unlimited chain of events before this point and we have already refuted this.

The third answer was that all limited things depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies. The proposal is that all limited things manage their dependencies in a flawless system whereby each limited thing supports another in some intricate web. Therefore the claim is there is no need for a Creator, as this web would mean no requirement for a beginning or a cause. While is suggests that all limited things would continue to exist forever due to the support each limited thing receives from others this clearly is not the case as things die out, fade and deteriorate constantly.

Instead it is often illustrated with other examples such as when humans are buried where they become fertiliser for the trees and plants so they can themselves eat the plants before being buried. The most famous example is the water cycle where for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water.

The flaw here is that nothing in the cycle can exist until something initiates the cycle. We know A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn’t exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in the form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

If it is agreed that these three options have been rebutted then we arrive at the fourth and final option, which was that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.

This is the proof that there is a Creator Ben.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:15



This unlimited cause (Creator) can only be one. If there are two or more then none of these causes can be unlimited. If the causes can each be separated, isolated and counted then they cannot be unlimited. The cause can only be unlimited if it is one, alone without partner, all-powerful, without beginning or end.

We can conclude this section by adding that the greatest question can be answered conclusively without resorting to emotion or by stretching the scientific model into realms it cannot deal with. Belief does not have to be emotional. In fact if it is built on rational thought, then is inherently built upon the greatest faculty of humanity, the mind.

Why can we not sense the Creator I hear you mutter Ben?

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

It could not be possible to sense something unlimited. No one would rationally argue the five senses of human beings could pick up anything beyond the universe. To perceive or sense the Creator would to contend that the Creator is within the bounds of the known universe. By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe (otherwise we would have found a limit). The unlimited has no boundaries, constraints or restrictions.

ONCE YOU HAVE READ THIS, THEN READ IT AGAIN. WHEN YOU ARE DONE, READ IT AGAIN THEN PRINT IT OFF AND READ IT AGAIN. READ IT OFF THE PAPER THEN REPEAT TO YOURSELF, THEN GET SOMEONE TO TEST YOU. THEN STICK IT ON THE WALL AND MEMORISE IT BY HEART.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uwse9ZWdR3I

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:15

 

”I agree that a creative force might exist, but to claim knowledge of it is ridiculous as you have admitted that no evidence for it could, or should exist.”

MIGHT EXIST AYE NOW YOU ARE SEEING ZE LIGHT. TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF IT IS RIDICULOUS? THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION SHOWS THERE IS KNOWLEDGE OF IT, IT JUST HAPPENS NOT TO MEET YOUR PREPOSTEROUSLY SHOCKINGLY UNREALISTICALLY HIGH STANDARD.

I DID NOT SAY NO EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR COULD OR SHOULD EXIST – THIS IS A LIE PEOPLE, BEN LIES.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kyE4CLM0QIA

I SAID, AND I REPEAT:

If life is a test, then there has to be a ‘testing element’. If we have all the answers, then one part of the test which is faith in the unseen, which will differentiate between believers and unbelievers, will not exist. If this part of the test does not exist, the whole test is pointless. If the test is pointless, life is pointless and creation has no purpose. THERE WAS AND IS NEVER MEANT TO BE PROOF FOR GOD WHICH IS 100%, this would negate the purpose of existence.

I SAID THERE IS NOT 100% PROOF – NOT THAT THERE IS NO PROOF.

He remains unknown through your method of investigation – as he will not come down and sit in a lab for you to experiment on. He remains unknown through empirical study but is known through reason logic and rational thinking. That’s 3 to 1, I win

“Also, you keep on making the argument that Allah cannot be evidenced by science, yet keep using the scientific method of observation (fine tuning) in order to demonstrate him to me.”

THIS IS A BLATANT INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE OF MY POINT (AS PER USUAL). I SAID ALLAH THE CREATOR CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED – THE BEING HIMSELF, THE CREATIVE FORCE. IT CANNOT BE TESTED IN A LAB, BUT THIS ONLY PROVES THE INFINITE GREATNESS OF GOD AND THE FLAW IN THE SCIENTIFIC MODE OF STUDY – DOES NOT DISPROVE A CREATOR.

You agreed and said:

“no we could not percieve or concieve of a force that applied in the 5th dimension, but it would nevertheless have effects on the dimensions below.”

To which I said:

The effect in the dimensions below would be the very function and process which makes the universe ‘tick’ along, the movement of planets, the sun rising, THE WORKS.

SO THE USE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINE TUNING IN THE UNIVERSE IS TO PROVIDE A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR, THROUGH HIS CREATION – THE EFFECTS IN THE LOWER DIMENSIONS AS YOU SAID.

THIS DOES NOT CONTRADICT MY STATEMENT WHERE I SAID THE CREATOR CANNOT BE TOUCHED, SMELT, HEARD, TASTED OR EXPERIMENTED UPON

In short, the creator can’t be scientifically experimented on or observed but his creation can.

”Well manifestly you wouldnt, but I never said you would so I fail to see your point...”

You told me to ‘open my mind’ to the anthropic principle when I said the existence of the perfect properties in the universe that allow for creation pointed to a creative force that put them there. Hence when I said I wont subscribe to something incorrect, I was referring to your request for me to open my mind to a principle which I don’t agree with

”My point is that the fact that the probability of life existing in this particular state is small does not support the creation hypothesis in any way.”

LOL OK WELL IN THAT CASE YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED. CONFUSION BEN. SUCH A TERRIBLE SHAME.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo4SblJ_SnU

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:18



IF WE HAVE 2 THEORIES, AND ONE OF THEM PROPOSES LIFE EXISTING IN THIS STATE BY CHANCE AND RANDOM EVENTS WHICH RESULT OUT OF NOTHING, WHILST THE OTHER LOGICALLY CONCLUDES A CREATOR EXISTS – THE LIKLIEHOOD OF LIFE RESULTING DUE TO YOUR METHOD IS LESS THAN IT IS FROM MINES.

THIS ALONE SHOWS THE AMAZING POSITION YOUR HOLD. YOU ADMIT THE ‘FACT’ THAT THE PROBABILITY OF LIFE EXISTING IN THIS PARTICULAR STATE IS SMALL YET YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY STATE THAT THIS DOES NOT ADD ANY MERIT TO THE CREATOR ARGUMENT. WHAT UTTER RUBBISH

IT CLEARLY INDICIATES THAT CREATION IS NOT ONLY AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE EVIDENCE, BUT BASED ON STATISTICAL PROBABILITY IT IS MOST LIKELY, AND NOT ONLY THAT BUT IT IS LOGICAL AND RATIONAL TO CONCLUDE AS SUCH. IM HERE FOR YOU TO LEAN ON

”Well, much as it pains me to admit it, this discussion is more stimulating than the vast majority of tosh one encounters here. However, I like pleasantaries, and I like deadpan, gentlemanly humour.”

THAT’S BECAUSE OF ME

”How in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that not tautological? Please do explain.”

Tautological? If you are sitting there, with no knowledge about what the word creator and creation mean then the word in its purest simplest linguist langauge form seems similar, repetetive and circumlocutionary. HOWEVER BEN YOU KNOW WHAT CREATION AND CREATOR MEAN – YOU KNOW WHAT DESIGN AND DESIGNER MEAN. THE ARGUMENT IS MORE THEN SIMILARITY IN WORDS THAT SOUND NICE TOGETHER. CREATION IS A RESULT OF THE ACTION OF THE CREATOR. PRODCUER = CREATOR, CREATION = PRODUCT, DESIGNER = DESIGN. In a tight debate, logic cannot be defeated. So you are correct creation implies creation, and to go against this is illogical. Are you anti logic Ben?

”Evidence for this claim?”

Logical and rational thought showing there is a creator, all available evidence should then be analysed (e.g fine tuning in universe, human existence, properties used for creation, general design arguments etc etc). All should be analysed with the logical and rational foundation that a creator exists. Any other intepretation of the evidences goes against logical and rational thought, and hence is an irrational belief hence it cannot be objective truth. Then there is revelation from the creator which can also be analysed to see if it could be from another realm or if it is man made. In analysing all the evidence, one has to retain a reasonable standard of proof throughout – set a standard and stick to it. DO NOT PUSH THE MARKER FURTHER AND FURTHER TO ACHIEVE CERTAINTY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO REACH OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

OBJECTIVE TRUTH CAN BE REACHED VIA APPLYING AN OBJECTIVE REASONABLE STANDARD OF PROOF.

I Repeat:

So basically one can prove God exists. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of absolute certainty, it may be true that we can't prove or disprove God's existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute mathematical certainty, so CERTAINTY IS NEITHER A REASONABLE OR NECESSARY STANDARD. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think we can show that it is HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT GOD EXISTS.

The premises of the argument NEED NOT BE CERTAIN, merely MORE PLAUSIBLE than their denials. It follows that merely having a possible alternative explanation does not defeat a probabilistic God argument. What one needs is a MORE PROBABLE ALTERNATIVE explanation.

More than enough evidence has been provided to show a creator exists – or for hardcore doubters like you, MAY exist. If you prefer me to follow your model, then I have raised MORE than enough doubt in your theory to prove that my theory is more accurate than yours. It is strange how you operate by doubting others arguments, yet when someone uses the same on yours you hold on to it so tight refusing to concede any ground. Your own methodology is flawed, as you assume by doubting others it proves your view is correct. Your view on its own is ridiculous, and when compared to mines much more improbable. A reasonable person bases belief on accumulation of evidences to form an argument or whole case. Your basis is based on constant subtraction of evidence and doubting, after which you resort to the most ridiculous far fetched illogical irrational solution to form your argument. If someone states your case is foolish, your response is to cast doubt on the others argument. NOTE: Anyone can say why? Why? For an eternity, it doesn’t take much intelligence to constantly question and doubt everything. Doing this does NOT make your argument more valid. Sure one can doubt, and raise doubts. But to turn the doubts in to a new belief system whilst rejecting the core knowledge which forms the argument itself which was being doubted (not disproven or refuted) – stupid. As such this is the flawed foundation upon which your atheist beliefs exist.

Objective truth is knowable, just happens to be you don’t know it…yet. Stop doubting, start applying a reasonable standard on all things, remove the need for certainty for things beyond scientific enquiry, use logic and rational thought, open your mind and heart, free your mind.

”this, strangely, is an ad hominem attack on humanity in general! A proposition exists on its merits, and is not at all affected by its derivation. Logic and reason exist independent of the minds of those who elucidate them.”

I repeat:

You are not quite seeing the problem with atheism. You said it’s not random- so you are redefining atheism. This is something you have to do in order to have any case. Atheism by definition is irrational- everything is matter in motion, not guided by any sort of intelligence. Thoughts in your view do not result from an immaterial mind but somehow result from the chemical reactions and electrical stimuli of the brain and central nervous system

Any proposition in the atheist world claiming to be the truth cannot be, because it’s all relative and irrational at the very core hence any conclusion based upon it will also be illogical and irrational (as you have demonstrated)

”Has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Your universe of perception is so theocentric I imagine it is hard to concieve of constructing your worldview with no reference to any first cause or the origins of the universe.”

Your view appears to deny the existence of God, then doubt it then accept that he may exist. You are confused, but I am putting you in the atheist bracket because the majority of your opinions are formed upon this foundation and they articulate as such. My thought process is pure logic and rational thought based. I don’t start with the ideas that GOD EXISTS I start with the basis HMMM OK WHAT IS LOGICAL TO ME. You abandon logic and adopt a pure empirical scientific method. You kick rational though in the gut and let the history of religion, and belief systems in general cloud your judgement when it comes to the creator argument. Separate issues BEN – don’t get it twisted homie

If I do construct my worldview, it is only based around logic and rational thought – and the anaylsis of evidence on this basis. It just happens to be that the first cause fits in with this thought process, and the origins of the universe are important – didn’t you say we should seek knowledge?

”Well, as you insist on hiding behind an admittedly amusing pseudonym I probably wont will I...”

YOU WILL DO BEN AYE YOU WILL DO, I’M MORE FAMILIAR THAN YOU THINK….

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-CEFUdkRk

 

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 09 August 2008 at 19:16

 

”Then indeed, my worldview which is based on the scientific method, has nothing left, because what you describe is the total sidelining of science.”

AND WHAT YOU DESCRIBE ALSO TOTALLY SIDE LINES LOGICAL AND RATIONAL THOUGHT. SCIENTIFIC METHOD FOR GETTING EVIDENCE YES, THE PHILOSOPHY TO APPLY TO THE EVIDENCE TO REACH CONCLUSIONS? LOGIC AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, WHICH YOU IGNORE. NOT USING ANY OTHER METHOD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, OR OTHER METHODS IN MORE SUITABLE SITUATONS MEANS YOUR BELIEF IS FLAWED.

”And all you have shown from this paragraph is that I am not afraid to admit that I dont know. Yet.”

NOT BEING AFRAID? DO YOU WANT A MEDAL? NOT BEING AFRAID SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH BEING REASONABLE OR CORRECT. RATHER YOU NOT BEING AFRAID HAS SEEMINGLY DRIVEN YOU TO ADOPT A BELIEF WHICH IS SUMMED UP BY ‘I DON’T KNOW’ WHEN INFACT YOU COULD KNOW, BUT YOUR SO BRAVE YOU WOULD RATHER NOT KNOW.I HOPE YOU HAVE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THIS DISCUSSION BEN

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhq6YhexgU

”Precisely my point, which is why your explanation is tantamount to saying it was done by magic. It certainly has just as little explanatory power.”

Magic is an art of illusion. The mechanism I refer to does not exist in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material. The mechanism is put in place and activated by the infinite creator – these are events or powers beyond nature. However the effects of it are represented by our very existence. Again you want to apply your scientific approach to test the mechanisms, like it’s some kind of factory processing machine. You just have to accept though, there are some things which are beyond testing – there is a certain level of knowledge we can achieve through our natural means in our natural world, beyond which there can be no testing.

I repeat:

Mechanism? the creator has power to do all things, and if you can’t test him then you are not about to get near enough to test his mechanisms. Once belief in a creator is established, and one is willing to accept his infinite power, one can or can not believe in this mechanism, with further evidence from his revelation. If the revelation is accepted, then the mechanism will be explained. Logically speaking if there was a god, he would have some part to play in the universe and world. If a creator has power to create and do all things, then one of his qualities is wisdom. A wise creator would not create the universe, life and humans without any purpose – just as a man wouldn’t build a factory, hire workers and then just leave them to it without assigning roles. To say the creator would not have a mechanism by which he controlled and regulated is to attribute foolishness to the creator, and all powerful creator cannot be foolish. NEVER!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N6RMQy7pBtM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6wAv6lPG17E&feature=related

”That makes sense. Convince someone to accept one thing on no evidence whatsoever, and they might well accept a whole bunch of other stuff”

ONE THING ON NO EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE FOR THE REVELATION? IF YOU ACCEPT A CREATOR, THEN YOU LOOK TO THE REVELATION. YOU SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT WHATSOEVER, YOU ARE IN DENIAL:

I repeat:

You had a discussion about one of these supposed claimed revelations from the creator, the Quran. You can find it below:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15331001146&topic=5476&start=30&hash=e51e2a448645f40b7266052d67ed9e6c

Post 58 onwards, you discuss it with someone. From objective reading, subjective reading, skim reading, brief reading, thorough reading – it points to something unlikely to be from a man made source. Seeing as the revelation itself also claims to be from the creator, it highlights life existing for a purpose which fits with logic and rational thinking, and lays down logical guidelines for mankind to follow – it qualifies as a revelation from God. Furthermore it allows you to know that which is unknown. The creator does not have to show himself to reveal his intentions or will, he can and did choose a human amongst other humans to reveal to so they could spread his message. As the creator cannot be part of his creation, this was a NEAT way of getting the message to us.

Last time I checked one of the conditions you laid down for any supposed revelation of God is that it had to contains no errors, internal or external, had information which could not have been known at the time, and the message had been preserved. Only then would it amount to circumstantial evidence, and with all other evidences provided would prove the revelation is from the creator. The Quran meets this standard.

SO NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? YES THERE IS EVIDENCE – YOU IGNORE IT CONVENIENTLY. NATURALLY IF YOU ACCEPT IT IS FROM THE CREATOR, THEN YOU WILL ACCEPT WHAT IT TELLS YOU – INCLUDING ABOUT HOW THE CREATOR CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE.

I think ignoring the Quran and the things you discussed in their entirety amounts to denial. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY SUFFERING FROM A CONDITION CALLED 'COGNITIVE DISSONANCE'. IN PSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE FEELING OR STRESS CAUSED BY HOLDING TWO CONTRADICTORY IDEAS SIMULTANEOUSLY. IN YOUR CASE, YOU ARE HAVING A PROBLEM RECONCILING THE FACT THAT YOUR BASIS FOR DENYING THE QURAN IS FROM THE CREATOR IS FALSE (SEE EVIDENCE), WITH THE YOUR BELIEF THAT THE QURAN IS NOT FROM THE CREATOR.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7iFwc8M0M-Y

”Thats interesting. You admit that the creator cannot be examined scientifically,”

CORRECTEMUNDO

“yet you claim to know things about him that could only ever be determined by the scientific method.”

SO WE COULD ONLY KNOW IF THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE IS FOOLISH IF WE EXPERIMENTED ON HIM? IF HE IS CAPABLE OF CREATING EVERYTHING YOU SEE AND BEYOND, AND TO INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN THE SYSTEM THAT SUSTAINS THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVERY SINGLE HUMAN THAT LIVES WHILST SIMULTANEOUSLY REGULATING OUR VERY EXISTENCE – DO YOU NOT THINK IT IS LOGICAL FOOLISH IS NOT A QUALITY HE WOULD POSSES?

IF YOU SAY A REASONABLE HUMAN COULD NOT ACT IN AS FOOLISH A MANNER (factory example) THEN HOW CAN WE ATTRIBUTE SUCH A QUALITY TO THE CREATOR WHO’S INTELLIGENCE FAR SUPERCEDES OURS. FURTHERMORE YOU WOULD IGNORE HIS REVELATION WHICH CLEARLY STATES ALL HIS QUALITIES, WHICH ARE ALL CONTRARY TO THE ‘FOOLISH’ GOD. YOU CANT ALWAYS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BEN, YOU CAN’T YOU JUST CAN’T – TRY USING DIFFERENT APPROACHES MAN FFS

YOU CAN STUDY THE REVELATION, SEE IF IT IS MAN MADE OR NOT. IF IT FITS YOUR OWN CRITERIA FOR BEING FROM THE CREATOR, THEN APPLY IT. WHEN IT PASSES YOUR TEST, ACCEPT IT AS FROM THE CREATOR. WHEN YOU ACCEPT IT, BELIEVE IT. JUST ACCEPT IT.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2iZTLLmD3y8

”And yet others think it's amusing to point out the hypocrisy of the position adopted by their opponents in a debate.”

OTHERS? WHAT OTHERS? MY RESPONSE TO YOUR ‘AD HOMINEMS’ SHOWS THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY ‘AD HOMINEMS’ AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO HYPOCRISY YOU SPEAK OF. IT IS A MERE FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION, A PARANOIA IF YOU WILL

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwwYWlbP2U

”I really dont know, to me it suggests that you havnt read my posts. Perception is a strange thing isnt it?”

PERCEPTION? IT’S MORE THEN THAT. 95% OF THIS POST IS FROM MY OLDER POSTS. SEEING AS YOU ARE ASKING THE QUESTIONS OR COUNTERING MY POINTS, ONE WOULD THEREFORE LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT FOR YOU TO POSE THE SAME POINTS MEANS YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN WRITTEN. HENCE THE REPETITION WHICH IS USEFUL BEN, YOU MAY ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nkh_lMtLbbI

”Yes, I had noticed that.”

GOOD

”You know perfectly well that this is not the accepted popular usage of the word.”

I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH POPULAR CULTURE/TERMS/USAGES. I SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS

”Are you flirting with me?”

YEP

”Toodles XxXxX”

Annyong-hi kashipshio

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 14 August 2008 at 14:40

 

This will be short, I'll be trying to draw out the few new points you make and counter those.

//MIGHT EXIST AYE NOW YOU ARE SEEING ZE LIGHT. //

But ze thing iz iz that thiz haz alwayz been mah pozition. I am an agnostic irrelevantist.

//I DID NOT SAY NO EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR COULD OR SHOULD EXIST – THIS IS A LIE PEOPLE, BEN LIES//

It is implicit in your statement that the scientific method of observation cannot be used to examine a creator. An argument for a creator is not 'evidence', in the scientific sense, which is all i am describing.

//SO THE USE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINE TUNING IN THE UNIVERSE IS TO PROVIDE A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR,//

No it is not, and this is absolutely crucial. There are two seperate arguments here that you are conflating.

One argument pertains to the existence of a first cause. This we agree is unevidenced and could not be evidenced. The other is the argument over whether any creative force or supernatural force is intervening in physical reality.

// I was referring to your request for me to open my mind to a principle which I don’t agree with//

The anthropic principle is a tightly argued and constructed reality that is a key part of philosophical discourse. It is universally accepted as a valid form of argument, the question is whether the case of the entire universe satisfies it.

To clarify, you reject the principle not my application of it. This of course puts you at odds with the whole discipline of philosophy.

//LOL OK WELL IN THAT CASE YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED. CONFUSION BEN. SUCH A TERRIBLE SHAME.//

Well, your ignorance of the principles of statistical thermodynamics might make my statement look confused to you, but to a decent scientist it makes perfect sense.

The probability of life existing in this current state is tiny. But so what? The probability of a ball falling in the same direction every time is infinitely small, but where the ball falls is not governed by chance, but by gravity. Similarly, the existence of life is not governed by chance, but by gravity and electromagnetism.

//Any proposition in the atheist world claiming to be the truth cannot be, because it’s all relative and irrational //

= Athesim is not true because atheism is not true. I know you've said this before, and I should have responded like this then, but I must have been asleep or something. This is blatant question begging, for shame sir.

//You kick rational though in the gut and let the history of religion, and belief systems in general cloud your judgement when it comes to the creator argument.//

To the creator argument this is irrelevant, but not to your intervening god argument. Again, you are conflating the two debates.

//YOU WILL DO BEN AYE YOU WILL DO, I’M MORE FAMILIAR THAN YOU THINK….

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-CEFUdkRk//

What in the name of Darwin is that supposed to mean?

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 14 August 2008 at 14:50

 

//AND WHAT YOU DESCRIBE ALSO TOTALLY SIDE LINES LOGICAL AND RATIONAL THOUGHT//

No it doesnt, this is a flagrant strawman and you know it.

The reason why all your 'rational' arguments look like they might work is because it is so easy in philosohpy to take one unknown and replace it with another, like substituting a variable in algebra. Your 'rationalism' consists of describing what is unknown to you, and filling it with another unknown.

This rationality of course is an utterly innapropriate way to examine the intervening god argument, which I continue to insist is a seperate issue.

//RATHER YOU NOT BEING AFRAID HAS SEEMINGLY DRIVEN YOU TO ADOPT A BELIEF WHICH IS SUMMED UP BY ‘I DON’T KNOW’ //

No, I know lots of things. Just not the things which you claim to know.

//You just have to accept though, there are some things which are beyond testing – there is a certain level of knowledge we can achieve through our natural means in our natural world, beyond which there can be no testing.//

The best thing about science, is that you dont know what you dont know. I dont know if science can be applied to the creator problem, its track record indicates it can deal with anything. We dont know what we're even looking for yet, so I refuse to accept that there should be limits imposed on scientific enquiry.

//IF HE IS CAPABLE OF CREATING EVERYTHING YOU SEE AND BEYOND, AND TO INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN THE SYSTEM THAT SUSTAINS THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVERY SINGLE HUMAN THAT LIVES WHILST SIMULTANEOUSLY REGULATING OUR VERY EXISTENCE – DO YOU NOT THINK IT IS LOGICAL FOOLISH IS NOT A QUALITY HE WOULD POSSES?//

No.

//THEN HOW CAN WE ATTRIBUTE SUCH A QUALITY TO THE CREATOR WHO’S INTELLIGENCE FAR SUPERCEDES OURS//

Again, begging the question. God must not be stupid because he's so clever.

//”Are you flirting with me?”

YEP//

Oooooooh dear. Invisible sky dictator wont be pleased...

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 21 August 2008 at 12:31

 

"But ze thing iz iz that thiz haz alwayz been mah pozition. I am an agnostic irrelevantist."

MIGHT EXIST IS BETTER THEN NOTHING SO GOOD ON U

"It is implicit in your statement that the scientific method of observation cannot be used to examine a creator. An argument for a creator is not 'evidence', in the scientific sense, which is all i am describing."

NOT ALL EVIDENCE NEED BE SCIENTIFIC BASED, THATS POINT I BEEN MAKING. YOU TOTAL RELIANCE ON IT IS A PROBLEM FOR YOU WHICH SHALL ONE DAY CAUSE YOU PAIN

"No it is not, and this is absolutely crucial. There are two seperate arguments here that you are conflating."

YES IT IS

"One argument pertains to the existence of a first cause. This we agree is unevidenced and could not be evidenced. The other is the argument over whether any creative force or supernatural force is intervening in physical reality."

YOU THINK IT CANT BE AS YOU KEEP TRYING TO EMPHASISE BUT IT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE TAKES MANY FORMS, MAYBE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVED BUT IN OTHER WAYS I HAVE MENTIONED ITS FO SHIZZY

THE FIRST CAUSE EXISTS, SO WE LOOK AT THE FINE TUNING. IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT LOGICALLY SPEAKING ORDER (TUNING) HAS A CAUSE AND DOES NOT COME FROM NOTHING - DESIGN = DESIGNER

I HOPE YOU FOLLOW BEN

"The anthropic principle is a tightly argued and constructed reality that is a key part of philosophical discourse. It is universally accepted as a valid form of argument, the question is whether the case of the entire universe satisfies it."

THE ANSWER IS PHILOSOPHICALLY IT MAY GET YOU HIGH AND MAKE YOU CLAP YOUR LITTLE HANDS BUT ITS A RIDICULOUS CONCEPT - NO MERIT, NO NOTHING - JOKE

"To clarify, you reject the principle not my application of it. This of course puts you at odds with the whole discipline of philosophy."

I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT DISCIPLINE OK TELL SOMEONE WHO ADHERES TO YOUR PATHETIC RULES - IF IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT, SMELLS LIKE SHIT - LIKELY TO BE SHIT

I REJECT THE PRINCIPLE ON THE BASIS IT IS BACKED UP BY NOTHING AND IS STUPID, HENCE I REJECT AND OPPOSE ITS APPLICATION

"Well, your ignorance of the principles of statistical thermodynamics might make my statement look confused to you, but to a decent scientist it makes perfect sense."

The essential problem in statistical thermodynamics is to determine the distribution of a given amount of energy E over N identical systems. The goal of statistical thermodynamics is to understand and to interpret the measurable macroscopic properties of materials in terms of the properties of their constituent particles and the interactions between them. This is done by connecting thermodynamic functions to quantum-mechanic equations. Two central quantities in statistical thermodynamics are the Boltzmann factor and the partition function.

YOU CONFUSE THE SIMPLE WITH THE COMPLICATED, YOU CANT EVEN GRASP SIMPLE LOGIC THEN YOU THROW IN THIS STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS? YOU MUST CRAWL BEFORE YOU CAN WALK

"The probability of life existing in this current state is tiny."

CORRECT - IT HAS, YOU ARE RIGHT - IT IS TINY. MINISCULE IF YOU SAY IT CAME FROM CHANCE, LESS TINY IF IT CAME FROM A CREATIVE FORCE. CREATIVE FORCE IS MORE LOGICAL AND LIKELY IN EXPLAINING THE WAY THINGS ARE AND THE STATE WE ARE IN THAN BLIND CHANCE

GOOD BEN

"But so what?"

HOW FOOLISH

"The probability of a ball falling in the same direction every time is infinitely small, but where the ball falls is not governed by chance, but by gravity. Similarly, the existence of life is not governed by chance, but by gravity and electromagnetism."

YOU REALLY DONT GET IT DO YOU. YOU JUST CANT GRASP THE IDEA THAT THE RULES AND LAWS YOU REFER TO. GRAVITY ELECTROMAGNETISM THE WORKS IS A CREATION OF THE HIGHER POWER - TO HELP THE UNIVERSE FUNCTION. SO NARROW MINDED, SO SAD.

YET YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE IN ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES LOL

IF WE AGREE WITH YOU, GRAVITY WOULD BE A RESULT OF CHANCE EVENTS OUT OF NOTHING. SO CHANCE IS BOSS. IF CHANCE IS BOSS, IM THE THE QUEEN

"= Athesim is not true because atheism is not true. I know you've said this before, and I should have responded like this then, but I must have been asleep or something. This is blatant question begging, for shame sir."

NO QUESTION BEGGING HERE MY BENNY. READ BACK? SHALL I CUT AN PASTE?

ATHEISM HAS AN IRRATIONAL CORE, ITS EXPLANATION ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE AS YOU BELIEVE IN NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. IF EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE, THEN EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS NOT TRUE - BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH AS OBJECTIVE TRUTH HENCE YOU LIE THUS YOUR A LIAR GOOD SIR

"To the creator argument this is irrelevant, but not to your intervening god argument. Again, you are conflating the two debates."

YOU ARE ZI ONE MY CHILD, YOU LETS YOUR HATRED OF RELIGION CAUSE YOU TO DWELL IN YOUR DISBELIEF - YOUR CONSTANT DOUBTING IN A CREATIVE FORCE IS BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL ISSUES

YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY:

"Sticking an unknowable force, that exists outside space and time, in the gaps in our knowledge has been done by the religious for thousands of years and has never got anyone anywhere."

"Religion has been doing this for thousands of years, and it hasnt advanced human welfare one jot, and never will. You dont just think the scientific method is innapropriate to examine first causes, you dont trust it at all."

YOU RESENT RELIGION, THIS CLOUDS YOUR VIEW ON THE CREATOR, SADLY

"What in the name of Darwin is that supposed to mean?"

YOU WILL FIND OUT SOON....

WHOS DARWIN?

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 21 August 2008 at 12:43

 

"No it doesnt, this is a flagrant strawman and you know it."

YES IT DOES IM NOT WILLING TO BUDGE ON THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I AM SO RIGHT AND YOU ARE SO WRONG. SORRY, TAKE YOUR' O PLEASE DONT STRAWMAN ME' ELSEWHERE

"The reason why all your 'rational' arguments look like they might work is because it is so easy in philosohpy to take one unknown and replace it with another, like substituting a variable in algebra. Your 'rationalism' consists of describing what is unknown to you, and filling it with another unknown."

THEY WORK MY FRIEND - BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE SENSE THAN YOURS LOL NOT HARD TO GRASP

I RECALL YOU SAYING:

"Loltings, you claim earlier that god cannot be examined by the scientific method, but is easily 'derived' from rational thought. Any accurate philosophical proof is 100% accurate, so either you drop this claim, or you drop the proofs"

WELL LOLTNGZ NOW YOU FIND FLAW IN PHILOSOPHY WHEN BEFORE YOU SAY PHILISOPHICAL PROOF IS 100% ACCURATE? YOU ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE

ITS RATIONAL, ITS LOGICAL. YOUR BELIEFS ARE NOT.

"This rationality of course is an utterly innapropriate way to examine the intervening god argument, which I continue to insist is a seperate issue."

ON ITS OWN MAYBE NOT, WITH OTHER ARGUMENTS I HAVE PUT FORWARD - YES ITS A GOOD PACKAGE FO SHIZZY

"No, I know lots of things. Just not the things which you claim to know."

YOU KNOW ALOT OF THINGS, I KNOW ALL THINGS YOU KNOW. YOU DONT KNOW SOMETHINGS I KNOW, HENCE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU. THUS I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG

"The best thing about science, is that you dont know what you dont know. I dont know if science can be applied to the creator problem, its track record indicates it can deal with anything. We dont know what we're even looking for yet, so I refuse to accept that there should be limits imposed on scientific enquiry."

AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS CLEARLY A LIMIT TO KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIMENTING - UNDENIABLE. IN THE FUTURE? ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE - BUT NOTHING WILL EVER BE 100% SCIENTIFICALLY AS YOU DEMAND IT TO BE. BUT THERE MAY BE GREATER PROOF

TILL THEN A NUMBER OF METHODS CAN BE USED TO COME TO CONCLUSIONS. THE CONCLUSION THAT IS MOST LOGICAL AND RATIONAL, WITH SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS TO BACK IT UP IS THAT A CREATOR EXISTS

"No."

YES

"Again, begging the question. God must not be stupid because he's so clever."

OBVIOUSLY APPEALING TO SOMEONES LOGIC AND RATIONAL MIND SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED IF THERE NAME IS BEN LEWIS. EVERYONE PLEASE TAKE NOTE

"Oooooooh dear. Invisible sky dictator wont be pleased..."

WE WILL FIND OUT ONE DAY WONT WE?

IM BORED OF YOU NOW

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 22 August 2008 at 18:59

 

//IM BORED OF YOU NOW//

Then i shall trouble you no longer but to provide a brief summation of this argument from my perspective when I get back from Iceland. Right now, my minutes in the cybercafe are running down and I have a glacier to climb : )

Toodles

PS this place rules and you should totally go.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 23 August 2008 at 12:17

 

Was in iceland the other day picking up some milk and wotsits

 

 

Ben Lewis (Cambridge) replied on 28 August 2008 at 11:08

 

Well, as you have now declared that you are bored of this argument, I shall in decent debating style provide a summation of my position, the arguments offered and my conclusions thereupon. I invite you to do the same.

Your first two posts contain your most important contributions to the debate in terms of actual arguments, which are as I understand it, threefold:

1. The creator cannot be examined using the scientific method
2. A creator is indicated by rationality and logical thought
3. Atheism is irrational is it arises from natural forces

There are of course enormous flaws in all these arguments, which can be roughly summarised thus:

1. As the scientific method does not assume what is unknown, we cannot know whether science can examine the first cause. Perhaps if that first cause were a transcendent creative one, science could not examine it, but that is to assume your preffered conclusion.
2. I provided numerous thoughts on why this is not the case, I do not believe that you adequetely adressed them at any stage.
3. Is clearly ridiculous as ideas exist independently of their proponents and must be evaluated on merit not provenance.

The rest of your arguments actually stemmed from the scientic method. You attempted to use the arguments of irreducable complexity and Quranic perfection to justify your belief in an interventionist god. Of course, even if these arguments were not full of gaping wholes, this would do nothing to prove that God was actually the creative force of the universe, and not some other agency which also gave rise to god.

Never mind the fact that you stated early on that the scientific method was innapropriate for examining the creative force or God.

In brief, my refutations for these two arguments were as follows:

1. Irreducable complexity is refuted by the anthropic principle, the universe must exist in a state and that state must be capable of supporting intelligent life if we are here examining it.
2. If the Quran is genuinely perfect, it would be objectively verifiable as complete truth revealing profound wisdom and morality. This, to me, is not the case, therefore it isnt perfect.

Again, my view is that the counterrarguments you offered were tangential and insufficient.

To close, i would invite you to consider the track record of your method in contrast to mine. Science has given the world the capacity to sustain 6 billion people in higher standards of living than has ever been known. It has always been instrumental in advancing human welfare and understanding, and is a dynamic and ever advancing process. Religion and the religious methodology have had an ambiguous effect on both, only advancing welfare and understanding throught the promotion of science. The religious method of argument and thought has never revealed any verifiable truth about anything.

As a side note, I would suggest that the flamboyant, salesmanlike tone you adopt throughout this conversation is typical of the religious method of argument, which is to agressively assualt and belittle.

And finally, please take the time to examine philosophy, physics, bio-chem, and all the other fields you think you can render irrelevant before seeking to summarily overturn them. Knowledge is the best way of knowing things, and science and secular thought provide it in spades.

Please feel free to post your own summation to close the debate.

 

 

Darkio Knightio replied to Ben's post on 29 August 2008 at 13:02

 

 

Summation of Darkio Knighto SON OF Maximus Decimus FRIEND OF Marcus Aurelius ENEMY OF Germanic Barbarians and FATHER OF Commodus

Time: 1.00pm
Place: Behind you
Subject: Existence of Allah

**OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF SUMMARY**


DARKIO’S SUMMARY OF ZI ARGUMENT:

I feel this summary will be in NO shape or form sufficient in illustrating the brutal ownification handed out by Darkio during the course of this thread, but nonetheless Darkio is willing to revisit one last time in order to end the debate once and for all. Darkio would however like to add that readers should see the whole thread to make a better informed judgment on the issues discussed, rather then relying on the summations

Darkio feels all his posts contain key information which deal with the arguments against the non believers, and as such one cannot reasonably distinguish between his contributions unless one is attempting to prevent people from seeing all his posts out of some irrational fear of being made to look incorrect (Ben)


Darkio’s main arguments were:


1. It is logical and rational to believe in a creator, unbelief is illogical and irrational
2. For all finite things to come into existence there has to be an infinite first cause
3. The first cause itself has to be uncaused or else we have the impossible infinity
4. All limited things have a creator, as the creator is unlimited there would be no creator for the first cause
5. The universe and its contents are finite
6. Infinity does not exist in the real world (mainly on calculators)
7. Quantum mechanics fail to show the existence of an infinite universe
8. Quantum mechanics fail to disprove the need for a first cause
9. Scientific and empirical method of experimenting are not essential to prove a creator exists
10. Certainty is not a reasonable standard, highly probable is sufficient
11. The premises of the argument NEED NOT BE CERTAIN, merely MORE PLAUSIBLE than their denials
12. Where empirical thought fails, other methods such as logic and rational thought prove a creator
13. The degree of fine tuning points to a creative force more so than it does to random chance based development
14. Divinity and miraculous nature of the Quran supports the Quranic argument that it is from the creator
15. People allege the Quran is man made but when challenged to prove this (Ben) they assume rather than give evidence
16. Use of the scientific method alone is not only stupid but unnecessary and over reliance on it is a flaw as the method itself is flawed as clearly shown
17. The conclusion that a creator exists is not preferred by me but is logically and rationally speaking the most preferable
18. The alternative theories proposed are way more illogical, irrational and improbable than a creative force


The scientific method does not assume what is unknown because it does not recognise anything which is beyond its scope of enquiry, which is why the method itself on its own is flawed. Rather the method should be used in conjunctions with logical and rational thought. Ben however preferred to abandon logic.

Darkio believes he went to great lengths in his posts to without a shadow of a doubt prove that rational thought and logical thinking prove a creator exists. By simply denying this in ones summation is a sign of denial and Darkio can do no more at this stage other then request the readers to see for themselves by reading all the posts and reaching their own conclusions. Not only did Darkio address Ben’s thoughts and queries adequately, but Darkio in fact annihilated them with his own more suitable and logical thoughts.

Darkio again would like to say that Atheism is irrational, illogical and as such belief in it would make one an enemy of logic and reason and an outright threat to rational thought. Darkio does not care for how many scientific quotes are thrown at him, because he has equally used the same science to prove a creator exists. Darkio would suggest readers once again re examine his arguments and in particular his philosophical argument against atheism. It is pretty much unbreakable

Darkio also finds Bens paranoia that Darkio hates the scientific method quite odd. Darkio never said he hates science, he simply stated the method is best used in some situations but cannot be used in others. In other situations Darkio suggests the use of other more applicable methods of thought. These methods being rational and logical thought to prove a creator exists

Darkio is free to carry on using the scientific method where he sees fit. He finds it laughable that the fact that he used the scientific method to prove divinity of the Quran and that the universe is complex is being used against him. Ben is attempting to show that in the end, Darkio has to rely on science and that he is holding a contradictory position in denying the use of the scientific method in one place but then supporting it when he needs it

This of course is totally false. The scientific method cannot be used to examine the creator – the being itself. The scientific method can be used to examine finite things within our universe, such as a revelation from the creator or the universe itself. This is in no way a contradictory position, but simply goes to emphasise Darkio’s argument that the unlimited cannot be experimented upon

It is unfortunate that after such a long dialogue Ben is not able to grasp the most simplest of distinctions.

Regarding the fact that Ben feels there are gaping ‘wholes’ as he puts it in the arguments for the Quranic perfection and fine tuning – I would simply say the following:

Ben was asked on more then one occasion to show where he felt there where these ‘wholes’ existed – whether it be textually, morally, scientifically. Instead Ben chose to rely on the assumption rather then actual evidence, which is fine that is Ben’s choice. But then to try and use that assumption as an argument in a dialogue, is ludicrous and quite frankly very amateurish. This is not the playground my friend

Regarding the fine tuning, again Ben previously admitted it exists but it does not point to a creator. Now to allege it does not exist, well that is a contradictory stance and as such Ben’s opinion has no weight. Fine tuning exists, and it is more likely to be from a creative force than random chance events. Just to add, this fine tuning is not simply limited to the existence of certain properties in our universe which make life what it is. As such the anthropic principle (which I have referred to many times in the discussion) really again has no bearing

We are discussing how the state of the universe came to be, not the fact that it exists. If it was going to exist, it would be in a state that supports life. But the argument is how did the universe come to exist, and what is most likely the answer. The answer is the creator

The some other agency Ben refers to would be the creator. The creator having a creator cannot go on forever, because then we would have the impossible infinity again hence there has to be one first cause who created – that first cause is at the top of the chain and that is whom I refer to as the creator. Any revelation referred to is said to be from this first cause

The Quran is perfect, and the challenge to disprove it being as such has stood for over 1400 years so I don’t see it being met any time soon. By all means readers you have the opportunity to try it and see where it gets you. The Quran does reveal profound wisdom and morality, and much more which could not have been known at the time it was revealed. I referred to some of Ben’s own discussions where Ben admitted as such but then fell short of accepting it was from the creator, instead preferring to believe in ‘I don’t know where it came from’

It is a shame that Ben can’t grasp the fact that this is a book from over 1400 years ago; by applying today’s standards Ben assumes it has nothing new in it. This is a very short sighted view, and wholly incorrect. Ben must understand it was not written yesterday, and as such Ben fails to appreciate the sheer magnitude of what we are actually dealing with here. What is known today was not known at the time of revelation, any attempts to say things were known at the time have been refuted and I will be willing to do so again – whether it is Greek medicine, or so called self fulfilling prophecies. I will crush the lies as I have done in the past

Consequently it is clear Ben is totally incapable of opening his mind to its miraculous nature. That’s his loss

I again ask the reader to go through the whole thread and decide if the arguments I offered were insufficient. In my opinion they were more then adequate in refuting the false views, and in fact pretty much crushed any opposing view in convincing style

You seem to think science and religion cannot co-exist, hence you propose one should look at the history of both and then pick one is the best. This is a flawed and incorrect way of thinking, and as someone who believes in a creator I would never attack science because everything has its place. The science with the how and the religion with the why. The history of religious influence which is not in accordance with the teachings of Islam is not my concern, and as such it has no bearing on the creator argument

You say the religious method has never provided verifiable truth about anything. From our discussion, the scientific method, whether it be abiogenesis or quantum mechanics – has not provided verifiable proof of anything either. This is illustrated by the fact that your own belief is ‘I don’t know’ as an agnostic. You admit you don’t know and are willing to accept this without a problem. I don’t see how the scientific method is superior in this regard

Darkio adopts a direct tone and aims to deal with all the issues in a full and concise manner. Darkio does not know how other religious people conduct there debates, and as such is not really concerned as to what method they employ. Darkio does not feel he has been aggressive, nor has he assaulted anyone in a belittling manner. Darkio has been fair throughout, and has always backed up his arguments, Darkio feels Ben is a little over sensitive and as such does not feel criticism from him is reasonable, bearing in mind the arrogant and rude tone Ben used on more than one occasion

If Darkio is a salesman then he is only as good as the stuff he's selling. It's glaringly obvious from this discussion that Darkio's milkshake is better than yours, damn right its better than yours. Darkio could teach you, but he'd have to charge

Darkio has examined all areas from philosophy to bio-chemistry, so he finds it odd that Ben asks him to examine them again. If Darkio had not examined and been well acquainted with these areas (and many more) then he would not have been able to engage in a discussion with Ben about the creator, and would not have been able to hand Ben the repeated brutal doses of ownage

Knowledge is key my friend, knowledge is key. Darkio only refuted knowledge with knowledge, he is not a magistrate who summarily convicts ideas because they do not fit in with his world view. Darkio has shown in this discussion that belief in a creator is a strong argument, and as such it is a all together more logical and rational belief to hold than Ben’s belief

Darkio asks the readers to read the whole discussion and reach their own conclusions

Darkio hopes Ben can accept this and does not let his ego get the better of him which would then result in more installments of ownification being dished out

Darkio would like to end with a favourtie quote of his which perfectly describes Ben and other self styled Islam experts and critics:

A poor player that struts and frets his hour
upon the stage and then is heard no more;
It is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
(Macbeth Act V, Scene 5)

HA HA HE HE HU HA

Quote the Raven, nevermore


I bid you farewell in the name of Allah, the lord of all creation.


THIS SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. EVER.