The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to back that up? What fact backs up that there is a designer? What fact do you have to show that we were designed?
cs wrote: "if something has been designed you call the one who designed it a designer, fact."Do you not realize that you're assuming that we've been designed or are you avoiding the question?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "if something has been designed you call the one who designed it a designer, fact."Do you not realize that you're assuming that we've been designed or are you avoiding the question?"
....and you, I guess are assuming we have not.
cs wrote: "Then why are you in the minority?"I'm not even sure what this is intended to mean. Are you arguing that the popularity of an assumption automatically makes it correct? Or have you just run out of answers and so you're lashing out at me?
I'm not assuming that we haven't been designed, I know that we weren't, but then I actually understand the theory of evolution and how it works,and how we are the result of millions of years of slow change.
Hazel wrote: "I'm not assuming that we haven't been designed, I know that we weren't, but then I actually understand the theory of evolution and how it works,and how we are the result of millions of years of slo..."The thing that makes me sad here is that evolution is one of the most elegant concepts ever put forth. It's scary and horrifying and beautiful and rational and awe-inspiritng and amazing and with all of that, it still manages to be true. But some people will never take the time to really understand it because it threatens the palace of their imagined-wisdom.
Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to back that up? What fact ba..."What is the other option; The complexity of the human personality emerged from nothing? How do you prove that one?
cs wrote: "....and you, I guess are assuming we have not. "Do you really think that accepting facts based on staggering amounts of evidence (no design) is the same as just picking something because you'd like it to be true and then acting as if it is (design)?
cs wrote: "....and you, I guess are assuming we have not."I notice that you dodged the question by trying to turn it around, though. Question-Dodge Fail.
Hazel wrote: "I'm not assuming that we haven't been designed, I know that we weren't, but then I actually understand the theory of evolution and how it works,and how we are the result of millions of years of slo..."The THEORY of evolution, and how did that ball start rolling? I think the jury are still out on that one.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Then why are you in the minority?"I'm not even sure what this is intended to mean. Are you arguing that the popularity of an assumption automatically makes it correct? Or have you jus..."
84% of the worlds population have a religion.
It is not always what is correct it is what is perceived to be correct. Even if you were right you are still in the minority.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to back that up..."Well, you see, first we evolved into apes, and then we evolved into upright apes, and that freed our hands up, and we followed the path of intelligence in our evolutionary development, and thus after about 8 millions years since coming down from the trees we come to where we are now, and in a couple of million years, no doubt we will be completely different. This is a quick caption review. If you want to really understand, I recommend reading Evolution: The Human Story by Dr Alice Roberts.
You see, the actual explanation would take me the next few hours to write, and seeing as I'm reasonably sure you won't read it, I'm not wasting my time. But essentially the human personality didn't come from nothing it came from the building blocks that our ape ancestors already had in place.
cs wrote: "The THEORY of evolution, and how did that ball start rolling? I think the jury are still out on that one. "To quote a classic movie: "That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Science acknowledges that all knowledge is provisional. When something is called a "theory" in science, it doesn't mean what you think. It means that it has been rigorously tested countless times and still comes out to be true. It means that no evidence contradicts it while still leaving open the possibility that new evidence could emerge. So that you understand, Gravity is a scientific "Theory," that the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific "Theory". So when you argue that it's "just a theory", you are actually arguing that gravity is just a rumor and that the earth may indeed be flat and motionless.
But I'll assume that you're actually asking your question in a spirit of genuine curiousity. The answer is that evidence kept pointing to it. No matter how much people didn't want it to be true (and they didn't), the evidence kept stacking up. The more evidence was gathered, the more it confirmed it. We've now been gathering evidence on this for 150 years and EVERY piece of evidence gathered confirms it and NONE contradicts it.
In any room of informed people, arguing against evolution is a little like charging in wearing a tinfoil hat and claiming that the aliens are listening to your thoughts.
If you really want to suggest that what you want to be true is true, it's much more effective to take on virtually any other point as almost everything in life is less well proven than evolution.
cs wrote: "The THEORY of evolution, and how did that ball start rolling? I think the jury are still out on that one. "Oh dear, cs, is this the "its only a theory argument. Ok, let me explain. evolution is a scientific fact that is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection. the theory itself is a scientific theory, thus the scietific defintion of the word theory applies, which is as follows:
a collection of hypotheses and observations supported by a large amount of evidence and data, that is used to create further hypotheses to further test the theory.
Why is it that no-one says its just a theory over gravity, when we have more evidence for evolution than we have for how gravity works?
How did the ball start rolling. Well first, the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life, it does not explain the beginning of the universe, it explains the gradual change over time of living organisms.
If you want to know how the ball got rolling, ask chemists and physicists.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to b..."Dr Alice Roberts, yes I watch all her programmes. I have even got sky plus set up for her new one this week.
I also agree with what you have written. But why did you start with 'first we evolved into apes'? Start from the very beginning.... Once upon a time there was nothing..
daniels explanation is much better than mine.
cs wrote: "It is not always what is correct it is what is perceived to be correct. Even if you were right you are still in the minority. "The validity of your data notwithstanding, your position is that the truth is irrelevant? The only factor that matters is whether enough people make-believe some other answer?
why did I start from evolving into apes first, as thats as good a place to start as any. Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. And to be honest that phrase, first we evolved into apes, can be said to encapsulate the 4 billion years of evolution that came before we reached ape point. By asking me to "start from the beginning"you are asking for a full explanation of how the world is as it is, not why humans have developed the way they have. I answered the question of why humans developed the way they did, we don't need to know how abiogenisis happened for that
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "The THEORY of evolution, and how did that ball start rolling? I think the jury are still out on that one. "Oh dear, cs, is this the "its only a theory argument. Ok, let me explain. evo..."
You should know being a 'philosopher' of sorts that just because you toss a stone into the air one should not assume that it has to fall to the ground.
You keep claiming I'm a philosopher, I'm not, I ask for evidence, philosophy works on concepts and ideas, not evidence.If you throw something up, it comes down, yes. I know that, I can observe it, does that mean that the theory that explains gravity is correct? That just shows that something makes it fall, not that its gravity as postulated by physicists.
You still haven't explained your facts for there being a designer, or for us being designed. Once again, you're using the tactic of avoiding answering the questions put to you.
cs wrote: "You should know being a 'philosopher' of sorts that just because you toss a stone into the air one should not assume that it has to fall to the ground. "That's true. It does not necessarily "have to" fall to the ground. But it's also true that you don't then assume that it will certainly fly up just because it could fall up. You still operate on the assumption that it will fall unless/until there is evidence to suggest that what will happen to the stone is in question.
sorry, I misread what cs put about throwing stones. But Daniel has dealt with it better than I could, so I don't feel the need to address it as well.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "....and you, I guess are assuming we have not."I notice that you dodged the question by trying to turn it around, though. Question-Dodge Fail."
No I did not dodge the question but it can apply to both sides and if you are asking me to answer it then I would assume that you also have an answer.
you have dodged a few questions cs, can you answer message number 112 please. You still haven't addressed it, as you dodged it.
Hazel wrote: "You keep claiming I'm a philosopher, I'm not, I ask for evidence, philosophy works on concepts and ideas, not evidence.If you throw something up, it comes down, yes. I know that, I can observe it..."
In simple terms I agree with, I guess 99 plus % of what you are saying right back to how biological life may have come from inorganic matter through natural processes. So what are these natural processes? However far back you want to go you will then reach a dead end because you are unable to explain (not the meaning of life) but how it all started. This is where I insert 'the creator, the designer'. And since you are not able to at least suggest an alternative answer or even a possible theory then I am happy to stick with the creator.
Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to back that up? What fact ba..."It is a concept that we can imagine similar to the concept of 'true love. Because we can have this concept we can believe in it.
There will never be evidence of the kind you are looking for unless the creator shows themself to us because you will always question evidence.
If I was to introduce you to someone who has seen god you would not take that as evidence. If I ask you to prove to me that Henry the Eighth existed, as I asked Daniel, you would rely on historical knowledge to do this. So in the same way I would rely on historical knowledge to prove to you that Jesus also existed and he was who he said he was.
Hazel wrote: "you have dodged a few questions cs, can you answer message number 112 please. You still haven't addressed it, as you dodged it."ok see above
cs wrote: "I am happy to stick with the creator"And that's fine, but let us not pretend you have any basis for choosing to imagine that the random thing you've chosen to say is true comes with any basis for it.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a rival to "god" it is an illustrative point to the ridiculous claims of religion, not a contender deity, it's a joke.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to back that up..."the difference between henry 8th and jesus is that jesus is only mentioned in one text, a non-historical text, with anonymous authors, which has been demonstrated to be wrong on many counts of historical accuracy. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus's life, there are no contemporary claims of his existence, or of his divinity. There are records of his divinity being voted on in 325AD, and there is more than one account of that meeting, and the authors of those accounts have names that have been confirmed. SO, we know that there are no records of the jesus mentioned in the bible, there are no accounts of his doings outside of the bible, but we know there were historians in biblical times, so anyone pulling tricks like walking on water, rising from the dead and healing lepers would be the sort of thing that would get recorded by the historians at the time, and by the romans, who were in charge at the time. Yet no account has been found, no roman records have been found, physcial evidence relating to places talked of in the bible has been shown to be inaccurate at best, downright false at worst.
However, with Henry VIII, we have contemporary accounts, written by known and confirmed authors, there are paintings of him that can be confirmed to be painted at the time they're claimed to be painted, of Henry VIII, we have his burial site, and his remains, we have political records as well as historical ones, we have contemporary artifacts, such as clothing and armour, used by him, documents still exist that were written and signed by Henry XIII.
You see, in order to accept something as likely to have existed, we need large amounts of evidence from many different sources. There is only one source that talks about Jesus. There are hundreds of sources of evidence for Henry VIII, and together they make it reasonable to accept that Henry VIII existed. The same cannot be said for Jesus.
To be frank, your argument is taking the same bent as holocaust deniers. It is the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence that leads me to accept that Henry VIII existed, and the same reasons that lead me to reject the idea that the jesus of the bible existed.
Shanna wrote: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a rival to "god" it is an illustrative point to the ridiculous claims of religion, not a contender deity, it's a joke."I know it appears in many atheists handbooks.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts have you got to b..."holocaust deniers. That is below the belt.
You need to prove that there is little proof of Jesus in order for you to remain firm in your belief.
The Christian population will disagree with you. But as you say 'It is the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence', and that is subjective.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I am happy to stick with the creator"And that's fine, but let us not pretend you have any basis for choosing to imagine that the random thing you've chosen to say is true comes with an..."
........ belief is the basis, or call it Intuition if you like, or has that got no place in your thinking either.
cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a rival to "god" it is an illustrative point to the ridiculous claims of religion, not a contender deity, it's a joke."I know it appears in ma..."
yes, as an illustrative point. Atheists no more give credence to the FSM as any other deity.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, maybe I should have been clearer, its the (which we have) thats being addressed here. You claim we have a design and a designer, so, what facts hav..."no, the amount of evidence and quality of evidence is not subjective, its whats agreed upon by academics and scholars, including, I hasten to add, biblical scholars. Research into types of evidence has been carried out to show how useful it actually is.
You keep trying to bring this back to personal interpretation and opinion on a subjective level. And while in some respects both these play a part, I try to keep both my personal interpretation and my opinion informed by the facts and the evidence, and to remain as objective as I possibly can.
cs wrote: "However far back you want to go you will then reach a dead end because you are unable to explain (not the meaning of life) but how it all started. This is where I insert 'the creator, the designer'. And since you are not able to at least suggest an alternative answer or even a possible theory then I am happy to stick with the creator. "ah, just noticed this,. So we're back to the god of the gaps. Those gaps are getting smaller. We've covered this before.
the thing is, the same can be said for the god hypothesis, you can only go so far back before you reach a dead end that you cannot explain using god, as we can simply ask, well who created god?
By the way, I did link you to a lecture that explained how we can get something from nothing, without the need for a creator, but I suspect you ignored it.
cs wrote: "In simple terms I agree with, I guess 99 plus % of what you are saying right back to how biological life may have come from inorganic matter through natural processes. So what are these natural processes? However far back you want to go you will then reach a dead end because you are unable to explain (not the meaning of life) but how it all started. This is where I insert 'the creator, the designer'. And since you are not able to at least suggest an alternative answer or even a possible theory then I am happy to stick with the creator. "Again we are back to god of the gaps (incidentally a gap that has already been filled Abiogenesis, google it I believe Hazel has explained this already to you)... And again you make a claim for the "creator/designer's" existence... care to back the claim up, or is this one of those claims that's not a claim by some word twisting?
But first let me explain how you make a claim. You say you insert a creator to explain, you are claiming something exists if you perform an action with it, in this case you perform to actions based on the presupposition of existence you express your belief and use it to explain reality, you must needs be claiming for existence of god
cs wrote: "Because we can have this concept we can believe in it. " This is an argument for why people believe it, not an argument for it being true. People CAN believe in anything but that doesn't make it true. In fact, it doesn't say anything one way or the other about it's truth.
There will never be evidence of the kind you are looking for unless the creator shows themself to us because you will always question evidence.
Objectively false. Many times evidence was directly contrary to what people wanted to be true and yet, repeatedly, honest minds have changed when confronted with actual evidence. Examples include (but are nowhere near limited to) The Round Earth, Evolution, Relativity, and virtually everything Galileo and Copernicus said.
If I was to introduce you to someone who has seen god you would not take that as evidence. If I ask you to prove to me that Henry the Eighth existed, as I asked Daniel, you would rely on historical knowledge to do this. So in the same way I would rely on historical knowledge to prove to you that Jesus also existed and he was who he said he was.
You understand that these examples have almost nothing in common, right? The evidence around Henry VIII's existence is bountiful and comes from people who hated him and would love to have wiped his name from history. It's not the same as someone (or a group of people) writing a book that claims to be proof of itself.
cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "belief is the basis"Belief is basis of belief?
cs wrote: "I know it appears in many atheists handbooks"What are you talking about? There's a handbook for atheism? Many of them?
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You need to prove that there is little proof of Jesus in order for you to remain firm in your belief."Okay, now I'm convinced that you know what you're saying is ridiculous. Not having much evidence of jesus is an objective fact, not a belief.
cs wrote: "HYou need to prove that there is little proof of Jesus in order for you to remain firm in your belief. The Christian population will disagree with you."
So, which parts of Hazel's summation of the available evidence do you dispute? Where is the evidence for Jesus that you have that she has not taken into account?
If you are taking the Bible as sufficient evidence, does that mean you also believe in satyrs and unicorns, as they both appear in the King James Bible.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "However far back you want to go you will then reach a dead end because you are unable to explain (not the meaning of life) but how it all started. This is where I insert 'the creator, th..."By the way, I did link you to a lecture that explained how we can get something from nothing, without the need for a creator, but I suspect you ignored it.
I thought you did not like links or quotes? I could provide you with lots of links. And as I pointed out previously, rather than something from nothing Hawkings theory is that there has always been something.
Taking both these examples further; 'something from nothing' this of course is only a theory, an idea with no more evidence than for the creator.
'There has always been something', of course Hawking is not referring to god, but that could answer the question who created god.
cs, it wasn't a quote, and I have no problem with links, you've just made that up yourself. The link was to a lecture by a well known and respected physicist. He can explain better than me, hence linking to his lecture. I still suspect you ignored it, and that you're avoiding admitting this by trying to turn the point around to attack me.If you'd watched the lecture, you'd know that your assertion that it is no more than an idea with no evidence is incorrect, you'd know that it was a theory with lots of supporting evidence, and if you were really reading our replies, you'd stop using the term theory to mean "just an idea".
cs wrote: "There has always been something', of course Hawking is not referring to god, but that could answer the question who created god. "
ok, so who or what created whatever created god?
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "In simple terms I agree with, I guess 99 plus % of what you are saying right back to how biological life may have come from inorganic matter through natural processes. So what are these ..."Abiogenesis
Already covered this. But you can explain where or how 'inorganic matter' got here, if you like.
But first let me explain how you make a claim. You say you insert a creator to explain, you are claiming something exists if you perform an action with it, in this case you perform to actions based on the presupposition of existence you express your belief and use it to explain reality, you must needs be claiming for existence of god
If I understand you correctly, then I agree. I am claiming the existence of a god and I do not have the sort of proof that would convince you.
But let me reverse things for a moment. God or no God? You go with no god, ok. Do you have your OWN theory if you rule out a creator.
Do you have your OWN theory if you rule out a creator. no, we remain intellectually honest with the answer "we don't know". And one day, we will work it out, and until then, we reserve belief until evidence is presented. Its the only rational thing to do. Rather than to dishonestly fill the gap with a supernatural deity for which we have no proof.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "There has always been something', of course Hawking is not referring to god, but that could answer the question who created god. "
ok, so who or what created whatever created god?"
You have missed the point.
Hawking says, there has always been something. So that covers the question ' what was before the big bang'
My point is this, taking Hawking's theory then why should that 'something' not be god.
That something Hawking's is talking about (and I won't go into detail) has always been there so it did not come from any where and did not need anything to make it.
why shouldn't that something not be god? No reason really, as long as you can prove it. Otherwise why could't that something be an alien lifeform? Or a rug? Or a dog? or a large tetrahedron?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Victor: A Novel Based on the Life of the Savage of Aveyron (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
You do seem to willfully misunderstand things. Are you intentionally forming straw-man arguments ou..."
Then why are you in the minority?