My friend,we all came here to enjoy and learn, to observe and witness, and to get rip down by evangelically atheistic sharks…Just kidding, off course each and every single mind here adds color to the discussion. without atheist, thiest and agnostics will going to have dull philosophical forums.
My friend,we all came here to enjoy and learn, to observe and witness, and to get rip down by evangelically atheistic sharks…Just kidding, off course each and every single mind here adds color to the discussion. without atheist, thiest and agnostics will going to have dull philosophical forums.
thanks ben…
scthyekain-
First, before I post, I’d like to apologize for appearing rude. I tend to argue very objectively, and to the point. I’m sorry for that.
who says god has to make “sense”.
I used the wrong word. It is logically impossible. I agree, God doesn’t have to make sense. But God cannot know the future and be surprised.
our bodies our finite, our mind is finite, only our spirit goes on.
You have not established this, nor do you have justification for assuming we even have a spirit, let alone that it exists.
I claim he can’t be surprised. he knows both decisions, and even prompts you to make the right one but you’ll still make the wrong decision, because you’ve programmed yourself to do so.
If you claim he can’t be surprised, it would follow that we do not have free will. Plain and simple. In addition, none of our choices are really, truly ours then. If I subtly influence someone’s decisions, without them knowing it, haven’t I controlled some aspect of their choices? Then, haven’t I limited their choices, or at least the likelihood that they will choose something? Then, are they really culpable for their actions? Then, why are they punished? By now you can see the problems associated with that line of thinking. More responsibility to God, less to us.
all god can do is prompt he can’t force you to do so.
He can’t? Then he is not omnipotent.
so don’t insult me or others here who have faith. I don’t call believing nothing foolishness.
I am sorry for that. As for me, it’s not that I believe in nothing (a common misconception from theists), it’s that I believe in something that does not include a God. There is a distinct difference.
your trying to goad me on, and get me to admit your right, right?
I am doing no such thing. I am simply trying to defend my beliefs, and posit the other side of the coin, same as you. I think that I am as right as you think you are.
he’s perfect because he’s infinite.
Whoa, back up. You stated that God can’t force someone to choose something, nor can he know everything (unless you abandon you arforementioned claim of free will). We have already established (actually, you did, and I conceded these for the purposes of our dicsussion) that God is neither omnipotent or omniscient. How, then, can he be both perfect and infinite?
If you answer N, N then you are an atheist who doesn’t care how life started.
Maybe, but that is not the only option. Another possiblity would include someone believing (as they should) that atheism could exist without evolution for the sole reason that there were atheists before evolution with the additional belief that something else besides God started our life here.
But, Aristotle’s theory of the Four Causes can enlighten us a bit here. Consider:
If I asked you why a fuel pump was in a car, and you answered “because someone put it here,” that doesn’t really answer the particular question I was asking, does it? If you answered, " because is regulates and distributes fuel in the correct ratio for an egine to run," you have answered what I wanted to know, without reference to who created it or put it there.
The first answer would be considered the triggering cause. The second answer would be considered the final (or purpose) cause. Maybe, the question we are asking (why are we here) should not be answered with who, or what, but why. I posit that knowing our purpose would be more beneificial than knowing who created us.
isn’t philosophy also about being open minded?
I am very open minded, but I require a bit more then you, it seems. Furthermore, you also seem to be somewhat set in your ways.
Next Post:
why would a random thought come up that says “do this instead” and then when you do it you are glad that you didn’t do what you usually do in that circumstance.
A certain randomness of options can appear anywhere. Do you claim that EVERY single invention or new idea was God’s and not ours? Why do we claim these people as smart, then? Isn’t Einstein merely a lucky man who was in the right place at the right time when God shot a couple of Universe changing ideas into his head? Again, disregarding all I have just said about this, I ask you, why do you assume it is God? Why? Not Buddha? Not Shiva? Not Gen. Robert E. Lee? What do you base your decision about this on? I base mine on randomness and patterns of thought. What’s your answer?
that’s fantastic for you, but I don’t think you could prove that, not with how much order is in the world.
That is called the argument from design, as I am sure you know. If you consider order to be indicative of an intelligent designer, the spiders spinning webs around the world would be glad to hear that. If you incorporate design as part of your argument, you allow crazy, far out explanations to be just as likely as God. I’ll elaborate further if you wish, but I am sure you can think of some crazy ones yourself.
if god doesnt exist, everything is permitted. evolution doesnt have to be necessary but it seems most probable.
i have nothing to say that hasnt been said but i thought id post this bit of trivia here.
Most atheists and agnostics believe in evolution, yes…most educated people do, including just about all scientists. But the question was whether atheism needs evolution, and the answer is no. Even if Darwin’s theory were proven wrong, that says nothing about whether or not a supreme being exists.
Yes, like an honest scientist Darwin noted the possible counter-arguments to his theory. I wish the creationists would follow his example. Of course, this argument has less weight today, after the enormous successes of paleontology.
First, I don’t see how you could conclude that I believe nothing created the universe. I said nothing of the sort. It just so happens that I have no freakin clue how the universe got here, and neither do you.
Second, I understand that you find certain ideas distasteful. That’s hardly relevant.
No the theory of origins does give an account of the physical mechanism that was used to produce life. Or at least it tries to…and that makes all the difference. You see to say, “God did it” is to say, “this subject is closed to scientific inquiry.” This, of course, is what religion has said about many topics in the history of modern science. But some of us are just too damn curious to take “no tresspassing” for an answer. Thus we now know that the earth is round, that laws govern the motion of objects, that we are not the center of the universe, and yes, sorry, we know that we evolved.
…which is exactly why he (or she or it) is irrelevant to the question of origins.
Um…not to be rude, but just how many books have you read on evolutionary theory? (and I’m talking about books BY evolutionary theorists)
Ahem. I for one have never heard of anyone being burned at the stake in the name of David Hume.
I think that instead of killing himself, LostGuy is going to wake up one morning and decide to become a pragmatist. Kind of like a certain fat Scotsman who long ago wrote:
thank you for answering the question, though I think you meant to italicize educated.
well damn neither have I. but that doesn’t mean you won’t try to make someone who believes in god look like an uneducated punk.
and besides that the witch burnings were an isolated incident that happened nearly 350 years ago, based on the misinterpretation of the bible. clearly you don’t think that one religious group represents all?
ok lets say that incest wasn’t a necessary factor to drive evolution of a species that beyond astronomical odds two seperate parents had a child with the same “mutant” attributes and they were able to mate and have children. the odds of this are so astronomical it makes it extremely unlikely, especially with the current punctuated equilibrium theory.
odds against god infinite.
odds against evolution of man happening by random chance astronomically high in the 4.7 billion year time frame given.
so evolutionists choose the easy path… evolution is more likely but not much.
(seriously statistically speaking the chances of man evolving from a single cell organism with the complexity involved? have you even pondered that?)
with how defensive your acting about the whole matter though one would think you are holding closely to evolution. seriously there are some questions about paleontology. It’s like Cruxmafia, I brought to him proof of similiarities of mormonism to Islam, the first thing he does is call me uneducated. if I go to the source (Islam sites, paleontology sites) do you think they will call questionable things within to question? esp with paleontology it has become the poster child for anti-religion, and is bordering on psuedo science like quantum mechanics. (and like religious creationism)
Well I can’t speak for every philosophy program. But in mine we are asked to question every philospher at every turn.
What I came here to show you was that Atheisim does not in principle rely on Evolution. I think I did that. One could think, frex, the world is made of four elements that have always existed that comine into different things motivated by a force that never existed.
If I have somehow completely missed the point of this tread please help me.
Oh and I’d like to suggest that when you lose yourself of your preconceptions that’s when the fun really starts. It’s not depressing not to believe nothing, its exiteing.
I would put this P.S. on my original post, but I didn’t know if anyone would notice it.
All squabbles aside, the original question was “can life come from nothing?”
I am starting to think this question might not even lead us in the right direction. Just come out and ask if God created us. The reason I think that is this: Whether you believe that matter can be created ex nihilo has nothing to do with God. I can believe that matter comes ex nihilo while believing in God, or not. In addition, I can believe that all life has to have a cause, and believe in God, or not.
If you believ that life can’t from nothing, where does God create his matter from? Nothing? Haven’t we just undermined our entire argument, having to assume that matter can’t from nothing, but God created us from nothing? Do you see how faulty that seems?
Wouldn’t it be contrary to reason to claim that matter can’t be created ex nihilo and then simply add on “except for God?”
I am going to say this again, mostly for myself, so I can see it written out once more. Whether or not God created the world has nothing to with our question of matter being created ex nihilo, because God would need matter to start off with as well (unless we ad hoc some stuff in)
Sincerely,
Floyd
scythekain, I have no idea whether or not you are educated–although if you are going to critique evolutionary theory, it would help if you understood more about it. I would recommend you start with “Can a Darwinian be a Christian?” by Michael Ruse (his answer is yes by the way).
As for your being a punk…I wouldn’t say that…just an easily offended Christian. And as a former easily-offended Christian I sympathize.
They were far from isolated, and they weren’t just witches. Martin Luther, for instance, thought he would avenge the death of Christ by killing Jews.
Of course, I fully understand that Christians have moved beyond burning people at the stake. These days smart bombs seem to be the Christian weapon of choice.
Most mutations don’t preclude reproducing with other members of a species. That’s a fundamental concept of evolutionary theory–which you’d know if you knew enough about it to criticize it.
Well even an astronomically high number is finite, and if the odds against special creation are infinitely high (though I’m not entirely sure how you could talk meaningfully about the odds of a hypothetical being doing anything), they are infinitely higher than the odds against evolution.
And yes, it is much easier to believe something when it has a higher likelihood of being true. You’re saying that’s a bad thing?
Yes, I’ve pondered it quite a bit. Of course, if you look only at the cumulative picture, the odds are high. The odds against India colliding with Asia to form the Himalayas were probably pretty high too. But the odds of each individual step along the path to what we see today were much lower. If you could trace each step, you would see how the whole thing happened. The mutations that eventually led to the emergence of humans were very possible individually. If you add up all the factors over 4 billion years, the odds do snowball. But if evolution hadn’t happened the way it did, it would’ve happened some other equally improbable way. In fact, anything we observe in the world could be construed as astronomically improbable, given all the other things that could have happened instead.
So are you saying you don’t believe in the Himalayas either?
Yes…I’ve read more than my share of creationist questions. My experience has been that the objections to the fossil record either rest on dubious premises or they only pertain to minor aspects of evolutionary theory, not the whole thing.
…which is exactly what I didn’t do, if you read what I actually wrote. I also didn’t preface my comments with “OMG!!!”, so it’s hardly a fair comparison.
Well…that’s what a scientist is supposed to do, yes–rigorously examine her assumptions (although I think Muslims are supposed to rigorously avoid doing that). As you pointed out, that’s exactly what Darwin did, and I think that if you read other books on evolution you would find that he is not alone in self-criticism.
I know generally where you’re getting your misinformation on paleontology, but who in god’s green earth told you qm was pseudo science?
Oh…and about my being defensive…you should’ve seen me when I was a Christian!
good point pfloyd.
the whole problem with god is the literal interpretation of the bible. (or whatever holy book the religious zealot happens to be using.)
believe me I know how hard it is to believe in god, I struggle with why I do everyday.
some fun:
godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm
(example below)
NUMBER OF PEOPLE (MEN) IN HEAVEN, SEX WITH WOMEN IS DEFILING (MALE VIRGINITY) - Revelation 14:3-4
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure.
so according to this NO christian is going to get into heaven.
do you know the definition of species? a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. nothing to do with being related. hence strictly speaking horses and donkeys are different species because, although they can be bred the offspring, mule/ass, is not fertile.
scythekain-
These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure.
The number of men in heaven depends on the Bible’s definition of ‘defile.’
Sincerely,
Floyd
floyd good points
logo
didn’t know that about luther,
the whole of the evolutionary theory is certainly not as questionable as “creation science” would make you believe. (or should I say WANT to )
comparison to cruxmaifa, i apologize you are correct. LOL.
QM is very hard to grasp atm, maybe when I flip, I’ll understand it better.
thank you for the condolences.
being_gabriel
thank you for correcting me
[b]pfloyd[b]
in this case it was talking about sexual contact of any kind with woman, and in as such I think the early christian apostles believed in self castration to prevent this from happening.
scythekain-
in this case it was talking about sexual contact of any kind with woman, and in as such I think the early christian apostles believed in self castration to prevent this from happening.
I am not trying to be difficult, but how do you know what defile meant? Was it defined in the surrounding verses or something?
yes it was here:
quote from biblegateway.com
so what have we learned:
#1 only male virgins are allowed in heaven.
#2 they are “following the lamb” (castration) by doing this.
christ promoting eunuchs.
matt 19:12For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.
this is in relation to the apostles asking him about marriage and the apostles questioning wether marriage is ok. christ says it is ok, but not as good a thing as abstaining from sex and making yourself a eunuch.
scythekain-
Strike 381,293 for the Bible, and one of many reasons for me to conclude that Jesus was neither was most humane, nor the smartest of men.
Sincerely,
Floyd
yes I am coming to that realization as well.
scythekain wrote:
Perhaps my friend but you only made some few flips. The bible deserves more before we refute it, and the apocalypse/revelation is not the only prophecy chucks in bible.
Gentlemen there two sets of resurrection
#1 the 144’s who will be dwelling with gods in heaven.
#2 the big flock of sheep that will occupy the paradise.
Some few reference to make it short…there’s more I suppose.
Resurrection
Revelation 20:6
1 Corinthians 15: 20,23
John 5:29
1 Corinthians 15:35,44
paradise
Psalms 72:16;67:6
Psalms 46:8,9, 37:9-11
this site truly embrace varieties and richness of human thought and knowledge.
well I’ve also heard that christ wouldnt’ teach self mutilation because then he wouldn’t be allowed in the temple.
a few flips through the bible truly does reveal some interesting things as you put it.
christ taught self mutilation as a way to avoid hell, the castration parts I think were removed, as it was shown in timothy when they followed the lord and left their families behind, it was disastrous. “it would be better if these men were never born” some christian god 
I think the new and old testament show us that we shouldn’t not follow the words of men literally.
Matthew 5
29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
“resurrection”
I currently think is a fairy tale to support christ.
(nothing against those that believe in that though, I also think christ is a way to make you try to be perfect.)
think about this though. If christ was really god, and god came down and told you how to live, is he not like a parent trying to tell us how to live, but lives across the country? says he cares about us, but doesn’t show his face to us? just talks to us on the phone as it were (praying) which some people never get a hold of him just get a busy signal.
“paradise”
they thought this would be the garden of eve restored, and they thought it would happen well before christ came down. they also didn’t believe in hell, just “death”“grave” known as Sheol.
I agree with your last statement completely. I come here to try and push my beliefs. (not onto others, people are free to believe how they wish.)
Can Atheism exist without Evolution? Sure
Solipsism doesn’t require anything but a mind, your own, and then goes on to explain all reality as existing in said mind. Didn’t need God nor Darwin for that.
Can Atheism exist without the belief that God does not exist?
No, the belief is predicated on a negation. No negation, no belief.
Do Agnostics need evolution for any damn thing?
Nope, not really.
You could say either god Exists or he does not
If he does not, then how did we arrive here?
Either God Exists or we evolved (most common)
Either god Exists or we descended from Aliens. (not evolved mind you).
Either God exists and can be known, or we are here as the result of some unknowable X that is not god (as God can be known).
Either god exists and may or may not be known or we are here as a result of some X that may or may not be known at some point. Everyday that goes by, the more I like this one. It doesn’t assume much, it keeps hope alive (so to speak) and I can’t refute it myself (not that someone else can’t… but I can’t)