Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Nah…A perfect God is a possibility.

All anyone has is a hope that there is or isn’t a perfect God.

Then again, it's theoretically possible for a chick to spontaneously appear through a freak conflagration of atoms in space. However, the probabilities are very, very low.

[EricPH]

If there is no God, then we are all created by evolution and natural forces,

How did the knee joint evolve without help from God? There are four ligaments, four muscles and eight tendons. How can a muscle evolve over a thousand generations and confer an advantage over every step? If the muscle is not attached at both ends; it serves no purpose. This would be a useless advantage on its own; unless another muscle evolved in opposition to return the bones. If the bones are not anchored by ligaments, the muscles would not work.

The muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones would serve no advantage if sensors like the eyes could not direct them. The eyes would serve no purpose if the optical nerves did not pass the information to the brain. The brain would be useless if it did not pass on information to the limbs. How could random mutation first confer all these advantages together; for natural selection to work on?

The skeletal system is far more complex than rocket science. We can send rockets to Mars, but our attempts to make a mechanical replica of ourselves is lacking. Any real improvements in robotic engineering will be made by intelligent design.

If evolution happened in the way science suggests today, it could only happen if God directed it.

[Jacob10]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

[Sy Borg]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

I don't think God exists outside of the subjective and I find that disappointing, so your claim is simply wrong. The debate is not only alive, but there have been zero convincing arguments for the existence of God. One would think that people who actually did believe - as opposed to just being a loyal soldier of the church - would not come up with "gotchas" but would be able to argue persuasively. I am still yet to see a single strong point put forward by eminent theologians.

Not only was I once disappointed to find that Santa was not real, I was later saddened to realise that God was almost certainly just one more ancient myth. Do you remember how disappointing it was to find no life on the Moon, and then Mars. And that if there is any life in the solar system, it's most likely locked under forbiddingly thick layers of ice?

I had also hoped that it would be feasible to travel at faster than light, which would make interstellar travel possible, but no. It's disappointing that humans can only drill 12km down into the Earth and can only infer the goings on underneath through other technologies. I imagined a world that became increasingly democratic, educated and ethical and that little vision sure turned into a blob of faeces.

The most likely situation is that we will all die, snuffed out for good, with everything we have learned beforehand lost to entropy. The idea that God is waiting for us on the other side is based on near death experiences, yet Muslims don't meet Jesus, they meet Allah. This tells us that God and Allah are subjective phenomena, like vampires and friendly spirits - that do not exist in measurable physical reality.

[LuckyR]

If there is no God, then we are all created by evolution and natural forces,

How did the knee joint evolve without help from God? There are four ligaments, four muscles and eight tendons. How can a muscle evolve over a thousand generations and confer an advantage over every step? If the muscle is not attached at both ends; it serves no purpose. This would be a useless advantage on its own; unless another muscle evolved in opposition to return the bones. If the bones are not anchored by ligaments, the muscles would not work.

The muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones would serve no advantage if sensors like the eyes could not direct them. The eyes would serve no purpose if the optical nerves did not pass the information to the brain. The brain would be useless if it did not pass on information to the limbs. How could random mutation first confer all these advantages together; for natural selection to work on?

The skeletal system is far more complex than rocket science. We can send rockets to Mars, but our attempts to make a mechanical replica of ourselves is lacking. Any real improvements in robotic engineering will be made by intelligent design.

If evolution happened in the way science suggests today, it could only happen if God directed it.

What-aboutism isn't an argument for an idea, it is a rearguard defense against an idea.

[LuckyR]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

Wrong question. Metaphysical entities cannot be proven nor disproven, thus pointing out that gods aren't disproven (though true), is meaningless.

[EricPH]

What-aboutism isn't an argument for an idea, it is a rearguard defense against an idea.

I see it as an argument for intelligent design, and this needs a designer.

If there is no God, then we are all created by evolution and natural forces,

How did the knee joint evolve without help from God? There are four ligaments, four muscles and eight tendons. How can a muscle evolve over a thousand generations and confer an advantage over every step? If the muscle is not attached at both ends; it serves no purpose. This would be a useless advantage on its own; unless another muscle evolved in opposition to return the bones. If the bones are not anchored by ligaments, the muscles would not work.

The muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones would serve no advantage if sensors like the eyes could not direct them. The eyes would serve no purpose if the optical nerves did not pass the information to the brain. The brain would be useless if it did not pass on information to the limbs. How could random mutation first confer all these advantages together; for natural selection to work on?

The skeletal system is far more complex than rocket science. We can send rockets to Mars, but our attempts to make a mechanical replica of ourselves is lacking. Any real improvements in robotic engineering will be made by intelligent design.

If evolution happened in the way science suggests today, it could only happen if God directed it.

If unguided mutations and natural selection could explain every path from single cell life to the life we see today, there must be a logical explanation for the above.

[Count Lucanor]

If there is no God, then we are all created by evolution and natural forces,

If evolution happened in the way science suggests today, it could only happen if God directed it.

If "God" arranged things so that they "work", what or who arranged things for God's intelligence, will and power to work?

[Jacob10]

I repeat, as no one can prove definitively whether there is or isn’t a God then all anyone do is hope that there is or isn’t a God.

Sound philosophy.

[Jacob10]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

Wrong question. Metaphysical entities cannot be proven nor disproven, thus pointing out that gods aren't disproven (though true), is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless at all …a god might exist and as you can’t prove that one doesn’t exist then all you can do is hope that a God doesn’t exist.I therefore refer you back to my first statement which is sound philosophy.

[Jacob10]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

I don't think God exists outside of the subjective and I find that disappointing, so your claim is simply wrong. The debate is not only alive, but there have been zero convincing arguments for the existence of God. One would think that people who actually did believe - as opposed to just being a loyal soldier of the church - would not come up with "gotchas" but would be able to argue persuasively. I am still yet to see a single strong point put forward by eminent theologians.

Not only was I once disappointed to find that Santa was not real, I was later saddened to realise that God was almost certainly just one more ancient myth. Do you remember how disappointing it was to find no life on the Moon, and then Mars. And that if there is any life in the solar system, it's most likely locked under forbiddingly thick layers of ice?



I had also hoped that it would be feasible to travel at faster than light, which would make interstellar travel possible, but no. It's disappointing that humans can only drill 12km down into the Earth and can only infer the goings on underneath through other technologies. I imagined a world that became increasingly democratic, educated and ethical and that little vision sure turned into a blob of faeces.

The most likely situation is that we will all die, snuffed out for good, with everything we have learned beforehand lost to entropy. The idea that God is waiting for us on the other side is based on near death experiences, yet Muslims don't meet Jesus, they meet Allah. This tells us that God and Allah are subjective phenomena, like vampires and friendly spirits - that do not exist in measurable physical reality.

You have a choice to hope god exists or doesn’t exist.If he exists and you hope and acknowledge that he exists then I’m convinced that is better than hoping that he doesn’t exist.

[Sy Borg]

Well,it’s simple, as you cannot definitively prove that God doesn’t exist then all you can do is HOPE that God is an Impossibility.

Debate over.

I don't think God exists outside of the subjective and I find that disappointing, so your claim is simply wrong. The debate is not only alive, but there have been zero convincing arguments for the existence of God. One would think that people who actually did believe - as opposed to just being a loyal soldier of the church - would not come up with "gotchas" but would be able to argue persuasively. I am still yet to see a single strong point put forward by eminent theologians.

Not only was I once disappointed to find that Santa was not real, I was later saddened to realise that God was almost certainly just one more ancient myth. Do you remember how disappointing it was to find no life on the Moon, and then Mars? And that if there is any life in the solar system, it's most likely locked under forbiddingly thick layers of ice?

I had also hoped that it would be feasible to travel at faster than light, which would make interstellar travel possible, but no. It's disappointing that humans can only drill 12km down into the Earth and can only infer the goings on underneath through other technologies. I imagined a world that became increasingly democratic, educated and ethical and that little vision sure turned into a blob of faeces.

The most likely situation is that we will all die, snuffed out for good, with everything we have learned beforehand lost to entropy. The idea that God is waiting for us on the other side is based on near death experiences, yet Muslims don't meet Jesus, they meet Allah. This tells us that God and Allah are subjective phenomena, like vampires and friendly spirits - that do not exist in measurable physical reality.

You have a choice to hope god exists or doesn’t exist.If he exists and you hope and acknowledge that he exists then I’m convinced that is better than hoping that he doesn’t exist.

It doesn't matter, though, because Pascal's wager is transparent to aware humans, so we can assume that omniscient-ish deities won't be fooled by simian trickery. We believe what we believe, not from choice - that's just pretending to believe - but simply because we find a circumstance or argument to be convincing.

[EricPH]

If "God" arranged things so that they "work", what or who arranged things for God's intelligence, will and power to work?

God always was, always is and always will be. There is no final proof, only faith. Something had to have no beginning.

Can you explain and show evidence, for how the knee joint could evolve without help from God?

[Count Lucanor]

I repeat, as no one can prove definitively whether there is or isn’t a God then all anyone do is hope that there is or isn’t a God.

Sound philosophy.

Since no one can prove definitively whether there is or isn’t a dragon in my garage, then all anyone do is hope that there is or isn’t a dragon in my garage.

[Count Lucanor]

If "God" arranged things so that they "work", what or who arranged things for God's intelligence, will and power to work?

God always was, always is and always will be. There is no final proof, only faith.

So you're willing to accept some very complex attributes of an entity, which is purely theoretical, as not caused by an external agent. It is supposedly the natural development of that entity. So then why you would not accept, in the same way, the natural development of other entities without the intervention of external agents? Because of pure faith, I assume, but then explain: how does "God" work as a godly system in your theory?

Something had to have no beginning.

Why can't that something be nature, the universe?

Can you explain and show evidence, for how the knee joint could evolve without help from God?

Well, first of all, your theoretical entity has not won any free pass to appear by default in the explanation of anything. If you want to make it part of the explanation of something, then it is your burden of proof. The name of the game is not Give an Explanation, Otherwise it is God. That game had been played for centuries and it failed: how could lightning be possible if not sent by gods? How could diseases be possible if not sent by gods?

Secondly, your argument for "irreducible complexity", which denotes a system in which all parts are essential, has already been tackled by evolutionary science. Many "irreducibly complex" systems invoked by ID advocates have turned out not to be so. Also, systems can evolve without adding single parts, either by deletion of parts, changes of functions of the parts, and many other mechanisms that have been identified by scientists.

Third, you got evolution wrong, or at least got an outdated view of evolutionary theory. Adaptation does not mean "the best of all possible natural designs" or "fulfilling the best purpose". The fossils of Burgess Shale demonstrated that perfect adaptation does not guarantee survival in the long term, and that there is variety and complex "designs" in early stages of evolved organisms as adaptations to given environments, but environments can change, leading to extinction events that can favor less sophisticated "designs". There are also byproducts of adaptation, meaning that these features evolved in a path not directly linked to their current function. The scientific term is exaptation:

https://www.livescience.com/39688-exaptation.html