Another question for atheists...

[Bungle_Bear]

The is lots of evidence of design in the universe around us - there are many "fine-balances" which for me point to design. Take a look at the link for some of these in a chart.

Does God Exist? - Evidence for Design in the Universe

Does any of this present evidence of a designer or is it LIKELY this was all a huge co-incidence?

Of course, what the list fails to point out is how many of those evidences:

• are self-supporting
• state that earth (or life) would not exist if conditions here were different whilst at the same time accepting that such conditions are likely to exist somewhere
• say that life would be limited, not that life could not exist

So not really a compelling list, is it? It's the whole argument that the universe was designed for us, not that we happen to have evolved to fit with the conditions.

There are many examples of organisms and systems which function with "irreducible complexity" that are highly unlikely to have sprung into operation without design. I will pick out many examples if you feel it would be a useful exercise?

Why not? I'd be interested to see what you think counts as irreducible complexity.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Whether we define them as choices or conclusions will ultimately prove irrelevant when we find out (or not) the truth...

I'd say that it is important, because it directly influences how you deal with other people. If I chose to punch someone, I would be judged differently than if I was somehow made to do it. That is why, it is important to recognise that belief cannot logically be a choice - choices are made according to beliefs, so if beliefs are also a choice, then choices are based upon choices that are based upon choices... it goes on indefinitely. If this were true, then we would not be able to function. This knowledge is also important for you, because it directly influences how you inform others of Christianity, which I presume is an important matter to you.

As for your OP, when I die, I, as a specific personality, will essentially stop indefinitely.

The is lots of evidence of design in the universe around us - there are many "fine-balances" which for me point to design. Take a look at the link for some of these in a chart.

Does God Exist? - Evidence for Design in the Universe

Does any of this present evidence of a designer or is it LIKELY this was all a huge co-incidence?

Imagine that walked in a room containing a person rolling a die with a million sides. That person is trying to roll the number 4 - as you walk in the room, they successfully do so. Is this evidence that their roll was influenced by a higher power?

This is the exact amount of information we have when trying to deduce whether the universe was influenced or not. We only have one case of a universe to make the judgement on - we don't know how the number of ways the universe has existed, we don't know how long this has been going on for, we don't know what any other factors are that might influence this particular outcome. We don't even know what the odds are of this universe existing. Perhaps it is inevitable. Based on this total lack of information, it is impossible to come to any conclusion as to how likely this universe is.

 

[Philip C]

One of the most popular inaccuracies on this forum is that belief is a choice. There's no room for choice there at all. Belief in a proposition or not depends entirely on whether or not we are convinced by it. We do not "choose" to not believe in a God(s). We are unable to. We do not because we do not see that any evidence or good argument exists for God's existence.

Until that changes then that is how it will remain.

Just out of interest. If that's true what's the point of coming to a Christian forum as an atheist? If atheism is not a choice and you are as you say unable to believe then it would also be true that Christianity is not a choice and Christians are unable to not believe.

 

[ianb321red]

I must ask you though: Why do you think cognitive dissonance exists? Why do people suffer from it? If belief is entirely a choice then how could it exist?

Hi - Surely cognitive dissonance proves choice though? You have to aware of the dissonance and and then choose the appropriate action to reduce the dissonance...?

I actually refer to this theory as "shifting the goalposts".. Something creates a dissonance in your belief system and you alter the relative cognitions to reduce the dissonance.....

People do this all the time with the concept of God - deep down something about this notion creates a tension and a curiosity. This is obviously true to anyone since philosophy has a storied past with debates over the existence of God since ancient times. Non theistic explanations of the universe and the meaning of life are clearly a way of reducing dissonance but there is a choice here because you actually have to be fundamentally aware that you have dissonance in the first place..

You are a prime example of this because you're using this forum to justify a non theistic position. It must create a dissonance for you, otherwise you would get on with your life and have no need to visit a theistic forum like CF.

I don't have a need whatsoever to visit Islam UK forums or Atheism.org.net.uk.com forums or whatever it is, because neither of these create any dissonance for me..

Am I misrepresenting your position here?

 

[Gadarene]

Hi - Surely cognitive dissonance proves choice though? You have to aware of the dissonance and and then choose the appropriate action to reduce the dissonance...?

I actually refer to this theory as "shifting the goalposts".. Something creates a dissonance in your belief system and you alter the relative cognitions to reduce the dissonance.....

People do this all the time with the concept of God - deep down something about this notion creates a tension and a curiosity. This is obviously true to anyone since philosophy has a storied past with debates over the existence of God since ancient times. Non theistic explanations of the universe and the meaning of life are clearly a way of reducing dissonance but there is a choice here because you actually have to be fundamentally aware that you have dissonance in the first place..

You are a prime example of this because you're using this forum to justify a non theistic position. It must create a dissonance for you, otherwise you would get on with your life and have no need to visit a theistic forum like CF.

I don't have a need whatsoever to visit Islam UK forums or Atheism.org.net.uk.com forums or whatever it is, because neither of these create any dissonance for me..

Am I misrepresenting your position here?

People disagree with wrong ideas all the time without buying into them, what makes the Christianity/atheism debate so different?

If you disagree with the Holocaust, does that mean you secretly want to be a Nazi?

 

[Gadarene]

The is lots of evidence of design in the universe around us - there are many "fine-balances" which for me point to design.

Which is not evidence for Christianity, mind. In fact the entire ID movement is very nudge-nudge-wink-wink and deliberately and intentionally does not specify who the designer is (even though it's screamingly obvious that most of the key players think it's the Christian God). A rather deceitful ploy to get creationist nonsense back into schools.

How do we know that Allah isn't the Intelligent Designer instead?

Take a look at the link for some of these in a chart.

Does God Exist? - Evidence for Design in the Universe

Does any of this present evidence of a designer or is it LIKELY this was all a huge co-incidence?

Fine-tuning arguments are inconclusive on the matter of origins. Obviously any existent life will have to fit within the range permitted by the parameters of the universe. I'd be more concerned if it didn't.

Would life as we know it exist if the parameters were different? Probably not, but that doesn't mean some other form of life wouldn't have arisen either. Of course that is entirely speculative and untestable, hence the inconclusiveness of the argument.

There are many examples of organisms and systems which function with "irreducible complexity" that are highly unlikely to have sprung into operation without design. I will pick out many examples if you feel it would be a useful exercise?

No, it would not. I have spent far too many hours in creationism/ID debates before and the arguments are all too overused. "Irreducible complexity" is nothing more than the "of what use is half a wing" fallacy that's as old as the hills when it comes to arguing against evolution . The argument has simply been dressed up in scientific-sounding jargon to try and give it more respectability than it merits.

A far more useful exercise would be pointing out why this argument is wrong.

I have no desire to affect politics with my "beliefs" in this life - Jesus didn't and neither will I. Taking the life of Jesus Christ, do you think it would be a bad thing to use His life and an example to follow?

You personally might not - others do so on the basis of the same beliefs, so you are wrong to assert that there is nothing to be concerned about even if your beliefs are wrong.

This is why wrong ideas are worth arguing against, and why the "lol well why r u here if ur an atheist lol" line comes across as rather silly.

 

[Danny777]

So not really a compelling list, is it? It's the whole argument that the universe was designed for us, not that we happen to have evolved to fit with the conditions.

Again, it comes down to weighing evidence. For me, numerous examples of fine balances lead me to see this as evidence of design. Surely even a process of "evolving" implies that this process requires information.

Give me a practical, testable, observable example of how information comes from non-information or nothing?

Why not? I'd be interested to see what you think counts as irreducible complexity.

The human eye is a good example - all of the individual features that cause an eye to function would have to form simultaneously for the eye to work...how likely is it that this happened or that each of the individual components evolved bit by bit in small stages until a working eye was formed? Just think for a moment about how your eye functions - do you honestly believe its function is the result of an unguided accident?

If fish gills mutate a set of lungs it would be a disaster, not an advantage. Its skeleton, circulatory system etc would have to simultaneously change at once. The fish would be moving from one complete working system to another - anything in-between would simply be catastrophic to the fish and would not work. How would you get from one system to another? What evidence is there that this occurred?

 

[Danny777]

No, it would not. I have spent far too many hours in creationism/ID debates before and the arguments are all too overused. "Irreducible complexity" is nothing more than the "of what use is half a wing" fallacy that's as old as the hills when it comes to arguing against evolution . The argument has simply been dressed up in scientific-sounding jargon to try and give it more respectability than it merits.

A far more useful exercise would be pointing out why this argument is wrong.

This is a complete cop out!

An evolutionary belief system relies on fish mutating from a system that uses "gills" to a system to involves "lungs". You have to demonstrate how this is reasonable - given that they appear to be irreducibly complex systems that couldn't possibility randomly mutate from one to the other, you have to explain how this happened.

You claim that your belief system is supported by all the evidence - if you feel the issue of irreducible complexity has been dressed up in scientific jargon, then explain why an atheist does not see this issue as problematic...

For me, the complexity of a multitude of systems we observe that would not work at all if one component is strong evidence of design...

 

[Oafman]

Danny, are you aware of the lungfish?

 

[goshahoney]

If you want to explain your ideas promote your business; explain your services in an attractive way then 60seconds animated video is the best option for you. They done there work through animated videos of 60 seconds. They can set the length of your promotional video according to your wish, which may be less or more than the 60seconds.

 

[Danny777]

Danny, are you aware of the lungfish?

Yes...have a read of attached...

Did Lungfish Evolve Into Amphibians?

 

[Oafman]

Yes...have a read of attached...

Did Lungfish Evolve Into Amphibians?

Before I do, is it peer reviewed?

 

[Gadarene]

This is a complete cop out!

Not really. I just responded in the same terms you did. You didn't back up your claim, so I didn't bother to back up mine.

An evolutionary belief system

Stop....just stop.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system.

You're trying to tell people how and what they think again. Don't do that.

relies on fish mutating from a system that uses "gills" to a system to involves "lungs". You have to demonstrate how this is reasonable - given that they appear to be irreducibly complex systems that couldn't possibility randomly mutate from one to the other, you have to explain how this happened.

You claim that your belief system is supported by all the evidence - if you feel the issue of irreducible complexity has been dressed up in scientific jargon, then explain why an atheist does not see this issue as problematic...

For me, the complexity of a multitude of systems we observe that would not work at all if one component is strong evidence of design...

The mistaken assumption is that all the components of a particular biological feature evolved to produce that particular feature.

There are no half-wings in evolution. It co-opts existing structures (often whose functions are becoming redundant). Our coccyx is a vestigial tail - I.e it is no longer a functional tail. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a current use - just not as a tail. It's used as a muscular support.

Given how predictable IDists are, I'm assuming the bacterial flagellum was on your list of irreducibly complex biological features? Many of the components in that are identical to those in an bacterial injector structure, so those get co-opted into the flagellum.

There is no half a wing, or half a coccyx, or half a flagellum. The structures originally evolved for some other function and then their components were re-used for some other function. Complex structures do not evolve ex nihilo piece by piece.

I'll say this once, because I'm rapidly tiring of this discussion - you aren't saying anything I haven't heard and eviscerated a thousand times already. I strongly suggest you read up on evolution from scientists rather than ID quacks, because the notion of irreducible complexity betrays a colossal ignorance of the basic facts of evolution.

 

[Danny777]

Before I do, is it peer reviewed?

No...

But it does explain in very clear terms why the lungfish is not a transitional form...it does not have to be peer reviewed to make perfect sense.

As far as I understand most evolutionists will not use the lungfish as a example of a transitional form because it seems fairly clear it wasn't one...

If you ONLY read and trust peer reviewed papers, then maybe you should ignore it...

 

[Danny777]

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system.

I'm usually told its a fact...not a theory...

I'll say this once, because I'm rapidly tiring of this discussion - you aren't saying anything I haven't heard and eviscerated a thousand times already.

No-one is forcing you to be involved with this discussion. The discussion moved to issue of irreducible complexity because of discussion with someone else and it's only been over last 4/5 posts - if you don't want to discuss it there is no need for you to comment...

 

[Gadarene]

I'm usually told its a fact...not a theory...

It's both, really, but it refers to different things. It's a homonym, essentially.

It's an observed fact that things evolve, i.e. change over time.

The theory of evolution is the idea+accompanying scientific evidence that explains more precisely how they change over time.

No-one is forcing you to be involved with this discussion. The discussion moved to issue of irreducible complexity because of discussion with someone else and it's only been over last 4/5 posts - if you don't want to discuss it there is no need for you to comment...

Because of discussion with someone else? You straight up asked me what I thought of fine-tuning and irreducible complexity.

I said I was happy to ask for evidence, that doesn't mean I'm not expecting the same tired arguments I've heard before. In fact, given how prone Christians are to repeating flawed arguments, it is incredibly charitable of me to keep asking nonetheless. I spent my younger years debating the topic of origins excessively, and if IDists haven't learned from any of their blunders in the intervening few years, then I'm disinclined to participate further.

There's a rather good book by a Catholic biologist called Ken Miller - Only a Theory - that goes into more detail on the concept of irreducible complexity and why it's wrong.

 

[Skavau]

Just out of interest. If that's true what's the point of coming to a Christian forum as an atheist? If atheism is not a choice and you are as you say unable to believe then it would also be true that Christianity is not a choice and Christians are unable to not believe.

It would be the case that people beliefs are determined through their understanding of the supposed evidence for a series of propositions. It isn't that Atheists or Christians cannot change their beliefs but that they would need reason to do so before they could.

 

[Skavau]

Hi - Surely cognitive dissonance proves choice though? You have to aware of the dissonance and and then choose the appropriate action to reduce the dissonance...?

Not at all.

Cognitive dissonance is where an individual is troubled and uncomfortable holding true two simultaneously contradictory ideas as true (or false). If belief was solely a choice then no such thing could exist. It could be dismissed. Many people cannot.

I actually refer to this theory as "shifting the goalposts".. Something creates a dissonance in your belief system and you alter the relative cognitions to reduce the dissonance.....

I have no idea what this means. If you have to alter your beliefs to respond to holding true two contradictory ideas then the evidence (or your understanding of the evidence) is what forces the change in your beliefs. It would not be a matter of choice.

People do this all the time with the concept of God - deep down something about this notion creates a tension and a curiosity.

Speak for yourself. I find the notion of God, especially as represented in Christianity (partly due to my lifelong general exposure to it) as extremely vanilla and bland and find much more interest in the supernatural found in works of fiction. I find the mentality behind the Cylons in Battlestar more appealing, or the many Gods from A Song of Ice and Fire.

This is obviously true to anyone since philosophy has a storied past with debates over the existence of God since ancient times. Non theistic explanations of the universe

Please, don't presume to know my thoughts. You're trying to assert that all non-theists have to a certain degree a level of cognitive dissonance yet it is not clear you appreciate exactly what cognitive dissonance is. What two contradictory ideas do you imagine non-theists struggle with?

and the meaning of life are clearly a way of reducing dissonance but there is a choice here because you actually have to be fundamentally aware that you have dissonance in the first place..

There is no objective "meaning of life". I would assert this as the case even if I did believe God exists. The very notion is nonsense. We create our own meaning and no purpose. Asserting a "meaning of life" is merely humanity attempting to impose a kind of order, a purpose to our being. It is an expression of intelligent life. It doesn't necessarily exist, nor does it have to and we could understand and appreciate the universe without requiring appeal to it.

You are a prime example of this because you're using this forum to justify a non theistic position.

This thread was created by a theist and it invited atheists to explain their position on death. I am answering and have been answering almost entirely defensively. Almost all of my posts, when about theism you will always find are defensive. Even my railing against hell cannot be labelled as offensive, not completely. I would be defending my right to not be tormented or tortured for my convictions.

Don't try and misplace reality here. You frequently try to challenge atheists, not the other way around.

It must create a dissonance for you, otherwise you would get on with your life and have no need to visit a theistic forum like CF.

You presume that visiting a forum means that I cannot get on with my life.

Also I'll thank you not to assume you know my inner thoughts, thanks. I'll say them myself.

I don't have a need whatsoever to visit Islam UK forums or Atheism.org.net.uk.com forums or whatever it is, because neither of these create any dissonance for me..

You know (and I'm sure I've said this) I am here in part because I like debating. It would be all rather dull to just interact with those who share my convictions.

Am I misrepresenting your position here?

Yes.

 

[ianb321red]

Not at all.

Cognitive dissonance is where an individual is troubled and uncomfortable holding true two simultaneously contradictory ideas as true (or false). If belief was solely a choice then no such thing could exist. It could be dismissed. Many people cannot.

Sorry, but I disagree because i don't think you've applied correctly the theory behind cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you've misunderstood it.

Models of cognitive dissonance treats "beliefs" as choice variables.
Previous research in this field has used choice (or beliefs) as basic propositions of their model of cognitive dissonance, and showed that preference is defined over beliefs and that beliefs are subject to choice.

While a more optimistic outlook makes one feel better about the past decision, the agent recognizes that adopting more optimistic beliefs would take him or her further from the "truth" and thus would lead to sub-optimal choices in decisions still to be made. The optimal belief is determined by making this trade-off.

There is considerable evidence in (social) psychology that people like to view themselves as being smart, and in particular, as having made correct decisions in the past. Thus they may change beliefs after taking an action and become more optimistic about its possible consequences, in order to feel better about having chosen it.

 

[Danny777]

Stop....just stop.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system.

The theory of evolution bears all the hallmarks of a belief system as far as I can see. Are you really claiming to be completely unbiased with every piece of scientific information you observe? I suspect there is at least an element of trying to explain a piece of evidence WITHIN the framework of evolution. Everyone has a bias - I think its impossible not to. No evolutionist can prove molecules to man evolution - it is therefore a theory that you happen to BELIEVE is best explanation of the world around you. You are very unlikely to change your beliefs in the theory of evolution (just like I am very unlikely to change my belief that the world was designed) even though both are impossible to prove. Most of our analysis of the world around us will operate through the lens of our worldview.

What do you consider to be the difference between a scientific theory and a belief system?

You're trying to tell people how and what they think again. Don't do that.

You will have to help me out here - I have no idea what you mean by this...