Argument against atheism

[Philosoft]

So often people say this, but why can't you ever be specific? It's as if you're thinking "Evolution is true a priori, so if he doesn't think it's rational then he must be misunderstanding it."

I think it's because you make some elementary mistakes based on things that are not part of evolutionary theory. And however you may be put off by lucaspa's style (I vehemently disagree that he remotely approaches irrational), his posts are consistently filled with clearly-explained facts and links to relevant journal articles.

I've decided I'm going to be more precise though - it is Darwinian Evolution (and neo-darwinian evolution) and Gould's punctuated equilibrium that I disagree with. I think special creation is far more probable.

That's a funny way to say that. How do you mentally calculate the probability of special creation? Or evolution for that matter? I'm not aware of any branch of science or philosophy that specializes in making those sorts of quantifications. Evolution persists not because it is more "probable," but because it has not been falsified.

 

[Arikay]

"1. Changed existing information, which is not a sufficient process to explain neo-darwinist evolution
2. Whether or not "new" information was produced, the AiG answer still demonstrates a reduction in complexity."

So I assume you have now changed your idea of what is an "increase in complexity" since before you said that a new feature was in "increase in complexity" but now that I have shown you the evolution of a new feature you have said that it really is not an increase in complexity.

So, can you please tell me your new definition of what complexity is and what an increase in complexity would entail?

Im at a lose though how AIG demonstrated a reduction in complexity? can you explain that more?

So often people say this, but why can't you ever be specific? It's as if you're thinking "Evolution is true a priori, so if he doesn't think it's rational then he must be misunderstanding it."
I've decided I'm going to be more precise though - it is Darwinian Evolution (and neo-darwinian evolution) and Gould's punctuated equilibrium that I disagree with. I think special creation is far more probable.



I will do some more reading on this. I didn't read fully through the article (internet really bad, and been busy doing other things) - but at a glance the mutation:
1. Changed existing information, which is not a sufficient process to explain neo-darwinist evolution
2. Whether or not "new" information was produced, the AiG answer still demonstrates a reduction in complexity.

Anyway, those are preliminary answers, I haven't had time to read through the article in full, my internet's not being fixed until tomorrow, and been busy. Oh, and this isn't the thread to discuss.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I think it's because you make some elementary mistakes based on things that are not part of evolutionary theory. And however you may be put off by lucaspa's style (I vehemently disagree that he remotely approaches irrational), his posts are consistently filled with clearly-explained facts and links to relevant journal articles.

I could be mistaken, but I'd have to do some digging to find the things that frustrated me - but I fear that these posts may have been lost in a crash on these forums a year or three ago, resulting in many months of lost conversations.

That's a funny way to say that. How do you mentally calculate the probability of special creation? Or evolution for that matter? I'm not aware of any branch of science or philosophy that specializes in making those sorts of quantifications. Evolution persists not because it is more "probable," but because it has not been falsified.

I'm talking about philosophical probability. That takes into account a number of things, such as the proof for God, the likelihood of Darwinist evolution, the validity of the Bible, etc. All the proofs presented for these various things cumulatively provide us with either the probability or improbability of special creation.
And let us not talk about Darwinist evolution here.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

"1. Changed existing information, which is not a sufficient process to explain neo-darwinist evolution
2. Whether or not "new" information was produced, the AiG answer still demonstrates a reduction in complexity."

So I assume you have now changed your idea of what is an "increase in complexity" since before you said that a new feature was in "increase in complexity" but now that I have shown you the evolution of a new feature you have said that it really is not an increase in complexity.

So, can you please tell me your new definition of what complexity is and what an increase in complexity would entail?

Im at a lose though how AIG demonstrated a reduction in complexity? can you explain that more?

I did not change my definition of complexity. I gave you an example, not a definition.

Look, this is not the place to discuss - you all keep trying to get me into discussions, but I want this thread to die. It has served its purpose and is going off topic very fast.
If you want me to talk about the nylon bug, I'll be quite happy to oblige - but send me PM to do so. This thread is finished.

 

[Fiendishjester]

Evolution isn't about an increase or a decrease in complexity. It's about adaptation. So if you have to "decrease complexity" in order to survive, that's still evolution.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Evolution isn't about an increase or a decrease in complexity. It's about adaptation. So if you have to "decrease complexity" in order to survive, that's still evolution.

Can you all PLEASE stop talking about evolution? It is completely off topic. It is very hard for me to resist responding to your posts, but I am unwilling to enter into a debate here. There are other places for it.

 

[jakegroen]

Some people are christian because their belief that God will be there for them fills a void, it tells them that big brother will always be their and all that they need do is believe, which is just feeding the mindblock that he is necessary to their survival.

jake Groen
ps what now

 

[Knowledge Hunter]

That last post on page 1 there, a nice one Volos.

There was a time where I placed much trust into the Bible...I wanted to. I needed facts and information. Even heading into it with the view that some things written within it are merely stories to teach concepts, I still ran into things.

Then I came to understand the way the worlds languages worked. Anyone here try to read 1000 year old English? Go as far back as 600 AD and the best scholars are throwing out guesses.

The language and cultural meaning to every word in the Bible died almost as soon as the ink dried .

Therefore...where are we, who do want to find information about God, to find it? Information we can trust? Unfortunately it no longer exists.

If God wants followers (call this a dare), then let him confirm the Bible or fix it.

I simply can't trust that text! Sadly it's as close to accuracy as you get in this world ( ). I wouldn't dare trust a human being with it, they'd (or even myself) be only parrots. The only thing a human being can do instinctively at birth is suck and grab given the right stimulation. The nature of Human culture itself makes word of mouth over time completely inaccurate...sadly this affected even the Bible.

Truly, I would embrace God if I could...sadly I seek not to make a futile gesture and waste my life with bad information to live by. Would it not be a rude shock to be turned down at the gates for following what you thought was right? All I can logically do is live my life as well as I can...let my conscience, ethics, and whatever honor I carry be my guide.

Ack...too much to say and too many topics to spread it across.

 

[Hydra009]

If God wants followers (call this a dare), then let him confirm the Bible or fix it.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think this dare is one that will be answered.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Call it a hunch, but I don't think this dare is one that will be answered.

Yes, because it's based on the faulty premise that the Bible is flawed.

 

[Hydra009]

Yes, because it's based on the faulty premise that the Bible is flawed.

Don't put words in my mouth, that statement is intentionally ambigious.
It could either be interpreted as:

1. God won't respond to the dare because he doesn't exists.

-OR-

2. God refuses to respond to that kind of dare.

 

[Philosoft]

I'm talking about philosophical probability. That takes into account a number of things, such as the proof for God, the likelihood of Darwinist evolution, the validity of the Bible, etc. All the proofs presented for these various things cumulatively provide us with either the probability or improbability of special creation.

If you think you can rely on philosophical "proofs" to provide support for an empirical theory - special creation - you've already failed.

 

[Philosoft]

Yes, because it's based on the faulty premise that the Bible is flawed.

How do you say the premise is faulty if you haven't demonstrated its defeater - the inerrancy of the Bible?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

If you think you can rely on philosophical "proofs" to provide support for an empirical theory - special creation - you've already failed.

I reject your premise that special creation is a purely empirical theory. On that topic, I also reject Darwinist (and neo-Darwinist) evolution as being a purely empirical theory. They both employ empirical truths in part, but I was referring to "philosophical proofs" - the deductive elements that special creation relies on.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

How do you say the premise is faulty if you haven't demonstrated its defeater - the inerrancy of the Bible?

Because I don't want to get into off topic debates on this thread. No other reason.

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

Science is a religion. This religion says that one should base his decisions and beliefs on things that can be proven using the Scientific Method.

Christianity is a religion. This religion says that one should base his decisions on things that can't be proven using the Scientific Method.

So, which religion to choose? Well for me, I have to see which religion actually provides tangible results for me that I desire. The religion of science makes my tv work, makes medications to heal my wounds, makes my car and computer run, makes the plane I flew in work, makes radio play music, etc.

Now, let's see what Christianity does for me...... Hmmmm, well............ Sorry, I can't think of any tangible results from being a Christian, I tried already, nothing happened. I guess I will have to stick with the religion of science.

 

[Arikay]

Science is not a religion.
Science Can be a religion though.

(there is a big difference between Is and Can)

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

Science is not a religion.
Science Can be a religion though.

(there is a big difference between Is and Can)

Science is a religion. Actually, any Christian who embraces science is actually a pseudo-Christian because he is supporting two antagonistic religions: science, which requires the scientific method, and Christianity which opposes the scientific method. You can't be both.

 

[Magisterium]

Science is a religion. Actually, any Christian who embraces science is actually a pseudo-Christian because he is supporting two antagonistic religions: science, which requires the scientific method, and Christianity which opposes the scientific method. You can't be both.

Quite the contrary. Science answers the question of "how" which is a question of "by what means or method" whereas religion seeks to answer the question of "why" which is a question of "intent, purpose and reason".

Science by it's very nature is not interested in or capable of discerning intent or purpose in the natural world. In fact for this reason, this has led many scientific people to conclude that there is no purpose in life and the universe "It just is".

Therefore, science and religion when remaining within their natural areas, cannot actually conflict. In fact they together seek to answer the two questions that mankind has always asked instinctively.

 

[Mekkala]

I realize you don't want this thread to be about evolution, but it's only fair that I get to reply to your post (I'll try not to incite debate)...

For some or many people the primary motivator for them becoming atheists, or at least losing their faith/religion, is evolution. It was a personal question to you about your reasons for rejecting Christianity.

I've never met a person who rejected religion because of evolution...

I would be very interested in you going into details on the physics. But I do not like your assumption that the biological arguments are wrong, when you admit you don't understand them. You should spend the time to understand, I think

Note, please, I did not say I do not understand the arguments. I said that I am not a biologist and thus am not qualified to write an in-depth review of the arguments. By that, I mean that a biologist would be able to write a clearer and more accurate review than I would be able to -- not that I would be entirely unable to argue the point.

On the contrary, evolution does contradict - and again I wonder why you comment on theology. This would make an excellent topic for another thread. I am fully persuaded that evolution and the Bible are incompatable. And when I say "evolution" I do not refer to changes in allele frequencies in a population, but rather billions of years of random mutations guided by natural selection.

Since most "evolutionists" (in quotes because evolution is not actually an "ism" but a scientific theory) are religious, I find it hard to believe that the two are incompatible. Also, I'm surprised that you wonder why I comment on theology, since I was a Christian for many years and studied the Bible and theology in great depth.

Again, you comment on theology without giving arguments. And again, I can't really respond without this thread becoming something else. If you want to talk or understand specifically why I believe they are incompatible, talk to me via PM or start a new thread. I'll be happy to explain.

Certainly. I'll respond to your PM today.

I get the feeling that bacteria is pretty much the *only* example, and a poor one at that.

The only example of speciation we've directly observed? Yep, pretty much. But, you see, higher forms of life take a very, very, very long time to evolve, and we'd have to live several orders of magnitude longer to even hope to directly observe evolution of higher life forms. Fortunately, we can indirectly observe this long-scale evolution, and we have -- we just haven't directly watched it happen, because that is impossible.