(moved) Question for Atheists: Is the existence of God a real question for you?

[Tinyarch]

Stop beating around the bush.
Was your answer "yes" or "no"?

My answer already is provided. Read and learn.

 

[Cis.jd]

You speak rubbish.

As I have simply explained to you before, the earth's hydrologic system requires no "intelligence" to cause it to operate.

It just needs a sun......



.

Yeah, it needs the sun. The sun is viewed as a component; you take it away and a lot of the systems shut down (including the hydrologic system) which means the main purpose of the universe (keeping life on this planet) malfunctions and just doesn't work. You see, Order is also found in the universe. Another element in design.

I'm talking about God at the present day. I've said it over and over again that i do not believe a god is currently working and making the operations of the systems. I've said he designed them in the very beginning. The Hydrologic system is an example of the universe operating due to the components that are in the proper place.

 

[Cis.jd]

Was it you who introduced crazy guys in a car shop? I think it was...

So why did you just jump and inserted the "potted plant"? You once again made a new context that is totally unrelated to what i've said.

So you say that this plant was not "currently" designed now. Well, that is what I am saying: the plant was not designed, but its existence is derived from the previously existing conditions of its components. We are making some progress here!

Right, it would not exist or live if the components in the universe where net set in the actual order. For example, if the earth was not positioned as the 3rd planet we would not have plants which would mean we won't have life. So technically, when we look deeper on the topic of Plants it's actually a component made possible due to the systems of the universe: Which is to keep life in this planet. Plants itself are major components of life, that's how we get our oxygen and also food due to the food chain. Look at how important the role of plants are in our systematical nature.. our used oxygen gets recycled through them, the start of our main source of energy and balance of this earth starts with it, and when we decompose we now feed it to continue the cycle. You really blame me for being skeptical on that just being an accidental chance millions of years ago?

Why don't you start to show me how some of these original plants were designed? That would convince me!

How would i know exactly how these plants where designed? I can make an assumption that we all came from a single cell that later evolved to creatures that eventually evolved. I don't know how they were designed, and me not knowing that doesn't hurt my argument about systems needing a designer. I don't know how this website was made; how the UI, the HTML structure, to Java was all conceived and constructed, but that doesn't mean that this website isn't a design.

And let me guess... you don't know what a "strawman argument" is either?

Yes, i've seen so much of it from you and Todd.

A "strawman argument" is attacking a warped or completely made up version of your opponents arguments, because that is easier to do than to deal with the real argument.

And this is exactly what all of you have been doing. You didn't bother dealing with the real arguments, look at how many analogies such as the Fish tank was never answered but self rationalized. I never replied with statements such as "you are wrong..." and i've been rather heavily explanatory of my cases. The same can't be said from either of you. Up to now, i have not seen an example of a system just birthing itself and i am just told to assume that nature got it's working systems by itself.

In your case, you claim that I deny design. I am "the crazy guy at a car shop telling everybody that "they are just wrong" about saying/believing that all those cars were designed." I told you that this is false, that this is not my argument. And lo! I didn't just keep it at stating "you are just wrong"...

Yes, you weren't as much of a cop out as Todd. But if you are not arguing against the notion that the Universe required an intelligent designer, than what is your actual argument?

Get a science book, take a good look at how our world functions. The way each element in our universe: from the stars to your own cells all work for the purpose of you being alive and it is also all with in the Golden Ratio. A ratio that is a must to master in any art and design course from Architecture, Photography, Graphic Design, Industrial, etc. How can you tell me that i am being "illogical" for being skeptic on all of this being accident?

Yes, I do understand my own arguments, and there are several people here who also understand them and agree with them. I can only try to explain them to you... I cannot make you understand.


So, again: what I am asking you to accept.
There are "systems" that are not, as you called it "currently designed". You already accept that.
Such systems do not "make themselves". They base themselves on previously existing conditions. Conditions that enable these new systems, but are not specifically "designed" to bring them into existence.
These conditions can be "inherent"... meaning, automatically present in the components, without having to be "designed" into them. I provided mathematical functional systems as an example.

I know atheists will understand what you are saying, likewise i understand christians would cosign with each other. The point is, i can't just believe something with out seeing data in it. That is why i can't accept your atheism. You and the rest say that i cant use these examples of systems with no reason what so ever; and just to let you know this is what greatest scientists in history based their beliefs of the universe on. Galileo, Newton, Kaku, arguably Einstein etc... the fact that they saw systems being governed by a language known as physics made the rejection of design to be completely illogical.

Wrong premise: you assume that there is an intention. It you "want to make" a pond... then of course "making" it is the only way to execute your intention. But if you have no intentions to either make or not-make a pond, and have one turn up, due to flooding or rainfall or divertion of watercurrents... then, no, it doesn't have to be designed.

It still needs to be designed. Let me ask you this question, are ponds important to our ecosystem.. if we lose it, would it possibly cause a dent in our Earth?

 

[Tinyarch]

Yeah, it needs the sun. The sun is viewed as a component; you take it away and a lot of the systems shut down (including the hydrologic system) which means the main purpose of the universe (keeping life on this planet) malfunctions and just doesn't work. You see, Order is also found in the universe. Another element in design.

I'm talking about God at the present day. I've said it over and over again that i do not believe a god is currently working and making the operations of the systems. I've said he designed them in the very beginning. The Hydrologic system is an example of the universe operating due to the components that are in the proper place.

How does an impotent God hypothesis differ from a no God hypothesis, other than the cause agent?
You declare God to be essentially dead, thus you make life as meaningless as any atheist on the board.
At some point we are all faced with either accepting the Bible as accurate or rejecting it and thus coming up with some story from our own inflated ego.

 

[SteveB28]

Yeah, it needs the sun. The sun is viewed as a component; you take it away and a lot of the systems shut down (including the hydrologic system) which means the main purpose of the universe (keeping life on this planet) malfunctions and just doesn't work. You see, Order is also found in the universe. Another element in design.

I'm talking about God at the present day. I've said it over and over again that i do not believe a god is currently working and making the operations of the systems. I've said he designed them in the very beginning. The Hydrologic system is an example of the universe operating due to the components that are in the proper place.

So now you bury yourself in a regress in order to justify your very lame argument.

I say the hydrologic system operates without a designer. It just needs a source of heat.

You say that your god designed the heat source.

I say that the heat source (sun) requires no designer. It formed as a result of the physical forces present in the universe.

You say that your god designed the universe.

I say that the physical forces present in the universe don't need a designer. They were a result of the singularity known as the Big Bang.

You say that your god designed the singularity.

And so on..

You provide no direct evidence for your contention that 'systems with a function require a designer'. You simply make vague, non-specific pronouncements which mean nothing. They are all based, literally, on a 'wing and a prayer'. They may make you feel good inside, but they explain nothing.



.

 

[Cis.jd]

How does an impotent God hypothesis differ from a no God hypothesis, other than the cause agent?
You declare God to be essentially dead, thus you make life as meaningless as any atheist on the board.
At some point we are all faced with either accepting the Bible as accurate or rejecting it and thus coming up with some story from our own inflated ego.

I don't declare God is dead. I don't believe in things such as "God is wants it to rain, that is why it is raining". The maker of your computer isn't actively trying to make your computer run, he built it to do that on it's own.

 

[Cis.jd]

So now you bury yourself in a regress in order to justify your very lame argument.

I say the hydrologic system operates without a designer. It just needs a source of heat.

How did i bury myself? I've said it in so many pages that i am not arguing for a present day active god. I never argued in support of a current day active god.

You say that your god designed the heat source. I say that the heat source (sun) requires no designer. It formed as a result of the physical forces present in the universe.

It has to, because this heat source functions as a mechanism for our planet. This heat source would be meaningless if it was not in the exact order - or if the earth wasn't in the exact order. In short, the sun is a component. Why would i believe claims like yours that the significance of this heat source to the systems in this world is rooted from a chance that happened millions of years?

I say that the physical forces present in the universe don't need a designer. They were a result of the singularity known as the Big Bang.

Obviously we differ there. I don't believe the big band just birthed out a system by chance. When you look at the universe, it generally functions for the sake of life on this planet to continue. That heat source you just mention contributes about 80%-90%+ of the energy needed to keep the systems in our planet running.

Here is an example. Research on the Yellowstone national park during the time when there was an over flow of deer. Research on how the Yellowstone park was not only dying but effecting the ecosystem because of that.. and see how that was remedied. I won't post it now since it will make a huge wall that you likely won't read so find a video on it. From that you visually see a system fully operating. Everything in this this universe has an important role for life in general and just in keeping the systems in balance. From the stars to your own cells, to your outside environment such as the plants to even the decomposers all have functional properties to keep you and everything in this planet alive. You'll find this out once you research on it, unbiasedly. Aside from the functional facts in nature; everything also fits the Golden ratio in Design. This is why it's that hard to just conceive the "it just happened".
..

You provide no direct evidence for your contention that 'systems with a function require a designer'. You simply make vague, non-specific pronouncements which mean nothing. They are all based, literally, on a 'wing and a prayer'. They may make you feel good inside, but they explain nothing..

What is evidence for a design other than systems, functionality, and language (lets not forget the golden ratio as well)? Furthermore, what is evidence for a designer other than a design?

If you claim that my view of systems, functional mechanisms, and language all needing an intelligence is of no direct evidence (regardless of me bringing in visual observable examples) then i'm interested to find out what brought you to the conclusion that random forces in space just coincidentally ran in each other and just did all this.

 

[Tinyarch]

I don't declare God is dead, but i do find it difficult to believe he is active.

An impotent God eliminates all the difficult forms of logic that people have to overcome such as "how could he always exist", "why is there so much evil", all of that. So i say, we don't really know all of the personal details about god. Maybe all religions have a specific clue in them, i don't know... so why focus on it? It differs from a no-god hypothesis because a no god clearly suggests that the systems in this world just happen. Which is a lot more of a magical claim than saying an Architect of the universe exists/existed.

You act like he's dead. There is no difference.

You blame God for humanities wickedness and say he's not active because he lets humans be their evil selves. You fail to see all the good that God orchestrates everyday. You want to give humans credit for that, but not give humans credit for evil.

Everyday, God holds back humans from being as evil as they could possibly be. The Spirit of God acts as a restraint so that God might save those whom he came to save. Yes, God works in the midst of rebels to save those he chooses to save. If he had no mercy or grace, humanity would be extinct and we would not be having this conversation.
God is not impotent, nor is he silent. He is orchestrating his will to save whom he has called. He does so out of love, despite the fact that the very people he is saving are antagonistic and blaming him for their own evil nature. He saves them despite the stories they make up, that he is silent or even non-existent. He displays patience and mercy with their rebellious hearts even though he could remove their breath in an instant. As Jonathan Edwards said, "You dangle over the flames by a thread and it is only the hand of God that spares you." Yet, you arrogantly claim he is silent simply because you think you know more than God.
Job, a Godly man, did something similar and God reminded Job of how little Job knew. Do you really want God to deal with you as you deserve? Go ahead. Ask him to deal with you as you deserve. Pray and ask him. Perhaps he'll say yes.

 

[SteveB28]

How did i bury myself? I've said it in so many pages that i am not arguing for a present day active god. I never argued in support of a current day active god.

You don't have an argument for ANY god! What you have is an honest 'we don't know how these things started' statement, turned into a 'But i do!' claim.....

It has to, because this heat source functions as a mechanism for our planet. This heat source would be meaningless if it was not in the exact order - or if the earth wasn't in the exact order.

More nonsense. As someone has already explained, there is actually a wide tolerance within which our hydrologic system would still work.

In short, the sun is a component. Why would i believe claims like yours that the significance of this heat source to the systems in this world is rooted from a chance that happened millions of years?

We do not know how it came to be.....and neither do you!

Obviously we differ there. I don't believe the big band just birthed out a system by chance. When you look at the universe, it generally functions for the sake of life on this planet to continue.

And more nonsense again....!

You have fallen into the 'hole-puddle' hoax'.....ie, that the hole was formed into just the right shape so that the puddle would fit into it!

What you would have us believe is that the universe was designed, with billions upon billions of empty, dead planets, "for the sake" of providing life on just this one little mud puddle...!?

Let's forget about the astounding level of hubris....the mathematics alone makes no sense...!

That heat source you just mention contributes about 80%-90%+ of the energy needed to keep the systems in our planet running.

And...? If we didn't have the heat, we wouldn't have life as we know it.....just like on the millions of planets we observe that don't happen to be in such a position!

Aside from the functional facts in nature; everything also fits the Golden ratio in Design. This is why it's that hard to just conceive the "it just happened".

Everything...? Really....? Everything in nature can be expressed in terms of a 1.6:1 ratio. Is that what you'll have us believe...?

What is evidence for a design other than systems, functionality, and language (lets not forget the golden ratio as well)? Furthermore, what is evidence for a designer other than a design?

Wave patterns in the surf? What 'designer' 'designed' them?

If you claim that my view of systems, functional mechanisms, and language all needing an intelligence is of no direct evidence (regardless of me bringing in visual observable examples) then i'm interested to find out what brought you to the conclusion that random forces in space just coincidentally ran in each other and just did all this.

For the umpteenth time......WE DO NOT KNOW what the original cause of "all this" was. It is the only honest answer at this point.

We may never know, but that does not give us leave to simply imagine an answer and call it 'truth'......


.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even though all creation shouts out that it is created by God, you choose nothingness and meaninglessness instead.
That is your choice.

Repeating your poorly supported claims like a broken record is your choice.

The very core of your worldview stems from nothingness and meaninglessness. I cannot undo the very heart of your worldview position.

Your own thinkers point this out to you. I am merely reminding you of this fact.

"My thinkers" are those intellectuals who have been most influential on me. And, no, they don't support your nihilism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

My answer already is provided.

So which is it?
(Tbh, I´m pretty sure you don´t even remember the question.)

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps we have started this whole matter in the wrong way. I apologize... it can be a bit difficult to manage a structured approach when reacting to specific statements.

How would i know exactly how these plants where designed? I can make an assumption that we all came from a single cell that later evolved to creatures that eventually evolved. I don't know how they were designed, and me not knowing that doesn't hurt my argument about systems needing a designer. I don't know how this website was made; how the UI, the HTML structure, to Java was all conceived and constructed, but that doesn't mean that this website isn't a design.

So let's start here again:

Knowing how something is designed is a way to distinguish between "this is designed" and "this might not be designed".

Let's try to trace it from the other side.
Please, present me with an example for something that you would say is not designed.

 

[Tinyarch]

So which is it?
(Tbh, I´m pretty sure you don´t even remember the question.)

I recall the question. I gave you the answer by providing you the link for you to read. Your failure to read is not my problem or concern.
You are welcome to stay in your box if that is your preference.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're just flaming people at this point.

Just "at this point"?

Seriously?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And more nonsense again....!

He doesn't seem to care about how logical arguments work, or he's just so belligerent that he's just blind to it.

I wish he's stop mentioning that he's a graphic designer, since he's kind of giving us a bad name, although I've taught enough of them over the years to know they're not always interested in logic...

 

[quatona]

I recall the question. I gave you the answer by providing you the link for you to read.

To tell from your description of your link, it wasn´t an answer to my question. It was a theological text.

 

[Tinyarch]

To tell from your description of your link, it wasn´t an answer to my question. It was a theological text.

Yes, the attributes of God's solitude explains your question. Read the rest to understand the attributes of God, which make up his character.
As I have said. God uses both natural revelation and special revelation to show us who he is.

You reject both and embrace noithingness.

 

[Cis.jd]

Let's try to trace it from the other side.
Please, present me with an example for something that you would say is not designed.

If the subject doesn't contain a system or a function, and above all a language that allows it to be studied, constructed, etc.. then it isn't a design.

 

[Cis.jd]

You don't have an argument for ANY god! What you have is an honest 'we don't know how these things started' statement, turned into a 'But i do!' claim.....

I pretty much do. It is you doesn't have one. You did nothing but reference the systems i am talking about and giving more depth as to why it is a huge leap of faith to just believe it just happened.

More nonsense. As someone has already explained, there is actually a wide tolerance within which our hydrologic system would still work.

That is incorrect. The Hydrologic cycle begins with the evaporation of water which would not happen if a component of the universe that allows this system to run (the sun) was ordered differently.

We do not know how it came to be.....and neither do you!

I don't know 100% but i do think the chances of it being a design is greater and logical compared "it just happened". I'm not closed to say that "it just happened" is 100% false, but there is absolutely no evidence for it (not even an example).

You have fallen into the 'hole-puddle' hoax'.....ie, that the hole was formed into just the right shape so that the puddle would fit into it!
What you would have us believe is that the universe was designed, with billions upon billions of empty, dead planets, "for the sake" of providing life on just this one little mud puddle...!?
Let's forget about the astounding level of hubris....the mathematics alone makes no sense...!

Frst of all the Big Bang was proposed by a priest, not an atheist. It is a theistic supporting theory. Second, how is stating that the universe has functions in it nonsense. This is the exact same argument of Newton and Galileo, while your puddle analogy was taken from either Dawkins or Krauss (i forgot exactly who made this).

And...? If we didn't have the heat, we wouldn't have life as we know it.....just like on the millions of planets we observe that don't happen to be in such a position!

Right.

Everything...? Really....? Everything in nature can be expressed in terms of a 1.6:1 ratio. Is that what you'll have us believe...?

I don't know what you mean by "expressed", but it is perfect in the Golden Ratio. Just research it. Even Leonardo Di Vinci made an artwork towards it. It's not me that is required to make you believe, it is you who is required to have me believe that "just happened". Even snow flakes are well fit in the golden ratio. I have not seen any art or design that fits the Golden Ratio that just happened.

Wave patterns in the surf? What 'designer' 'designed' them?

Another reference of a behavior with in nature that is only possible due to the working systems in our universe. \

For the umpteenth time......WE DO NOT KNOW what the original cause of "all this" was. It is the only honest answer at this point.

We may never know, but that does not give us leave to simply imagine an answer and call it 'truth'.......

I get that. You don't know, that is fine. I stated before that i did not want to talk about the existence of god --the cosmological argument but just the argument about the believed personal/prayer god. I just answered you all about my skepticism towards Atheism. I will repeat, i am a skeptic who relies on materials, observance, and just evidence in general. I have not seen systems, language, functional mechanisms and that golden ratio just happen with out a designer and until a good conflicting example is presented then there is no reason for me to just ride your claims that this isn't evidence. From what basis should i just jump and believe that this working universe just happened?

 

[Freodin]

If the subject doesn't contain a system or a function, and above all a language that allows it to be studied, constructed, etc.. then it isn't a design.

That isn't an example. You were quick to cite fishtanks and cars and planets orbiting... surely you can think of an example for something that you described here.