Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

...

Is a truth claim. I need you to provide evidence for it.

Or what? Your truth claims are true by default?

 

[Gene2memE]

So, I decided to pursue science. After studying plant science in depth, I realized evolution was less likely than creation. All living things are related to an extent, but nobody can link them all back to one ancestor.

Except they can, and have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html <--- Formal test of universal common ancestor

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/5/838.full <---- Critical response, still finding the a universal common ancestor is by far the most likely scenario

Evolution requires a cause and effect process, but single-celled organisms would have no reason to complicate themselves by evolving.

Enhancing their survival. That's pretty much the FUNDAMENTAL reason. Modelling suggests that predators and parasites evolved very, very early on - perhaps within the first 1000 generations of what we recognise as life.

Also, mutations do not produce additional information. While living organisms can adapt, they can't add information to their DNA.

Tired old creationist canard. Again, there are formal tests, and they show that evolution adds both information and complexity to organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

To quote from a 2008 New Scientist article: "So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic."

And why, if life evolved on earth, did it not evolve on Mars?

It may have. It may have evolved, flourished and died out all before life on earth had the intelligence to comprehend the existence of other planets, let alone think of sending robotic rovers to its surface.

The only explanation that sounded reasonable, after two years of research, was an intelligent designer. Why male and female? The marriage relationship is crucial to Christianity.

Sexual selection has a number of major survivability advantages. Male and female is far from the only form of sexual reproduction, and its not even the most common one. We can trace the evolutionary history of sex back to 1.2 billion years ago.

Here's a great overview article of what we know about the evolution of sexual selection: http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/6/3/a016154.full[/QUOTE]

 

[Ana the Ist]

Evolution claims there was a puddle of primordial ooze that spontaneously began to transform itself, and along the way became a life form, as a single-celled organism.

Before that evolution that spawned life, the ooze had no life, therefore no death, therefore it spontaneously developed into something more complex and more vulnerable, which is counter to why things supposedly evolved in the first place.

Geez, Sister...the more you talk about it, the more you're revealing about yourself. At this point you've stated more misconceptions about evolution than you have facts.

I don't want to sound accusatory here...but did you honestly study evolution at all? Is this really what they teach at the University of Nebraska?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Sister in Christ is right on about evolution. Her description of the ooze is standard in the trade in evolutionary circles.

No. Her argument is a strawman. Evolution makes no claims for the origin of life. It only explains the process of life evolving after it was here. Abiogenesis is a completely different study and has not graduated to a scientific theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Questions and comments like....?

Please don't play dumb. I've drawn your attention to them repeatedly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

University of Nebraska. And I worked very closely with two different professors. Of course, I also looked at creationist websites.

I do understand evolution. The primary driving force behind evolution is the attempt at a longer/better life. Adaptation to surroundings in order to survive. Basically an attempt to escape death.

So, my conclusion, which no professor could refute, was this: Evolution desires to evolve based on survival. This implies a desire to avoid death. If evolution spawned life, and therefore death, why would it "create" something that every species then spent the rest of it's evolutionary cycle trying to avoid?

Evolution claims there was a puddle of primordial ooze that spontaneously began to transform itself, and along the way became a life form, as a single-celled organism.

Before that evolution that spawned life, the ooze had no life, therefore no death, therefore it spontaneously developed into something more complex and more vulnerable, which is counter to why things supposedly evolved in the first place.

You need to continue researching. The fact that you think evolution "desires" anything discloses a huge misconception at the foundation of your understanding of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did you even read what I quoted? Or did you just respond to what I said without reading the quote?

If you were familiar with Lewis, and the particular work in discussion, which you want me to think you are seeing as how you didn't hesitate to critique it, then you would know what he was basing his opinions on. So either you are unfamiliar with it, or you are asking a question to which you already know the answer to. Which is it?

My friend gifted me a copy of Mere Christianity for my birthday last year. Presumably, he hoped that Lewis would do for me what he had done for him. Tellingly, the back cover described the book as ideal for the "half-convinced." Being half-convinced about Christianity would imply that one is already partly committed to it. I'm not half-convinced; I'm unconvinced. Lewis' apologetics seem to be directed mainly at believers, particularly the "half-convinced."

 

[Ana the Ist]

This sounds like the other poster in different threads, that has claimed; they completed scientific controlled studies, proving the bible is true and God exists.

When asked to provide this scientific work, the evasion then begins.

Are you talking about Katerina...or something like that? I think her test involved god making some wool miraculously damp...

I'm only asking Sister these things because in spite of her claiming to have studied "plant science" and claiming to have an understanding of evolution...she appears to have the same amount and kind of knowledge of someone who's knowledge of evolution comes entirely from creationist websites.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Except they can, and have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html <--- Formal test of universal common ancestor

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/5/838.full <---- Critical response, still finding the a universal common ancestor is by far the most likely scenario



Enhancing their survival. That's pretty much the FUNDAMENTAL reason. Modelling suggests that predators and parasites evolved very, very early on - perhaps within the first 1000 generations of what we recognise as life.



Tired old creationist canard. Again, there are formal tests, and they show that evolution adds both information and complexity to organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

To quote from a 2008 New Scientist article: "So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic."



It may have. It may have evolved, flourished and died out all before life on earth had the intelligence to comprehend the existence of other planets, let alone think of sending robotic rovers to its surface.



Sexual selection has a number of major survivability advantages. Male and female is far from the only form of sexual reproduction, and its not even the most common one. We can trace the evolutionary history of sex back to 1.2 billion years ago.

Here's a great overview article of what we know about the evolution of sexual selection: http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/6/3/a016154.full

[/QUOTE]
These articles are not based on fact. They are based in a statistical framework that simply gives odds of how the earth came to be.

It is also not a proof that evolution is the answer simply because things are made similarly. It's like studying literature. If ten different books all have the same style, construct, and verbage, yet are about different topics, which is more likely: they all evolved from one original book and wrote themselves, or they were all written by the same author?

Proving that DNA sequences are similar has no real bearing on evolution being true. Also, the first article clearly states that his odds of probability increase greatly when you assume everything is already related.

The main problem here is that, in order to begin proving something, we must be able to observe it, test it, and test it again. We don't have primordial soup hanging around, nor do we have any of the millions of half-fossils you would expect to have if evolution had happened.

As to sexuality. Like you said, evolution's main goal is surviving. The first organisms would have had to be asexual because they were single-celled. This is a much more reliable means to reproduction than male-female.

Primordial soup is a part of the evolutionary theory, because it attempts to explain the first step behind evolution which is evolving from non-living to living matter.

And yes, evolution "desires" something, like you said, surviving. As I originally stated, why begin a process of evolving life, and then more complex life, and then predators, which gives you death, vulnerability to death, and prey, respectively?

As to your hypothesis that life could have evolved and become extinct on mars, we both know that's not an explanation.

Evolution presents the major problem that information cannot be added. It also presents the problem of predictive complexity. If the original cell did have all the information needed to evolve into every living organism we have today, the question is why? Why would a single single cell contain the information for wings, when the cause for wings hadn't even evolved yet? Unless the original cell was all-knowing of future climates and causes for evolving, then it wouldn't have contained that information.

So, really, evolution still relies on some form of omniscient, pre-designed, predictive foundation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The main problem here is that, in order to begin proving something, we must be able to observe it, test it, and test it again. We don't have primordial soup hanging around, nor do we have any of the millions of half-fossils you would expect to have if evolution had happened.

Why would we need to have primordial soup to be able to test evolution?

As to sexuality. Like you said, evolution's main goal is surviving. The first organisms would have had to be asexual because they were single-celled. This is a much more reliable means to reproduction than male-female.

Evolution doesn't have "goals."

Primordial soup is a part of the evolutionary theory, because it attempts to explain the first step behind evolution which is evolving from non-living to living matter.

No, it's not. You said you researched this? If you had, you should know better.

And yes, evolution "desires" something, like you said, surviving.

No, it doesn't "desire" anything. It's not a mindful process.

Evolution presents the major problem that information cannot be added. It also presents the problem of predictive complexity. If the original cell did have all the information needed to evolve into every living organism we have today, the question is why? Why would a single single cell contain the information for wings, when the cause for wings hadn't even evolved yet? Unless the original cell was all-knowing of future climates and causes for evolving, then it wouldn't have contained that information.

You need to continue researching. It seems that your research so far has been limited to creationist websites.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Why would we need to have primordial soup to be able to test evolution?

Evolution doesn't have "goals."

No, it's not. You said you researched this? If you had, you should know better.

No, it doesn't "desire" anything. It's not a mindful process.

You need to continue researching. It seems that your research so far has been limited to creationist websites.

So, evolution does not need any hard evidence of it's origin. Doesn't have any goal of surviving. And doesn't have any reason for having happened?

Basically, there was something we have no idea existed, that, for absolutely no reason, evolved into something else. And kept evolving for no reason. Into people who desire to find reason behind everything?

You don't need any hard facts for your theory of accident, yet discard a theory of purpose because I can't physically show you God?

You're right. We must live in a world without reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So, evolution does not need any hard evidence of it's origin. Doesn't have any goal of surviving. And doesn't have any reason for having happened?

Basically, there was something we have no idea existed, that, for absolutely no reason, evolved into something else. And kept evolving for no reason. Into people who desire to find reason behind everything?

You don't need any hard facts for your theory of accident, yet discard a theory of purpose because I can't physically show you God?

You're right. We must live in a world without reason.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Based on your most recent posts, I don't believe you did two years of research on this topic.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Based on your most recent posts, I don't believe you did two years of research on this topic.

Then explain to me why.

 

[KCfromNC]

And see this is the beauty of it.

You see, God, if He existed, would know exactly what it would take for you to come to the place in your life where you give assent to the proposition, "God exists".

If we accept your premise, the fact that people die as non-believers in your god is yet another good argument against it being real.

 

[bhsmte]

So, evolution does not need any hard evidence of it's origin. Doesn't have any goal of surviving. And doesn't have any reason for having happened?

Basically, there was something we have no idea existed, that, for absolutely no reason, evolved into something else. And kept evolving for no reason. Into people who desire to find reason behind everything?

You don't need any hard facts for your theory of accident, yet discard a theory of purpose because I can't physically show you God?

You're right. We must live in a world without reason.

It would appear, you have no clue what evolution is and what the evidence states.

 

[KCfromNC]

Indeed. I do think that the idea of God's existence is something some have an aversion to. For some it is like being given evidence that they have cancer.No matter how many test results they are shown, no matter how many different doctors give them the same diagnosis, they don't want to believe it.

I think this is true for some.

Is this the reason you reject the "evidence" presented for the truth of Allah and Vishnu?

 

[bhsmte]

Is this the reason you reject the "evidence" presented for the truth of Allah and Vishnu?

Looks like he is back to; atheists really believe in God, they just deny the evidence.

Pretty boring.

 

[anonymous person]

Looks like he is back to; atheists really believe in God, they just deny the evidence.

Pretty boring.

I said "some", not "all".

 

[bhsmte]

I said "some", not "all".

Do you also think it possible, some Christians deny evidence that go against their specific faith beliefs, because it is uncomfortable for them to acknowledge the same?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So, evolution does not need any hard evidence of it's origin.

Does the germ theory of disease need to explain where germs came from?

You don't need any hard facts for your theory of accident, yet discard a theory of purpose because I can't physically show you God?

Evolution has an abundance of facts. It's one of the most robust theories in all of science.