Author Topic: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread  (Read 4912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6452
  • Darwins +467/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2012, 06:08:28 AM »


Thats a old, boring, tired, stupid  argument.

No, it doesnt make sense, since the facts do speak a other language.


Then you will have no problem at all showing me exactly why yours is better.  That includes explaining exactly why I need to simply accept that the entire universe was fine tuned for us.  Take your time.

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
Hello Godexists,

I see that you are now including internet site addresses to support your arguments. Thank you for doing this. However, in this post, that is all that you post. This is known as a "bare link."

Normally we do not do this because it forces the reader to go to the site and search for the sentence or paragraph that you have already found. What we should do is to have the link AND a small explanation of quote.

In your case, in the post, it should have been:

If you look at http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning you will see
Quote
Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants, and the beginning state of the Universe. To explain the present state of the universe, even the best scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature and the beginning state of the Universe have extremely precise values.
[/color]

or

If you look at http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning you will see a solid argument for fine tuning, and thus a pointer towards the existence of God.

Please use this style when posting; it helps everyone.

Thank you

GB Mod
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2012, 06:56:42 AM »


Thats a old, boring, tired, stupid  argument.

No, it doesnt make sense, since the facts do speak a other language.


Then you will have no problem at all showing me exactly why yours is better.  That includes explaining exactly why I need to simply accept that the entire universe was fine tuned for us.  Take your time.

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

Your link provides absolutely no distinction whatsoever between life evolving because of good, or even perfect conditions (which we already know they are not), and conditions that were specifically set up for life.  I can't believe you just posted a link, and appear incapable of explaining this in your own words.

I want to know precisely why the conditions for life that we observe as humans, could not have happened without a creator.  I want you to clearly show how this "fine-tuned" setup can be falsified.  What you are basically saying is this:

Life could not possibly be here if a creator had not set the conditions that we currently find ourselves in.

You have no explanation that is clearly superior to the puddle analogy.

Online Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2012, 08:14:07 AM »
My lord, Jesus Christ, tells me to love my next. Atheism however has nothing to offer, since its the religion of nothingness.

STOP RIGHT THERE.  There are few things that piss me off more than this.  With this statement, you have proven yourself to either be a frightful liar, or that you swallow the lies of others.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

First of all, as was already said, atheism is not a religion.  Say it with me: "bald is not a hair color, atheism is not a religion."  It's the ABSENCE of religion.  Read it, understand it, believe it.  Because it's the truth.

Now, about this "religion of nothing" crap . . . let's use this analogy.  Let's say you get a nice, big double-cheeseburger.  It may not be made exactly the way you like it, but you can walk over to the condiment stand and put your favorite goop on it.  Heck, if you're fortunate, you might just also get a side of fries to go with it.  Now imagine that someone says to you "You know, when you're done with that, I've got a super-duper magical banquet waiting for you--every kind of food you could ever want, for all eternity!!"

How precious is that burger going to be to you?

Now imagine someone says to you "you know, this is the only cheeseburger you're ever going to get.  I suggest you savor it!"

How precious is that burger going to be to you?

Now that this is straight, let me give you another analogy.  Take two children, identical in every meaningful way.  They're both what any reasonable person would call "good kids."  Don't lie or steal, they're respectful of others, listen to authorities, they even clean their dogs' turd. 

There is one important difference between the two kids.  The first kid behaves the way he does only because he's afraid of punishment, and craves reward.  The other behaves the way he does because he knows it's the right thing to do.

Which of these two kids are truly "good?"

Now, allow me to bring this to real life.  I try my best to raise my kids as respectful, intelligent, kind people.  I recycle.  I sometimes donate to charitable causes.  I try to be kind and respectful (but sometimes fail, as humans will).  I am confident there is nobody keeping score of what I do, that once I die I will be worm food, and will only live on in the memories of loved ones.

I'll assume that you live similarly, or even "better," than I do.  And you probably know that this is simply the right thing to do.  But you CANNOT repeat CANNOT ever get away from the fact that you have an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent being watching you, keeping score, and who will either send you to eternal torment, or eternal bliss, when you die.  You are literally incapable of doing anything ONLY because it's the right thing to do--you ALWAYS have the "hope of heaven and threat of hell" coloring your actions and motivations.

Which of us is truly a "good" person?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6452
  • Darwins +467/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2012, 08:31:10 AM »
Atheism however has nothing to offer, since its the religion of nothingness.

Just a small correction here. Atheism is not a religion. It would be the same as saying, "A vacuum is perfectly transparent, so a vacuum has a colour."

A vacuum does not have a color, it is the absence of color: Atheism is the absence of religion.

On another point, atheism does indeed offer benefits. Once the idea of a deity is removed, your eyes are opened and you can see the world as it really is - it gives us the gift of knowledge and the gift of wanting to find out more of how the whole thing really works.

Atheism provides the circumstances to cure disease - God offers prayer
Atheism offers an understanding of the world around us and the universe - religion offered burning at the stake as a heretic.
Atheism offers a peaceful way of life and toleration - religion offered the slaughter of races, the slaughter of those who thought differently, and the burning of witches.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2012, 09:04:44 AM »
Asteroids in our solar system have hit our planet and the other planets that are in our small little corner of the milky way. These asteroids caused a catastophic event here on earth,killing almost all life. It could and probably will happen again. how is this finley tuned for life?

http://doesgodexist.com/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.

more evidence of puddle thinking.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2012, 09:21:51 AM »
My lord, Jesus Christ, tells me to love my next. Atheism however has nothing to offer, since its the religion of nothingness.


One; you are enganging in "Undearwear Gnomes Theism" which follows the basic pemise of:

Step One: Find something that science is unclear on or that an insufficient amount of evidence to draw a conclusion

Step Two: Shrug

Step Three: Declare that the God of Christendom exists!


Furthermore declaring Atheism is a religion?, Hoo boy your complete lack of understanding and intellect is showing through to a point you should be embarrassed, but are far to imbecellic and delusional to understand why. For those that may be reading that aren't so willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty as yourself, I will demonstrate:

I have a belief that while I am asleep and there are no recording devices present that my shoes do not fly around the room. You might even call it I have faith in non-flying shoes.

And if you do, so what? You are really really stretching the definition of belief and faith. The belief in non-flying shoes is not the equal to the belief shoes fly around the room while I am asleep. Both may be claims, for sure. However the claim, the claim that violates what we see and can test, is the one that has the burden of proof.

Non, until I mentioned The flying shoe thing, you had no belief about flying shoes. You were Aflyingshoeists. After the claim about flying shoes you are still an Aflyingshoeist, but now one with a belief that flying shoes are a falsehood.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2012, 11:08:14 AM »
Only if God exists, and we have eternal life, our life becomes meaningful and purposeful. Otherwise, its empty and meaningless.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/
Quote
, the Atheist fulfillment is solely through materialism and pursuits of the self.  A randomly assembled life-form in a randomly assembled universe has no purpose beyond self-gratification and   perpetuation.  As a philosophy, this is without much substance.

Rather than parroting and citing a biased anti-atheist website, why don't you just ask us if our lives have meaning and purpose?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2012, 11:17:12 AM »
No, i believe that God created life, because all scientific evidence leads us straight to this conclusion.
Really? What would EVER lead you to conclude that it was a specific god? Oh. Because that is the specific god that you grew up exposed to.

Quote
embarassing because of what, exactly ? i feel very comfortable with my answers, my world view, which seems well backed up to me through science.
Embarassing seems to me , when someone believes, that complex , codified information can arise merely through chance, for example. Or, when someone believes, that dead matter can produce self conscient beings as your for example.
Again, the farthest this could lead you to would be a deist worldview. It would in no way point to a specific deity.

Quote
My lord, Jesus Christ, tells me to love my next. ....I am not a religious person.
You believe in a specific god with a specific, albeit incomprehensible, creed - you are a religious person.

Edit:
Also - to expand upon Boots post above. It would seem to me that any christian (or really religion or sect for that matter) that believes that a much better, eternal life occurs after this life should be sitting in an alley waiting to die (I won't go so far to suggest committing suicide or even deliberately putting ones own life in peril). If this life is crap and something SO MUCH MORE WONDERFUL exists when you die - why would you do anything or participate in this life in any way? Why get a job, make friends, buy a car or a house, have a pet, DO ANYTHING  but wait to die and move on to this amazing existence that awaits you? This is a completely serious question. The existence of a much better life/existence makes this life completely pointless and meaningless.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 11:33:22 AM by jtk73 »

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2012, 04:29:17 PM »
or lightening ?
You do know that naturalistic science has had an explanation for lightning for quite some time now, right?  Ala, not the creation of some god, but the interactions of electromagnetism in the atmosphere.

we know how it works. but no scientist knows how it arose on earth.
It didn't "evolve", as the blog you linked so quaintly puts it, it was a natural (and inevitable) consequence of the existence of electromagnetism.  It is no more complicated than having a surfeit of electrons in one place and a deficit in another, and the spontaneous flow of electrons from one to the other.  The simple fact that electrons can move from one atom to another is what causes lightning (also known as an electrical discharge); in an atmosphere where you have electrons that can move about, lightning is inevitable.

By the way, you should really work to keep your sciences straight.  Lightning is part of physics; evolution is part of biology.  Technically speaking, biology and chemistry are overlays on the underlying framework of physics.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2012, 04:36:22 PM »
You do know that naturalistic science has had an explanation for lightning for quite some time now, right?  Ala, not the creation of some god, but the interactions of electromagnetism in the atmosphere.

Not so fast, jaimehlers:

Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10586
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2012, 04:54:11 PM »
Not so fast, jaimehlers:

<snip>

I really hope that's a joke... If not, I pity that individual's ignorance.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2012, 04:54:27 PM »
I'm reasonably sure that wasn't made by someone who understands science.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2012, 04:59:37 PM »
I really hope that's a joke... If not, I pity that individual's ignorance.

Not only is it not a joke, but that little gem is found in the Bob Jones University textbook. It's a lot like the Accellerated Christian Education books, albeit a bit older. It's still in circulation in some private schools and used for homeschooling.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2012, 05:09:42 PM »

You are wrong. scientists do know how lightning arose, even I know how it arose.

Please explain. i am all ears.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10586
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2012, 05:10:44 PM »
<snip>
It's still in circulation in some private schools and used for homeschooling.

Well, that explains a lot...
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2012, 05:13:14 PM »
or lightening ?
You do know that naturalistic science has had an explanation for lightning for quite some time now, right?  Ala, not the creation of some god, but the interactions of electromagnetism in the atmosphere.

Please quote a scientific source.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2012, 05:16:05 PM »
I want to know precisely why the conditions for life that we observe as humans, could not have happened without a creator. 

because the odds are too big.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2012, 05:20:10 PM »
Furthermore declaring Atheism is a religion?, Hoo boy your complete lack of understanding and intellect is showing through to a point you should be embarrassed, but are far to imbecellic and delusional to understand why. For those that may be reading that aren't so willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty as yourself,

hahaha.....

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

Quote
“(The Seventh) federal court has ruled that prison officials in Wisconsin violated the rights of an inmate who sought to form an Atheist discussion group because they failed to treat Atheism as a religion.”
 
“James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices."
 
“The Court noted that the group was "interested in humanism, Atheism and free speaking," and that Mr. Kaufman included a list of Atheist groups and literature.
 
“Prison officials turned down the application, however, concluding that Kaufman's request was not motivated by "religious" beliefs as specified in a section of the Wisconsin penal code.
 
“The [Seventh US Circuit] Court of Appeals, however, ruled last week [Oct ’05] that the prison violated Kaufman's civil rights by not considering Atheism as a religion and protected form of religious expression.”

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2012, 05:39:56 PM »
Please quote a scientific source.
So, where's your "scientific" source for lightning having no explanation?  I don't mean linking to some blog post asserting that lightning is not explainable, as you did before, but the actual scientific evidence that shows that it's not explainable by naturalism.

The blog post you linked to is so ignorant of science that it actually asserts: "Once lightning passes through an object, no living energy remains".  It's pathetically easy to disprove this; people have survived lightning strikes[1] and been able to go to work the next day.  Not to mention all the people who have survived incidents with electrical outlets (electricity is lightning writ smaller).  Yeah, they're injured by it, but lightning is hardly a "sterilizer" as the blog article puts it, as most people who are struck by lightning survive the experience (Benjamin Franklin was struck by lightning in his famous experiment, and survived to become one of the Founding Fathers, after all).

Now, as for my evidence, how about basic physics?  Lightning is nothing more than the flow of electrons from a place where there are many to a place where there are few.  The very fact that we have an electrical grid proves this beyond any reasonable doubt, as it operates on the exact same principle.  The Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) explains the phenomenon of lightning and electricity pretty well, I think:  http://lightning.nsstc.nasa.gov/primer/
 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2005/06/dont_stand_by_me.html

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2012, 06:43:29 PM »
I want to know precisely why the conditions for life that we observe as humans, could not have happened without a creator. 

because the odds are too big.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

You're just getting worse and worse.  You are proving that you have a nice link to a load of non-sense for every question, and you seem completely unable to actually have a discussion on your own without pasting links.  I think I will ride this one out until the members have had enough.  The reports are coming in...

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2012, 06:52:14 PM »
I want to know precisely why the conditions for life that we observe as humans, could not have happened without a creator. 

because the odds are too big.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

The odds of spit hitting sand grain #6873356 is pretty damn bad too.  On the order of your magic 10^500 number I believe.  But my spit DID hit sand grain #6873356.  Do I get to attribute that to god as well?

You've yet to establish that there are fewer than 10^111111111 universes.  You've yet to establish that any other universe aside from this is even possible (in the opposite way that, say, a triangle can have 7 sides kind of way.  You've also failed to establish why this probability hypothesis of yours excludes the idea that it is at least as probable, if not more so, that god is a sadistic cuntbag making sure that your existence is filled with as many lies and untruths as you could possibly fit in your head as possible.  I mean, let's face it, is there a better chance that god is perfect or not perfect?  How many more variants of imperfection are there over variants of perfection?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Online Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2012, 09:56:00 PM »
GE, are you unable to answer my post above?

who is a more "good" person, you, who behaves "good" out of fear of punnishment and hope of reward, or me, who behaves "good" ONLY because it's the right thing to do??
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2012, 10:20:51 PM »

So, where's your "scientific" source for lightning having no explanation?  I don't mean linking to some blog post asserting that lightning is not explainable, as you did before, but the actual scientific evidence that shows that it's not explainable by naturalism.

The blog post you linked to is so ignorant of science that it actually asserts: "Once lightning passes through an object, no living energy remains".  It's pathetically easy to disprove this; people have survived lightning strikes[1] and been able to go to work the next day.  Not to mention all the people who have survived incidents with electrical outlets (electricity is lightning writ smaller).  Yeah, they're injured by it, but lightning is hardly a "sterilizer" as the blog article puts it, as most people who are struck by lightning survive the experience (Benjamin Franklin was struck by lightning in his famous experiment, and survived to become one of the Founding Fathers, after all).

Now, as for my evidence, how about basic physics?  Lightning is nothing more than the flow of electrons from a place where there are many to a place where there are few.  The very fact that we have an electrical grid proves this beyond any reasonable doubt, as it operates on the exact same principle.  The Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) explains the phenomenon of lightning and electricity pretty well, I think:  http://lightning.nsstc.nasa.gov/primer/
 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2005/06/dont_stand_by_me.html

Your link doesnt work.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 10:26:42 PM by Godexists »

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2012, 10:22:57 PM »
GE, are you unable to answer my post above?

who is a more "good" person, you, who behaves "good" out of fear of punnishment and hope of reward, or me, who behaves "good" ONLY because it's the right thing to do??

How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ? Based on your world view, how can there  be set a objective value standard of ethics and morals ? If God does not exist, everything becomes relative and subjective. How can you say, Hitler was wrong, to send millions of jews to death, if he felt that was the right thing to do ? Men becoms the ultimate instance of judgement, nothing above him can say, what is objectively right, and wrong. So if a nation sets a different standard of ethis and values, nobody can say, they are objectively wrong. Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 10:25:58 PM by Godexists »

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2012, 10:59:24 PM »
Works fine for me.  I suggest you go to the base site (lightning.nsstc.nasa.gov) and click on "A Lightning Primer" instead.

And in response to your "good/bad" post, no, there does not need to be some objective entity which emits morality to know that some things are good and others bad.  I can say "Hitler was wrong to exterminate millions of Jews" because he was doing so to promote his own personal power and agenda, for example.

What you need to realize is that what people claim is objective morality from their god is in fact the very relative morality you decry.  They just use "god commanded this" as an excuse to avoid having to think about it.  Thus you get atrocities that people willingly, even eagerly commit because they feel they're doing the will of their god.

Like it or hate it, atheism doesn't demand that it's followers hew to some completely artificial standard of morality merely because some high muckety-muck claims that it came down from on high.  That's the purview of religious belief.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2012, 11:06:10 PM »
Asteroids in our solar system have hit our planet and the other planets that are in our small little corner of the milky way. These asteroids caused a catastrophic event here on earth,killing almost all life. It could and probably will happen again. how is this finley tuned for life?

http://doesgodexist.com/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
That chart is so pretty and the colors are just awesome, I don't understand how I couldn't believe in a creator.

Or maybe all that stuff is science and theists are hijacking it to to try and prove god exists. Yeah that sounds about right....
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2012, 11:31:19 PM »



hahaha.....

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/



Wrong you intellectually dishonest pinhead:

"... whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."

This is an important point and the Court also made reference to the Supreme Court's opinion that a religion is distinct from a "way of life", even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. Essentially, not every belief or belief system is a religion.

The legal definition of religion, with regard to the First Amendment, may be very different from the layperson's definition. The First Amendment, in order to be effective in protecting all beliefs must guarantee the freedom to hold no religious belief. This is fairly straightforward, especially if you consider - for example - that a Christian may be considered an atheist with respect to every religion except Christianity.

    "Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that for her occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion."

    "We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) ('If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.')"

This is, essentially, the basis for their decision. They have, in the past, considered atheism to be a religion in the specialized sense that atheism, like theism, specifically addresses the concept of god for the individual. This definition is an attempt to address the implied protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions"

They referred to another Supreme Court decision (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)), where the court said:

    "At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

As we've seen, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't declared atheism to be a religion as the layperson might usually define it, they simply acknowledged that atheism hold equal standing with religions with regard to the First Amendment. I can live with that. That doesn't mean the Court got everything correct...

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2012, 11:32:13 PM »
How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ? Based on your world view, how can there  be set a objective value standard of ethics and morals ? [...] Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.

Godexists, understand that not all atheists think morality is subjective. We have at least one atheist here that believes an objective morality exists. As for myself, I'm still undecided (though I'm leaning toward an objective one). But both worldviews make excellent cases for morality and a god is not required for either view.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence of philosophical naturalism: a question from that thread
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2012, 12:13:36 AM »
How do you possibly know what is good, what is bad ?

GE, it's very simple:  Does an action help or harm?  If you wouldn't want something done to you, a member of your family or a close personal friend, don't do it to somebody else.  Are you actually having difficulty understanding that?

Quote
How can you say, Hitler was wrong, to send millions of jews to death, if he felt that was the right thing to do ?

See My first point, above.  Would you allow a Hitler to do it to you or someone you loved?  If the answer is "No," then you have determined that the events in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s are morally wrong.

Quote
Men becoms the ultimate instance of judgement, nothing above him can say, what is objectively right, and wrong.

Correct.

Quote
So if a nation sets a different standard of ethis and values, nobody can say, they are objectively wrong.

We don't have to say something is "objectively" wrong.  Subjective morality works just fine.

Quote
Therefore, ultimatively, good, and bad, cannot exist in a atheistic world view.

But, GE, they *do* exist in an atheistic world view!  We're just not letting a mythical planet-drowning b@stard of a deity wield the Morality Gavel.

Because the last time we let Yahweh play with hammers, he allegedly had his own kid nailed to a tree.  If Biblegod is your paragon of virtue, I'd take said virtue into the shop for an overhaul... STAT.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles