Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[TripTango]

Cool then you can agree that Atheists cannot prove God exists?

I will certainly agree with this!

So say we all!

 

[magnifier661]

burden of proof.
You can't disprove unicorns, but can still believe they do not exist.

BINGO!

 

[magnifier661]

1) I said that human ignorance is not proof for God, and never has been. You cannot simply say "we don't understand that, therefore it must be an all-powerful being". As evidence, take any number of natural phenomena that used to be considered magical, divine, and inexplicable -- lightning, chemical reactions, magnets... All of these were, at one point or another, complete mysteries. They are not any more. This is solid evidence that we cannot simply assume that mysterious phenomena will never be explained.

2) You responded to a different criticism of your 2nd law argument -- not mine.

I will try and get back on this. Still trying to get the next 3 questions.

 

[Eastoff]

1) I said that human ignorance is not proof for God, and never has been. You cannot simply say "we don't understand that, therefore it must be an all-powerful being". As evidence, take any number of natural phenomena that used to be considered magical, divine, and inexplicable -- lightning, chemical reactions, magnets... All of these were, at one point or another, complete mysteries. They are not any more. This is solid evidence that we cannot simply assume that mysterious phenomena will never be explained.

2) You responded to a different criticism of your 2nd law argument -- not mine.

There is still a lot of mystery behind lightning.

 

[TripTango]

There is still a lot of mystery behind lightning.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay so I only made two more; because the third one is really a complex question. But I posted the next two on the OP and I will post the duplicated after this post.

 

[magnifier661]

4.) What is the alternative?

Lets imagine for a moment that you are walking along the street. You are walking next to a building and you noticed a couple hundred toothpicks lying on that sidewalk spelling your name. The toothpicks are arranged in such a way that it’s very neatly, in perfect sequence spelling out your name.

So now you are looking at these toothpicks, scratching your head and you see no one around. You look up and you see an open window on the third floor; and see an empty box that says “toothpicks” on the ledge. But you still don’t know how it got there. You don’t know how they were arranged in that way.

Now let’s say two people come along. They meet you in front of the toothpicks and you tell them. “Look at these toothpicks, they spell out my name”. And these two people are trying to explain how these toothpicks got there in that way.

Person (A) has his theory: Someone with intelligence has put those toothpicks there in that way.

Person (B) has his theory: His theory is that those toothpicks somehow fell from that window and coincidently landed in that way. That no one designed the toothpicks in that way.

So out of these two theories; which person has the true burden of proof?

The Person (B) screams out loud. You better PROVE TO ME, that intelligence designed this. You got to prove to me that someone placed those toothpicks in such a way. You have to show me the person that put the toothpicks there.

That is illogical and you know it. Simple cause and effect is evidence that God exists. Come on now, what’s more complex? The toothpicks or the human brain, the cosmos, all life on earth, the earth itself? If you can’t believe the toothpicks can’t come together on their own; then why would you believe that the human brain could?

So why would the person that believes intelligence designed the universe and everything in it must have the burden of proof; yet the person that all of the universe and it’s very existence doesn’t need proof? What’s more logical?

5.) Basic logic, common sense and reasoning

This is a hypothetical conversation between an Atheist and me. I want to tell a story; because I’m sure there will be hundreds of different responses, so bare with me.

How many of you seen an painting “The Mona Lisa”. Are you open to the possibility that no one painted the Mona Lisa? Be it having all the pigments in the earth and canvas material; that wind, billions of years have somehow put the Mona Lisa on that canvas? After all, you weren’t there when it was painted, so you couldn’t see how it was created. Neither of us can prove that we know for sure who painted that painting. So are you OPEN to the possibility that the Mona Lisa naturally became a painting we see today? YES or NO.

The Atheist will say “NO”. Then I ask “Why are you not open to that possibility”. And then the atheist will say “There is too much complexity and design for this to happen by chance”

Then I ask “What’s more complex, the Mona Lisa, or your human body?” and he answers “Well the human body of course!”. So then I ask “So you are willing to admit that your body; clearly more complex than the Mona Lisa was created by happen stance; but are unwilling to accept the Mona Lisa being created by happen stance.”

That is a total contradiction in logic.

Now sometimes an Atheist says, “Well give me enough time + chance and anything is possible” I think this logic is not true.

Let me give you another example:

Let’s say I have this clock and I completely dismantle every part of that clock. I take this clock and put it in a tin can and shake it up for 1 billion years. Is it logical that every piece of that clock will come together in perfect synergy? I think not. And guess what?!?! You actually have all the pieces necessary to make this clock; and still it isn’t logically possible.

This is another evidence to me that there was a designer.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Next?

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Next?

Okay so you admit that it is perfectly logical that toothpicks can fall from a window and land on the sidewalk to spell out your name, over some intelligence, knowing you grabbed the toothpicks and spelt out your name?

LOL okay.... At least I know who I'm dealing with now.

 

[RR7]

I think the problem with 4 is stating someone with intelligence. If you say someone with intelligence designed toothpicks versus random, I go with a person putting them that way. If you say an omnipotent being nobody could see that exists everywhere, I go with the random chance over millions of years that those toothpicks might happen to spell your name.

 

[magnifier661]

I think the problem with 4 is stating someone with intelligence. If you say someone with intelligence designed toothpicks versus random, I go with a person putting them that way. If you say an omnipotent being nobody could see that exists everywhere, I go with the random chance over millions of years that those toothpicks might happen to spell your name.

We aren't even talking about my God RR7. We are talking about intelligent design.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your point #5. You think it's not true, so you say. Yet I link you to a mathematical PROOF that the Mona Lisa can be created from happenstance.

Note that in mathematics, there is PROOF which is beyond EVIDENCE.

The answer to your first question has already been answered. One person said that if we found human beings on another planet independent of earthbound humans, it'd be strong evidence of a creator. I said if God appeared before me in a burning bush and demonstrated some biblical type miracles, I'd consider it strong evidence he exists.

Your first question is silly, frankly. If you drop a box of toothpicks from the third floor a gazillion times, it may well spell someone's name. Otherwise, the question is based on a fantasy. It's a non-real hypothetical.

 

[magnifier661]

Your point #5. You think it's not true, so you say. Yet I link you to a mathematical PROOF that the Mona Lisa can be created from happenstance.

Note that in mathematics, there is PROOF which is beyond EVIDENCE.

The answer to your first question has already been answered. One person said that if we found human beings on another planet independent of earthbound humans, it'd be strong evidence of a creator. I said if God appeared before me in a burning bush and demonstrated some biblical type miracles, I'd consider it strong evidence he exists.

Your first question is silly, frankly. If you drop a box of toothpicks from the third floor a gazillion times, it may well spell someone's name. Otherwise, the question is based on a fantasy. It's a non-real hypothetical.

LOL okay if you say so Denny. :MARIS61:

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought you might enjoy this.

Evidence of Jesus or random chance?

 

[RR7]

We aren't even talking about my God RR7. We are talking about intelligent design.

so your proof of someone's beliefs being not sound is silly hypotheticals? That's not great proof. It's just hypothetical situations. It doesn't have to be your god, or anyone's specific god. Things can look like they were designed intelligently, and not be so. I can splatter paint from a 2nd story building onto a canvas, and another world renowned painter can "design" a similar splatter onto canvas. One happened by chance, the other designed. My splatter doesn't disprove the painter, and vice versa.

But in everyday life, to see matchsticks, you are "hiding" part of the equation to just say hey, do you think those matchsticks got there by a smart person, or random. Well, anyone will say a person. NOW, add into that, to a person who has never heard of a god, and say hey, do you think odds are there is an omnipotent being who placed these here to give me a sign, he is all aroun dus, all knowing, yadda yadda, or they got here randomly, it becomes a bit harder to go with that side. Matchsticks placed on a sidewalk is hardly, in my opinion, a good comparison to, say, the human body. And a hypothetical as such hardly helps an argument to prove atheism isn;t a sound belief.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I thought you might enjoy this.

Evidence of Jesus or random chance?

Kind of looks like Barfo.

 

[Denny Crane]

Apparently if you make a gazillion potato chips, you can randomly find the likeness of Jesus on one from time to time.

But hey, people look at a cloud and see a horse sometimes.

 

[magnifier661]

I thought you might enjoy this.

Evidence of Jesus or random chance?

Wow that looks just as complex as the "Mona Lisa" how silly of me Denny.

 

[Denny Crane]

Kind of looks like Barfo.

Funny, I always pictured he looks like this:

 

[magnifier661]

You do know Denny, you are kinda proving my point here.

 

[RR7]

Kind of OT, but I'll say the hypotheticals and arguments for intelligent design also sound similar to the conspiracy theories in regards to 9/11. Sure, there's science behind the buildings falling because of the ignited jet fuel. But with the location of the crash, etc. what are the odds that not one, but 2 buildings would collapse perfectly on top of themselves, without the collapse being "intelligently designed"?

 

[magnifier661]

so your proof of someone's beliefs being not sound is silly hypotheticals? That's not great proof. It's just hypothetical situations. It doesn't have to be your god, or anyone's specific god. Things can look like they were designed intelligently, and not be so. I can splatter paint from a 2nd story building onto a canvas, and another world renowned painter can "design" a similar splatter onto canvas. One happened by chance, the other designed. My splatter doesn't disprove the painter, and vice versa.

But in everyday life, to see matchsticks, you are "hiding" part of the equation to just say hey, do you think those matchsticks got there by a smart person, or random. Well, anyone will say a person. NOW, add into that, to a person who has never heard of a god, and say hey, do you think odds are there is an omnipotent being who placed these here to give me a sign, he is all aroun dus, all knowing, yadda yadda, or they got here randomly, it becomes a bit harder to go with that side. Matchsticks placed on a sidewalk is hardly, in my opinion, a good comparison to, say, the human body. And a hypothetical as such hardly helps an argument to prove atheism isn;t a sound belief.

There you go again with the word "Proof". I am not proving anything! I am just giving my evidence and you can decide one way or another. And once again, you are using "My God" as a logical comparison. Again this can be anything intelligent. Forget the Omnipresent; since that is connected to my belief.

And the metaphor of the "Mona Lisa" doesn't have to mean the actual "Mona Lisa". Nice dodge.

 

[magnifier661]

Kind of OT, but I'll say the hypotheticals and arguments for intelligent design also sound similar to the conspiracy theories in regards to 9/11. Sure, there's science behind the buildings falling because of the ignited jet fuel. But with the location of the crash, etc. what are the odds that not one, but 2 buildings would collapse perfectly on top of themselves, without the collapse being "intelligently designed"?

Okay so you will be Open to the idea that a painting like the Mona Lisa can just randomly put itself on a rock? Forget the canvas. And I will give you 1 trillion years. Is that logical in your mind?

 

[TripTango]

4) Denny's got it right -- if you drop enough boxes of toothpicks out of windows, it becomes a statistical CERTAINTY that at least some of those boxes will spell your name. Depending on how many you drop, you could even be reasonably assured to get something resembling your FULL name.

5) I believe the Mona Lisa was painted by a human not because it is complex, but because there is no reason to doubt the historical record that it was done by Da Vinci. This is not comparable to complexity in nature, where there are many well-documented examples of patterns and complexity arising from incredibly simple initial rules. For example, take seven identically-sized spheres and toss them into a bowl. Amazingly, without any planning by you, they will form themselves into a kind of six-pointed star shape! Remarkable! The only inputs necessary for this elegant system are that the spheres are identically sized, and that there be some sort of attractive force. How many more patterns would be possible if we had a variety of forces and a variety of spheres... say, like a bunch of atoms in our universe?

Snowflakes are another classic example. Each one appears to be an intricate work of art -- such diversity, such elegance! And yet, their formation is completely explainable by a few seemingly-simple rules for interaction between water molecules (mostly hydrogen bonding) and the details of their surrounding conditions (such as temperature and humidity). There is no need for an intelligent planner behind snowflake formation -- at least not directly. You may choose to go deeper, and ask "well, where did those laws come from?" But then we are back at the cosmological argument: where did ANYTHING come from? We don't know, but at least it can be shown that there is no need for intelligent consciousness behind the formation of patterns in nature.

 

[Denny Crane]

Okay so you will be Open to the idea that a painting like the Mona Lisa can just randomly put itself on a rock? Forget the canvas. And I will give you 1 trillion years. Is that logical in your mind?

Look, it's Mona Lisa on a potato chip!

 

[magnifier661]

This is a perfect example. You are using this as chance, I am saying it is logical that it was designed by a creator. But with the tooth pick theory. It is very possible that it could someday; millions, billions, trillions of years eventually spell out your name; but assume for a minute that you have two options. Which sounds more logical? Intelligence putting it there, or it eventually happening over the course of a few billion years?

 

[magnifier661]

I gotta get some food; but I will come back. Fire away at how silly my points are. I think it's kinda funny.

 

[TripTango]

This is a perfect example. You are using this as chance, I am saying it is logical that it was designed by a creator. But with the tooth pick theory. It is very possible that it could someday; millions, billions, trillions of years eventually spell out your name; but assume for a minute that you have two options. Which sounds more logical? Intelligence putting it there, or it eventually happening over the course of a few billion years?

It IS a perfect example, and it is NOT random chance -- it is the guaranteed result of putting several simple interactive forces together with some stuff. In other words, snowflakes are a perfect example of non-intelligent, guaranteed patterns in nature!

 

[RR7]

It IS a perfect example, and it is NOT random chance -- it is the guaranteed result of putting several simple interactive forces together with some stuff. In other words, snowflakes are a perfect example of non-intelligent, guaranteed patterns in nature!

He has said bingo, exactly, agreed, and you are making my point so many times in these threads, in response to seemingly only things disagreeing with him, not showing his points, etc. Makes the discussion difficult when either someone doesn't know what you're saying, or doesn't know what he's saying. Or somehow has an all agreeable point, but he's not letting any of us in on it.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is a perfect example. You are using this as chance, I am saying it is logical that it was designed by a creator. But with the tooth pick theory. It is very possible that it could someday; millions, billions, trillions of years eventually spell out your name; but assume for a minute that you have two options. Which sounds more logical? Intelligence putting it there, or it eventually happening over the course of a few billion years?

Ironically, you can see crystalline structures form in a closed system and identify the forces that cause the structure to form into "snowflakes." Not a shred of evidence that any "designer" has anything to do with it.

The thing about toothpicks is that there's a 1:10000000000000000000000000 (some really tiny) chance they spell your name when dropped from the third story window. It could happen the very first time.