[Libra SPYdrZ]

There is only one fact that atheists and people who believe in any kind of religion cannot deny. At one point in time humans did not exist and then humans came into existence, even the earth itself did not exist at one point. I will only discuss the creation of humans, i dont know exactly what athiests believe, but i assume they would say evolution or something like that, im not going to pose the question of how the first human was born, since we all start as babies who gave birth to him or how did the first human baby survive without its mother's milk, forget all that.

So atheists would attribute our creation to nature, from single cell organisms and from then step by step to more complicated creations. Okay thats fine, but lets examine how complicated humans are, we have a heart, we have lungs, we have a digestive system and many other organs each with a specific function so humans can survive. Explain to me how nature decided to create all these necessary organs, how did it know. does nature think? Did nature for example create a human without lungs and watched it suffocate to death and then add that function, does nature work through trial and error? These are just some of the questions i have, but this is not my biggest concern, im sure someone will find some scientific way to explain all this. There is one thing however that humans have that is not neccesary for survival however without it we would be extinct and there is no way nature or evolution or anything could assume we need it.

That my friends is eyes, sight is not needed for survival in any way it serves no function, there is no reason nature would give us sight. Single cell organisms, bacteria and so on do not have sight. In order for sight to exist there has to be some sort of intelligence/thinking i dont know but nature itself that would just create creatures to survive would only give them the neccesary functions. What purpose does sight serve? Absolutely nothing, however without it people would be walking off cliffs, nothing would be possible that would allow us to survive, early humans would not be able to hunt or do anything. Its very simple, if everyone went blind today the entire human race would become extinct in no time. So my athiest friends can you find any way to explain our ability to see and how vital it is for our survival yet how insignificant it actually really is if nature alone created us, there has to be a Creator that can think and know that we need sight to create tools, hunt/farm, build houses, avoid dangers and so on. Until someone can explain sight i cannot deny that there is at least a Creator that can think, as for religion well it could be up for debate.

[Black Oranje]

Quote:

There is only one fact that atheists and people who believe in any kind of religion cannot deny. At one point in time humans did not exist and then humans came into existence, even the earth itself did not exist at one point. I will only discuss the creation of humans, i dont know exactly what athiests believe, but i assume they would say evolution or something like that, im not going to pose the question of how the first human was born, since we all start as babies who gave birth to him or how did the first human baby survive without its mother's milk, forget all that.

And right of the bat you make a mistake by assuming a 'switch' was made from one species to the next at some point. This is not what happened, it is not how evolution works.
Evolution is a gradual thing that takes thousand of years to produce significant changes to a specie. It is also a thing that is constantly in motion. Here's why:
In short, when we reproduce, the mother's and father's genes (DNA) mix up and form a new set of genes. This set of genes is unique to the child, but is made by copying parts of it's parent's DNA.
-BECAUSE- it is unique it is also slightly different. It is this tiny difference that over many generations causes species to change.

There is no 'first human'. Any attempt to draw a line between humans and our direct ancestors is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. All those species we know in today's world, are a snapshot of a biosphere that is always changing, always evolving.

As for the milk example: every baby drank it's mothers milk. You can trace that line alllll the way back to when mammals first came into existence. I haven't the knowledge at hand to describe the process of the first mammals evolution though.

Quote:

That my friends is eyes, sight is not needed for survival in any way it serves no function, there is no reason nature would give us sight.

yerrr kidding me eh? Okay, bring on the reasoning.

Okay I can't (don't feel like) answering this without breaking it up.

Quote:

Single cell organisms, bacteria and so on do not have sight.

Correct.

Quote:

In order for sight to exist there has to be some sort of intelligence/thinking i dont know but nature itself that would just create creatures to survive would only give them the neccesary functions.

Actually, through the whole reproduction process, nature randomly tries a whole bunch of stuff. Only the successful stuff has a higher chance of reproducing (due to it being succesful), and thus tends to form a longer lasting part of the gene set.

Quote:

What purpose does sight serve? Absolutely nothing, however without it people would be walking off cliffs, nothing would be possible that would allow us to survive, early humans would not be able to hunt or do anything.

And you don't see yourself contradicting yourself there?

Quote:

Its very simple, if everyone went blind today the entire human race would become extinct in no time.

Still wanna argue that sight serves no purpose?

Quote:

So my athiest friends can you find any way to explain our ability to see and how vital it is for our survival yet how insignificant it actually really is if nature alone created us, there has to be a Creator that can think and know that we need sight to create tools, hunt/farm, build houses, avoid dangers and so on. Until someone can explain sight i cannot deny that there is at least a Creator that can think, as for religion well it could be up for debate.

Right, explain sight. *cracks knuckles and scrapes throat*

Single celled organism are influenced by light. Some use light for some of their chemical processes. Some need it to be able to survive.
That being said, it makes sense to have a way to tell whether or not there is light. A single celled organism depending on light would experience it's biochemical processes going active and inactive in cycles - 24 hours cycles.
Not that the bacteria notices anyway, it doesn't have a brain. At most, some of it's processes are triggered.

Moving on to bigger organisms. Once again, it makes sense to know when it's light (and maybe warm and dry - a hazard) or dark (cool, moist - a safer time to be out). If through evolution a species ends up with a few light sensitive cells, that would be a benefit, thus successful, thus sticking around as a feature in that species.

Long story short: through a process of gradual improvement through random developments and natural selection (ie evolution), eyes evolved. One, tiny, step at a time.

edit: I believe Richard Dawkins was interviewed by some religious guy some time where he tackles the exact same evolution of the eye thing. Can't be arsed to find it now though.

[Azure Dragon]

Libra, I highly recommend that you read some of Richard Dawkins works. The God Delusion is a good start, as it covers a broad range of atheist thinking (notice the word 'thinking', rather than 'belief').

You've asked some valid questions, and the answers to the questions are out there. You might come to a question that cannot be answered by science. Yet. Just because we don't have an answer now, doesn't mean that we never will.

Consider that 500 years ago, we didn't know why Apples fell to the ground, or why the earth moved around the sun. If you thought to ask these questions, the answer would have been "God wills it".

"God" is a convenient answer that can be used to explain anything that we don't yet understand. People don't like things that are unknown, and the convenient answer comforts them. It doesn't, however make the convenient answer correct.

You could look at your question about the human eye, and you can consider what an amazingly complicated organ it is. You could be content the answer "such a complicated thing could only have come into existance through God" and not trouble yourself to think about the hundreds of millions of years through which this organ could have slowly evolved.

When thinking about humans and evolution, consider how long an average human would live. Today it might be almost 90 in some countries. But up until 100 odd years ago, it was much closer to 40 and would have got alot shorter.

Consider the way we procreate, and what actually happens. Two seperate unique strains of DNA (which itself is made of 26 pairs of genes) are mixed together to create a unique new strain of DNA.

Consider just your own lineage, and count back how many times this mixing of genes has occured in the last 1000 years. How many times did it occur in 10000 years, how many times did it need to occur in 100,000 years. It's around this point in time that homo-sapiens or human beings, began appearing. Now consider how many times in this chain of conception, which did occur for you to exist, that this mixing of genes occurred in 1 million years. We're not even close to the dinosaur era yet.

Even if the odds of something amazing happening, say for example a planet having the correct conditions for simple proteins to form into single cell life are 1 billion to 1, given theres 100's of billions of stars in the universe, and you conservatively give each star just one planet (for example, our solar system has 8, not even mentioning the moons, some of which could possibly harbour life too) then you still have 100's of planets that that have beaten the odds.

Of course, all we can do is guess at the variables. We have gaps in our knowledge, and this means the odds could be wildly different. But this doesn't mean we will never know.

[Gotterdammerung]

To be clear, atheism does not suppose anything. Like a Western court will hold you innocent until proven guilty, an Atheist will deem things false until proven as true.

Of course, what this really means in practice is that the existance of things, like God, comes down to probabily given then information present at any given time. So it does no good to suggest to an Atheist that, "you may be wrong", or "there are holes in your theory", because she will shrug and say, "well, what better explanation do you have?".

If you want to win an argument with an Atheist you have to fight fire with fight, showing why or how the the evidence shows a positive alternative. Simply sowing doubt in their position simply won't do.

[...]

Here is the Richard Dawkins video that has been referenced in this thread.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUjd8x-1xM0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffcWK...feature=relmfu

[Azure Dragon]

Quote:

To be clear, atheism does not suppose anything. Like a Western court will hold you innocent until proven guilty, an Atheist will deem things false until proven as true.

A very apt analogy.

Convicting people on basis of guilty until proven innocent encourages corruption and tyranny.

Believing in a god that you have no proof exists encourages corruption and tyranny.

Human history is littered with the proof of this.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:

Believing in a god that you have no proof exists encourages corruption and tyranny.

It is perfectly rational to believe in God if you accept that it is philosophy and not science. The failure to make this distinction is the thing that encourages the corruption and tyranny, not the theology itself.

Science is the explanation of the world, not God. If God created the world, then science is an explanation of His creation. Therefore science ought to be seen as a positive thing for both believers and non-believers. The fact that tension exists here is a misunderstanding from both sides.

[Apeiron]

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:

It is perfectly rational to believe in God if you accept that it is philosophy and not science.

You can't just throw in the word "philosophy" when you actually mean "let's ignore basic logic". It is not rational to believe in God.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Apeiron:

You can't just throw in the word "philosophy" when you actually mean "let's ignore basic logic". It is not rational to believe in God.

The idea of God is logically plausible within the context of cosmology.

[Azure Dragon]

No, it's not rational at all to believe in something for which there is no evidence, and this is the only misunderstanding between "believers" and "non-believers".

Science is about understanding everything. Including god or gods.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

Since the big bang, the space in the universe is accelerating. This means that there is no return and there is no closed system to speak of.

1) Closed system is meaningless. There is no 'outside'. The universe is not expanding into everything, and the 'expansion' is purely internal.

2) Since when does any explosion go into reverse and reassemble? Expanding is exactly what is expected from a Big Bang.

3) If it expanding, then it must have been smaller yesterday, and smaller still the day before that. If you go back enough days, it must become a matematical point.

In other words, the Big Bang is entirely logical.

Quote:

If you are a student of casuality you would be painfully away that the universe cannot regress infinitely. Therefore there must have a prior 'first' cause.

The Big Bang was the first cause, otherwise you are into infinate regression. You 'creator' demands infinite regression, which is exactly why it is entirely illogical.

Quote:

If all I do is take the logical chain back one step and say 'the universe was created' then I can do that. If I only added one step then so what, it's one magnitude developed beyond your supposition.

No, you can't do that. Who created your creator? Answer that.

[Voice of Reason]

Just to make this clear, your argument is:

* The Big bang is illogical because it 'just happened', but everything has to have a cause.

* That means that there must have been a creator to cause the universe

* It is not infinite regression because the creator was caused by... it just happened, without a cause.

Is that what you are saying?

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

Just to make this clear, your argument is:

* The Big bang is illogical because it 'just happened', but everything has to have a cause.

* That means that there must have been a creator to cause the universe

* It is not infinite regression because the creator was caused by... it just happened, without a cause.

Is that what you are saying?

But the creator isn't defined by causality, see the difference?

[Voice of Reason]

I see no difference. If the creator is not defined by causality, I see no reason why the Big Bang has to be. Either everything has a cause, and you are into infinite regression, or it doesn't, and there is no need for any creator.

And then there is the problem of where, when there was no universe, your creator lived...

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

I see no difference. If the creator is not defined by causality, I see no reason why the Big Bang has to be. Either everything has a cause, and you are into infinite regression, or it doesn't, and there is no need for any creator.

The regression towards the big bang is defined by causality, but the event itself cannot be defined by causality. At some point things just went poof.

When you say, 'the big bang did it', that to me is the same as 'the creator did it'. So I think we are on the same page in this regard.

At least we can agree why infinite regress is the worst conclusion one could make.

Quote:

And then there is the problem of where, when there was no universe, your creator lived...

The creator and the big bang are not necessarily two seperate identities. The 'bang' part of the Big Bang is what I am calling the 'creator' part in the universe. It was singular, it was supreme, somehow not defined by causality, and yet absolutely, logically necessary.

[Azure Dragon]

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:

The regression towards the big bang is defined by causality, but the event itself cannot be defined by causality. At some point things just went poof.

When you say, 'the big bang did it', that to me is the same as 'the creator did it'. So I think we are on the same page in this regard.

At least we can agree why infinite regress is the worst conclusion one could make.

And yet you cannot explain how the "creator" came into existence.

Quote:

The creator and the big bang are not necessarily two seperate identities. The 'bang' part of the Big Bang is what I am calling the 'creator' part in the universe. It was singular, it was supreme, somehow not defined by causality, and yet absolutely, logically necessary.

Firstly, the word "creator" implies an intelligent entity.
Secondly, there is no evidence for or against the big bang event being singular.
Thirdly, why use the word supreme?
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest whether the big bang had a cause or not.

[Gotterdammerung]

Big bangs are repeatable, as you say. Which only stands to reasons that the first cause must be unrepeatable and existing as distinguishable to the big bang(s).

Since the first cause must be unrepeatable, it must also be unique. It must also be an uncaused cause as to not infinitely regress. Since it is the unique uncaused cause that does not infinitely regress, it is all powerful over creation. Since all power and all creation is not manifest at once, it must also be deliberate. Such deliberation is what constitutes intelligence.

[Azure Dragon]

And we're back to arguing the infinite regression. If there is an uncaused cause to the big bang, then it is far less complex to say the big bang had no cause, and again does not require the existence of an intelligence to cause it.

Further, if you take causality to be a fundamental law of the universe; then what evidence is there to suggest that it existed before the universe?

[Gotterdammerung]

Yes, it does come down to infinite regression and whether that is plausible or not to us.

Strictly, science can only observe so far back into the universe, and anything before that is extrapolation. Indeed, the big bang is a logical extrapolation since we can not observe any evidence that shows that it ever happened.

In the theme of extropolation, I presented to you a logical argument for a creator. It absolutely relies on the assumption that infinite regression isn't plausible. Logically, it's not plausible, but of course it could be reality since nature does not always work logically (since our premises are always incomplete).

I present to you the reasoned position that if the big bang is a logical extrapolation and you accept it on that basis, then it is also possible to accept a creator with the same rigor since it is equally logical and necessary. If, however, you want to accept infinite regression as plausible, then that undermines everything about what we think we know about the early universe. Indeed, the infinite regression idea is much worse logically than the 'god did it' idea, because at least the deist position followers some chain of logic as opposed to the indefensable position of 'it must infinitely regress because it must'.

Infinite regression is illogical.

[Azure Dragon]

Lets get this clear - the big bang theory deals with the event itself and the aftermath. The big bang theory does not deal with the cause of the event. The logical extrapolation of the Big Bang theory is based on observed evidence of the early universe, and extrapolated back using known physics. It is the current accepted theory of most scientists (by that I mean the people who dedicate their lives to studying the subject) that fits the observed evidence. Suggesting that because one accepts the Big Bang Theory that one must also accept a creator theory is just a very poor attempt at confusing the argument. The two are mutually exclusive theories, and the logic behind one does not justify the logic behind the other.

The logical extrapolation of a creator is based on... imaginative thinking? There is no observed evidence that suggests at a creator. Any logical thinking about a creator relies on the gap theory - that what science hasn't explained is somehow evidence of god.

Quote:

Indeed, the infinite regression idea is much worse logically than the 'god did it' idea, because at least the deist position followers some chain of logic as opposed to the indefensable position of 'it must infinitely regress because it must'.

The idea of a creator, an intelligent agent, frequently called 'god' by some absolutely and completely relies on infinite regression. But thank you for accepting how "indefensible" that thinking is.

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:

Lets get this clear - the big bang theory deals with the event itself and the aftermath. The big bang theory does not deal with the cause of the event. The logical extrapolation of the Big Bang theory is based on observed evidence of the early universe, and extrapolated back using known physics. It is the current accepted theory of most scientists (by that I mean the people who dedicate their lives to studying the subject) that fits the observed evidence. Suggesting that because one accepts the Big Bang Theory that one must also accept a creator theory is just a very poor attempt at confusing the argument. The two are mutually exclusive theories, and the logic behind one does not justify the logic behind the other.

The Big Bang theory is probably wrong. Science cannot observe it, nor can it make any predictions about what actually happened. It's a deficient idea, and in that moment of weakness you may aswell consider that other things go bang, or that those bangs, being repeatable, must have am absolute cause, the explanation of all matter existing. The Big Bang is just dumb, and for its lack of rigor I punished it and put it on par with creationism. You say, according to observable evidence, the Big Bang happened. Really? I can say the exact same thing about God. Why? Because causality plus repeatable bangs (as exactly as observed) equals creator power, to which there is no further logical necessity for its existance.

Regardless, if you don't like that, that's ok. Forget the big bang. Let's get serious.

A more robust theory for the universe is the Big Freeze. You see, physicists are moving towards more fluid, emergent views of the universe, not ones that rely on things going 'poof', because those theories don't really explain anything. Though, in doing so, science is admitted to itself that it isn't reasonable for matter to emerge without a cause or explanation. It directly follows that things either infinitely regress, which seems impossible, or that there must be a first, immaterial, timeless, unquantifiable (all powerful) cause, that permitted and decided exactly how the universe began, or else nothing would have emerged, and science would not be possible.

As science further studies the emergent universe it is clear that things don't just go poof. They either exist outside of casuality and are unmeasurable (before time began), or are material and quantifiable. The very existance of materal, measurable and causal matter necessitates that what is now matter began as pre-matter, or that somehow the causeless immaterial caused the material. That's not something I imagined. That's scientific. Anything else is invoking things going 'poof'.

Quote:

The idea of a creator, an intelligent agent, frequently called 'god' by some absolutely and completely relies on infinite regression. But thank you for accepting how "indefensible" that thinking is.

The idea of a creator is the only thing possible that doesn't infinite regress.