is their really a god?

[Gilwen]

Sinner

But see, you're still missing the point. His comment was not intended to disprove God. It's intended to disprove the argument that the complexity of the universe implies (or even requires) a God/Force.

But his question did not relate directly to the complexity of the universe.. I don't know whether the complexity of the universe implies there is a God or not, but someone's inability to explain God has little to do with any argument for or against His existence. If I don't know where babies come from, does that mean that a pregnancy doesn't still suggest that intercourse occurred? If I don't understand quantum physics, does not the behavior of photons still suggest a pattern? Our ignorance on the matter has little to do with the truth of the situation, and the complexity of the universe could still suggest something without the benefit of our omniscience.  

[Mechanism]

Gilwen

But his question did not relate directly to the complexity of the universe.. I don't know whether the complexity of the universe implies there is a God or not, but someone's inability to explain God has little to do with any argument for or against His existence.

Fear not, for there is no longer any need to speculate on the true intentions of my questioning!
Sinner is right. What I meant was this:
God is a complex thing, therefore 'complex things require a creator god in order to explain their existence' implies 'god requires a creator god in order to explain god's existence'.

If you're willing to accept that 'complex things require a creator god to explain their existence', as faith fairy was, you must logically accept 'god requires a creator god'.

Using god to explain the universe just replaces one question (why is the universe?) with another question (why is god?).

I wasn't trying to prove that there is no god-- Just saying that 'god did it' doesn't really work very well as an explanation for the existence of the universe.  

[squeen_of_pades]

Mechanism

squeen_of_pades

Of course!
That's why they are ideas.

Ideas can be non-subjective, you know.

That's an equivocation of idea

idea:
n.
1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle.
3. etc...

All opinions, convictions, and principles are subjective.

Mechanism

I disagree; in the absence of knowledge, what reason is there to cling to whatever you're told?

I never said "cling", don't try to put words in my mouth. Sometimes we have to question what we're told. But you can't do a complete 180, new ideas are based on those that are old.
As for reason, my reason is that we are on the right track. And I think we're on the right track because of people like you and I. Clearly, an intelligent conversation like this (at least more so then one about TV and such), means someone is doing their job right.  

[Sinner]

Mechanism

It's nice to see Sinner here. How've things been?

Eh, you know. This and that. Nothing to brag about, I suppose.

Yourself?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Gendou

First of all, Albert Einstein was hardly a Christian. He rejected the idea of a personal God and believed that while there might be a Prime Mover, that this Prime Mover did not concern itself with the affairs of man. The quote about the relationship between science and religion comes a much longer conversation in which Einstein makes clear that he has no religious affiliation whatsoever.
This should speak to the dangers of quoting people out-of-context: it creates a false impression about a person.

Hmm... It seems I've been lead astray. Oh well. It happens.

Quote:

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Being at the pinnacle of intelligence will bring one to faith." There are brilliant men and women who reject faith, just as there are brilliant men and women who embrace it.

The 'pinnacle of intelligence' is a state of existance which is VERY subjective. Therefore, I can say whatever the heck I want about it, because it has no real definition.

Quote:

And thirdly, there is no such thing as 'theistic' and 'atheistic' science. There is only science. Science does not speak to the existence of God in any way, shape or form. Science simply speaks to what is known. It is a process by which we process empirical knowledge. Empirical evidence for God does not exist, so Science cannot address the existence or non-existence of God.

Well, I should have been more clear. There are theistic and atheistic sceintists, and they give a bent one way or another so it appears as if there is theistic and atheistic science. But, seriously dude, that takes too much time to write.

No, there is not absolutely definitive evidence that God exists. I, however, have come to that conclusion by looking at the likelyhood of intelligent life coming to be (with morals that transend the basic desire for self-advancement at all costs) out of a jumble of dead stuff (an oversimplification, I know). It's just to darn low to have happened without outside interference (God).

And hey Sinner, nice to see you back. Now I get to have to deal with both you and the radically old-school christians in debates! Fun, fun, fun.  

[Mechanism]

squeen_of_pades

That's an equivocation of idea...

Okay. I didn't realize that you meant 'idea' in that way.

squeen_of_pades

I never said "cling", don't try to put words in my mouth. Sometimes we have to question what we're told. But you can't do a complete 180, new ideas are based on those that are old.

Sorry. 'Cling' was my own word.
--I don't see how that's a reason why we should accept the morality that we're taught though.

squeen_of_pades

...I think we're on the right track because of people like you and I. Clearly, an intelligent conversation like this (at least more so then one about TV and such), means someone is doing their job right.

Maybe. But my morality is not a major cause of my participation in this conversation.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing their job 'right'.

What did you think of the other part of my post, about my idea of objective 'good'?

=================================================

Sinner

Yourself?

Lots of different things, but not much worth mentioning here.
I'm not sure what sort of answer I expected when I asked that question.  

[Gendou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

The 'pinnacle of intelligence' is a state of existance which is VERY subjective. Therefore, I can say whatever the heck I want about it, because it has no real definition.

You should preface your claim with 'In my opinion," in that case.
Otherwise it seems that you are making an objective claim about something you admit is completely subjective.

Quote:

No, there is not absolutely definitive evidence that God exists. I, however, have come to that conclusion by looking at the likelyhood of intelligent life coming to be (with morals that transend the basic desire for self-advancement at all costs) out of a jumble of dead stuff (an oversimplification, I know). It's just to darn low to have happened without outside interference (God).

In your opinion, of course. Many intelligent people have come to the opposite conclusion while looking at the exact same evidence.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Gendou

You should preface your claim with 'In my opinion," in that case.
Otherwise it seems that you are making an objective claim about something you admit is completely subjective.

But, with subjective questions, there is a definative answer. However, it changes with person to person. To add 'in my opinion' to a definative conclusion would only serve to weaken the resolution of the statement.

Quote:

In your opinion, of course. Many intelligent people have come to the opposite conclusion while looking at the exact same evidence.

I know. That's whats so annoying about evidense. You can look at it and get two completely different answers, both which fit just fine into the scope of the evidense.  

[Gendou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

But, with subjective questions, there is a definative answer. However, it changes with person to person. To add 'in my opinion' to a definative conclusion would only serve to weaken the resolution of the statement.

But that definitive answer is your opinion.
It is not the definitive answer, it is only your definitive answer.

In debate, objective proof is more relevant than subjective opinion. That is why one must always keep the two separate from one another. Masquerading subjective opinion as objective proof in order to give your opinion more weight is poor debate etiquette.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Gendou

But that definitive answer is your opinion.
It is not the definitive answer, it is only your definitive answer.

Which is why I said it was 'a' definitive answer and not 'the' definitive answer.

Quote:

In debate, objective proof is more relevant than subjective opinion. That is why one must always keep the two separate from one another. Masquerading subjective opinion as objective proof in order to give your opinion more weight is poor debate etiquette.

It may be poor etiquette, but I find it easier to differentiate between those who can tell the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact and those who can't (the latter of which are not only stupid, but a drag to debate with). I think being seen as rude is a small price to pay for not ruining my fun in a debate.  

[Gendou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

It may be poor etiquette, but I find it easier to differentiate between those who can tell the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact and those who can't (the latter of which are not only stupid, but a drag to debate with).

If I say, "God is real," then I am raising a topic for debate. If I say, "I believe God is real," then I am not raising a topic for debate. What you are doing is saying, "This is fact," and when someone tries to address the topic, you are then backpedalling and saying that your statement was subjective opinion. This is an intentional deception on your part.
So what you are essentially saying is that you are lying over the internet, and that those who are unable to discern the truth from the lies in your statements are stupid and a drag.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement somehow.  

[squeen_of_pades]

Mechanism

Anyway, any objective 'good' seems to be meaningless unless there's actually reason to do it. Doing 'good' is of absolutely no consequence unless there is, well, consequence. Then again, if you don't want the consequence doing 'good', how is that 'good'?
So, I don't think that 'good' has meaning except in the context of a purpose.
For example, respecting others is good if you want to be respected and eating (a moderate amount) is good if you want to stay alive.

In all honesty, you've kinda confuzed me here. So I may be way off target. sweatdrop

But I think "good" is objective, so the reason for doing good is because it is natural, you can't get away from it.
Im not quite sure what you're getting at with the consequences. The only way I see there being a consequence to doing good is if it's subjective, becuase what's good for one person may not be good for another.

Unfortunatly, if "good" is objective, then we have no real way of measuring it, and can only guess. Which means it doesn't really matter, becuase everyone guesses their own way and it ends up being subjective anyway.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Gendou

If I say, "God is real," then I am raising a topic for debate. If I say, "I believe God is real," then I am not raising a topic for debate. What you are doing is saying, "This is fact," and when someone tries to address the topic, you are then backpedalling and saying that your statement was subjective opinion. This is an intentional deception on your part.
So what you are essentially saying is that you are lying over the internet, and that those who are unable to discern the truth from the lies in your statements are stupid and a drag.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement somehow.

If you say, 'God is real' then you are raising a topic for debate, but if you say 'I believe God is real' then you are simply stating beliefs, thereby changing the debate topic from whether or not God is real to what your beliefs about Him are.

Yes, it was intentional deception. I only like debating with those who cannot tell the difference between a subjective statement ("faith is the pinnacle of intelligence") and an objective fact (2+2=4). It makes iteasy to tell because those who can discern the difference simple tell me that what I said (faith is the pinnacle of intelligence) was a subjective statement that cannot, in any way, be verified. Those who cannot tell the difference try to disprove my statement. It's not lying, so much as not spelling out the entire statement to the poitn where anybody could understand exactly what I was saying (thus defeating the entire purpose of not specifying the subjectivity of my statements).

but yeah, that was the general gist of what I was saying. stupid peope take the fun out of discussion on most days.  

[Curium]

squeen_of_pades

Would you rather believe in God all your life and find out that He that doesn't exist, or not believe in Him all your life, an find out that He does.

I believe the question is actually this....Would you rather live your life like there is a God and die and find out there isn't one, or live your life like there is no God and die and find out there is?  

[Tarrou]

Curium

I believe the question is actually this....Would you rather live your life like there is a God and die and find out there isn't one, or live your life like there is no God and die and find out there is?

Yeah, but Pascal's wager only works in a situation in which the choice is between belief and non-belief only. In reality, though, the choice is actually between non-belief and a multitude of different beliefs. In that case, belief only improves your odds by a rather minimal degree.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Yes, it was intentional deception. I only like debating with those who cannot tell the difference between a subjective statement ("faith is the pinnacle of intelligence") and an objective fact (2+2=4).

However, saying that 'Faith is the pinnacle of intelligence' without modifying it with something along the lines of 'in my opinion' is to make a fact-claim -- i.e. it presents the statement as an objective fact. A statement does not have to known to be true or false to be a fact-claim; for example, saying '2+2=5' is a fact claim, even if it happens to be an erroneous one. '2+2=4' can be either a fact-claim or an opinion, depending on how it's presented: 'I believe that 2+2=4' is an opinion; '2+2=4' is a fact-claim. The same goes for 'Faith is the pinnacle of intelligence', which you presented as a fact-claim, not a subjective opinion.