[Fangrim]

I like to inclusiveness of this thread. All the major stuff in one place.

Quote by: Zhavric I. Burden of proof. This thread is a reply to the claims "god exists" and / or "god is possible". Those are the initial truth claims wherein the burden of proof lays. This is not to say I'm not responsible for supporting my side of the argument. I am stating this here so it's understood, as an atheist making the counter argument, my burden is to simply poke holes in the positive claim. If you claim X is real and I prove you're wrong then X isn't real. See? Simple.

Not so simple.
Theist makes claim A: X exists.
Atheist pokes holes in claim A. Claim A remains unproven.

Given that situation, the X hypothesis still remains unproven, both ways. Until Atheist proves Claim B: X does not exist, it is not proven that X isn't real. X is unproven, yes, but it isn't proven to not exist.

II. Evidence, science and logic. In spite of my efforts, there are many on volconvo who hold some variation of "nothing can be proven". This could be an irrational distrust of science or belief that logic doesn't always work. This misunderstanding of science and logic is called the "know-nothing" stance or know-nothingism because it's used to attempt to prove proven things aren't proven. The know-nothing stance is critically flawed. With nothing proven and anything possible, the word "impossible" becomes comically meaningless. Zhav: "Would you tell your kids closet monsters exist?" Know-nothingist: "Sure. They may." Z: "How about Santa. Will you keep telling them Santa could be real even when they get older?" KN: "I don't see why not." Z: "Do you think your monitor could turn into a rabbit and leap away?" KN: "Well, there's nothing in science that says it can't and just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will." As we can see from that last statement, the know-nothingist is often ignorant of science and scientific law.

Bloody hell Zhavric. "As we can see from the last statement." Lol. You wrote that conversation up Zhvaric. It's not like you've documented hundreds of conversations in a "Study of the Know-Nothingist." I'm not saying that your indicated statements don't ever happen, but certainly not everyone will be so blunt as to say "anything can happen." That isn't the nothingist position at all. It's a completely separate position that can be interepreted to have been extended from the statement that nothing can be proven.
Simply because nothing can be proven (unless a premise is assumed true) doesn't mean that anything can happen.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not a "pure" nothingist. My position is that nothing can be proven unless we assume a premise to be true, and there's nothing wrong with that (that nothing can be proven, not that it is my position). We can't ignore it; we just have to live with it.

III. Definitions of god: all flawed Some on volconvo have tried to assert since it's not known exactly what god is, we're for some reason unable to discuss god. This extension of the know-nothing stance is useless to us. We certainly can discuss the characteristics of beings which do not exist or have somewhat amorphous attributes. Could Spiderman beat up Superman? Movie Superman or comic book pre-crisis Superman? God claims run a spectrum from the ill-defined deist version of god to the specific religious versions such as the tri-omni Christian god. The deist god is little more than a mechanism for getting the universe started; a not so defined Big Bang with a different name. The Christian version of god is interested in human beings, listens & answers their prayers, knows everything knowable, is supremely good and can do anything logically possible (i.e. anything that doesn't pose a paradox like a "married batchelor"). All versions of god, as Kame, pointed out have one common attribute: they all "created the universe".

I will admit that the spectrum of godly characteristics of incredibly wide.
I'm guessing that the definition of God we're using is "a being that created the universe," yes?

How do we define created?
Created could indicate a use of existing materials to make something new, a la a carpenter crafting a chair out of pre-existing wood. The carpenter did not create the wood out of thin air.
What definition of create are we using?

IV. Conservation of energy While there are a plethora of scientific laws any version of god contradicts, we know Conservation of Energy (CoE) is the one all versions contradict.

I'd just like to quickly note that while the definition of God we're using here did create the universe, other "supernatural" phenomena would not include that definition. But that's besides the point of this thread. Just wanted to point it out lest you use this thread to show that all "supernatural" phenomena are false.

It's proven by science energy cannot be created. It can only be introduced from an extrenal source. Thus, a creator has to violate this law or he's not the creator. God has to make energy out of nothing which contradicts what we know to be true. Theists, agnostics and know-nothingists will try to get around this problem in some creatively bankrupt ways: [*]"Energy is coming from outside the universe / the universe isn't a closed system." This truth claim needs to be supported by theists. We've seen no evidence there's anywhere CoE doesn't apply. Even in complex quantum theory, CoE still applies. Theists are still left contradicting proven truth; they're still claiming "something came from nothing".

Bolded statement is a complete non-sequitir from the previous statements, and does not logically follow.
The theist argument here is that God was still following CoE when he created the universe. Thus, your statement that CoE applies everywhere is logically pointless; it doesn't clash.

[*]"God manipulated existing energy." This fails because now either energy always existed... meaning god isn't the creator and setting the precedent things can always exist (why not the universe? Why need god at all?)... or something that wasn't god created all the energy. Both of these cop-outs have zero support and make theists sound like they're running to keep up. Without evidence CoE is false, theists claim of god existing is false.

Our "need" for God is unimportant unless theists propose his necessity as an argument for his existence. Thus, this "precedent" of things always existing that you claim allows the universe to always exist is logically irrelevant. You would need to indicate that the universe has always existed, or else you are the one that's coppoing out, as you are the negative here. As the negative, it is not enough for you to simply provide alternatives; you need to show why those alternatives are advantegous through evidence, otherwise there is no clash.

V. Intelligence Intelligence is an attribute of god in all but the most strictly deist definitions. We know through science intelligence does not appear naturally. Know-nothingists like to think of intelligence as an abstract, but what intelligence actually is has everything to do with neurons firing in specific orders. No neurons = no intelligence. So, claiming "god is intelligent" carries with it the implied claim "intelligence can exist outside a neurological structure". Without evidence, we must adhere to what's been proven by science.

Begging the question. You're assuming the premise that intelligence only exists within a neurological structure. Prove it. And no "science tells us" cop-outs. How does science tell us this? An appeal to "science" in general is no more intellectual than a theist appealing to the Bible. Both are intellectually unsatisfying.

Science tells us intelligence only results from a lengthy process (evolution). Could there be intelligence in another form that simply popped into existence? The proper answer to that question is "No. Not until there evidence for it."

Inadequate. That science has only been able to identify intelligence in a neurological structure rather than in other forms is not enough to substantiate the claim that "Intelligence only exists in a neurological structure."
You are using absense of evidence as an argument, and thus commit the fallacy of ignorance.
Claim A: "Intelligence only exists in a neurological structure."
Claim B: "Intelligence can exist in other structure X."
Neither claim A nor claim B is proven. As the Neg, you are attempting to clash with the claim that God exists, but you cannot do so with unsubstantiated argumentation and then pin the burden of proof to prove your unproven claim wrong. Your claim is unproven, and thus has no logical impact.

Further, for you claim to have impact and clash it must conflict with the definition of God, but the proposed definition of God in this thread does not include any mention of intelligence. Either revise the definition of God or drop the argument.

"Even before Darwin's time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even more improbable?"

God has not been proven to be improbable. If you wish to do so, then you know where to go.