A Christian Creationist Takes the Atheistic Evolutionist Side as a Debate Experience

[Fonceai]

Heh heh... noted.

Good reading, though.

I still don't see how Christian Creationism and Atheistic Evolutionism have to be diametrically opposed.

In my experience with programming, as I've written earlier, I think it's possible to write a program, define the values and variables and If...Then statements and then just let it Run and see what happens.

Human Emergence is then completely coincidental given the parameters of the program, but a program that is written well can still account for said behavior.

A good example of this is in the movie Thirteenth Floor where the program was the experiment and still had people with free will.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Heh heh... noted. Good reading, though. I still don't see how Christian Creationism and Atheistic Evolutionism have to be diametrically opposed. In my experience with programming, as I've written earlier, I think it's possible to write a program, define the values and variables and If...Then statements and then just let it Run and see what happens. Human Emergence is then completely coincidental given the parameters of the program, but a program that is written well can still account for said behavior. A good example of this is in the movie Thirteenth Floor where the program was the experiment and still had people with free will.

A very deistic viewpoint - and the belief held by Charles Darwin!

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: This is a form of a cyclic universe theory. Current observations indicate that space itself is expanding, not just matter and energy. I do not see how your theory accounts for that.

Chaos said: However, our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. An exploding black hole does not explain this.

If you look, in my theory I leave open the proposition that through enough repitition, eventually a super blackhole could, using the same energy contained in all the universe we see and measure, possibly distribute the matter so randomly as to never allow a feeding frenzy that would consume the universe, which would lead to the spread of the orginal explosion, the big bang.

If the universe keeps expanding, that means that as of yet, no super blackhole has been created. Will one be created, or is it already there just not into its sweet spot of consumption?

Black holes consume everything, including time from that which it consumes.

If a black hole became so big that it consumed all that there is to consume, could you theoretically see past the point that the time you live in began?

I think not.

[Captain Chaos]

Here is an article, Osborn, that could help you formulate your thoughts on this. You are not alone in your belief:

Cosmological natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[KillerArgument]

Welcome, Lotharia!

Ain't nobody gonna contradict my assertions, or should I declare myself the Ultimate Warrior here, too?

1) There is insufficient evidence for God. (No supporting statements needed: there is NO evidence to list.

2) There is nothing non-material in existence. (If there is, show it to me.)

3) Life came from non-life as a natural process. (If it didn't, prove it.)

Have I won this debate already? Boy, winning is getting boring.

Ok, I have won this argument, unless anyone has anything else to add.

YOU CANNOT PROVE THESE ARGUMENTS WRONG.

IF YOU CAN, BRING IT!

KILLER ARGUMENT

[Agnos]

You won. You done?

[Zinkovich]

Other people made your entire argument for you already in your "atheistic evolutionary origins" thread. In this sense, you weren't the only "one" who has won.

"We" won. You actually seem to have the full brunt of the arguments down as well as thier context- and that, to me, is a step towards further understanding and thus towards "victory" for the both of us.

[Compugasm]

What if the hole actually leads somewhere? If they distort time and matter as greatly as described, then it seems like it's possible to exit someplace we can't understand.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zinkovich Other people made your entire argument for you already in your "atheistic evolutionary origins" thread. In this sense, you weren't the only "one" who has won. "We" won. You actually seem to have the full brunt of the arguments down as well as thier context- and that, to me, is a step towards further understanding and thus towards "victory" for the both of us.

[Only, these arguments don't convince me. My responses to the things I pretend to espouse here easily overcome them in my mind. Another benefit of this is thoroughly understanding the other guy's argument.]

What, we got line limits on these messages now?

If you want to say, "yeah," just do this:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX yeah.

[Zinkovich]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: KillerArgument Welcome, Lotharia! Ain't nobody gonna contradict my assertions, or should I declare myself the Ultimate Warrior here, too? 1) There is insufficient evidence for God. (No supporting statements needed: there is NO evidence to list. 2) There is nothing non-material in existence. (If there is, show it to me.) 3) Life came from non-life as a natural process. (If it didn't, prove it.) Have I won this debate already? Boy, winning is getting boring. Ok, I have won this argument, unless anyone has anything else to add. YOU CANNOT PROVE THESE ARGUMENTS WRONG. IF YOU CAN, BRING IT! KILLER ARGUMENT

Explain why the life review, a component of near death experiences, occurs so commonly and across cultures.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos 1) Just be wary. Zhavric depends on his custom definitions. He basically quit a debate we where having when I would not use his definition of a god. For him, a being can only be a god if it can do things that we believe are physically impossible. Conveniently impossible definition there.

Translation: Zhavric left when I tried to water down my definition of god to get out of some of his objections until the thing I was trying to discuss no longer resembled god.

2) The evidence supports big bang theory, and certainly supports a starting point for our 3D space, which is what I assume Zhavric means by the word 'universe'. Unless you subscribe to acausality, our universe had to come from somewhere. That is evidence for something outside of our universe.

No. It's evidence that we don't have all the answers and inventing them doesn't lead us anywhere.

3) I actually agree with his third point. There is nothing that says a god of gaps argument necessarily has a false conclusion, but such arguments should always be viewed with great doubt.

Good.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Translation: Zhavric left when I tried to water down my definition of god to get out of some of his objections until the thing I was trying to discuss no longer resembled god.

Translation: Zhavric's argument only works with his custom definitions of god and omnipotence. When more practical and realistic definitions are used, rather than his very narrow definitions, his arguments become useless and Zhavric just runs away rather than engaging in real debate.

No. It's evidence that we don't have all the answers and inventing them doesn't lead us anywhere.

This is not complex logic here.

A = Our universe came from something
B = Our universe did not come from something

A and B are mutually exclusive. If we do not believe in acausality, in getting something from nothing, then we reject option B. That only leaves option A.

[Zhavric]

Ask any philosophy 101 teacher and they'll tell you that god is agreed to be tri-omni: all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

You've also missed the most important option:

C: We don't know and it would be silly to make guesses or (worse) invent explanations.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Ask any philosophy 101 teacher and they'll tell you that god is agreed to be tri-omni: all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. You've also missed the most important option: C: We don't know and it would be silly to make guesses or (worse) invent explanations.

In our one-on-one debate, I introduced a practical definition of a god in the opening post. You couldn't handle that.

Tri-omni is only the Christian concept of God.
All powerful is only the abrahamic God.

What about all the other imaginary gods throughout history? They do not meet your definition.

Also, your definition of omnipotence is retarded. You want omnipotence to mean the ability to do anything this is not logically paradoxical, including things that we believe to be impossible. If you use a more practical definition of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that is possible - then your argument whithers away.


Face it, man. Your atheistic reasoning depends upon very narrow concepts. You apparently have nothing to offer against the more reasonable concepts of a god.

We don't know and it would be silly to make guesses or (worse) invent explanations.

That is an argument in favor of agnosticism. You are a strong atheist, remember. You favor any materialistic explanation, no matter how much effort goes into its invention, over non-materialistic explanations.

When I pointed out that either our universe came from something, or it did not, you fail to counter that. Pointing out that if we reject acausality, our universe must have come from something, is not invention, it is simple logic. I bet you cannot refute it, either.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Captain Chaos In our one-on-one debate, I introduced a practical definition of a god in the opening post. You couldn't handle that. Tri-omni is only the Christian concept of God. All powerful is only the abrahamic God. What about all the other imaginary gods throughout history? They do not meet your definition. Also, your definition of omnipotence is retarded. You want omnipotence to mean the ability to do anything this is not logically paradoxical, including things that we believe to be impossible. If you use a more practical definition of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that is possible - then your argument whithers away. Face it, man. Your atheistic reasoning depends upon very narrow concepts. You apparently have nothing to offer against the more reasonable concepts of a god.

lol. Any god capable of creating matter & energy is false until proven true. Why should we consider a being incapable of creating matter and energy a god?

That is an argument in favor of agnosticism.

No, agnosticism is "D: We don't know, but it could have been some folk lore explanation."

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric C: We don't know and it would be silly to make guesses or (worse) invent explanations.

Explanations based on existing evidence does not equate to silly guesses. The power of human consciousness and imagination dictates whether or not a new steping stone can be placed in the journey to find answers to the Universe.

[Captain Chaos]

lol. Any god capable of creating matter & energy is false until proven true. Why should we consider a being incapable of creating matter and energy a god?

no...

Creating matter and energy in an isolated system. It is not the creation of energy that is believed to be impossible. It is the creation of energy (of which matter is a subset) in an isolated system.

We have been over this multiple times, but you never learn.

Are there any gods of any religions other than the abrahamic God who are believed to be able to create energy in an isolated system? Hell, if such a being has contact with the system, then it would cease to be isolated anyway.

You should consider such entities gods because humanity has done so for millenia. Trying to limit others to only using your preferred definition is just intellectual sneakiness.

Here:

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com


You will find that there are multiple definitions of the word 'god'. A few of these call for omnipotence, most do not.

For that matter, consider the definition of omnipotence:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

This definition does not say anything about logical paradoxes. It just says unlimited power. Well, it ain't real hard to show that there are necessary limits to power (the Riddle of the Stone, etc...) Thus, an omnipotent god, using the actual definition of the word 'omnipotent' rather than Zhavric's custom definition, is simply not possible.

So what? That says nothing about the near-infinite number of possibilities for non-omnipotent gods does it?

A topic you apparently fear.

[Zhavric]

Regardless of whether or not god is ACTUALLY omnipotent (or not), SCIENTIFIC LAW still states that things gods can do contradict existing proven laws leaving the burden on theists to prove god exists and agnostics to prove god is possible.

This is twice this discussion has devolved into you attacking a mischaracterization of my argument and twice you've fallen back on attacking me personally instead of my arguments. I stopped posting in the misc 1 on 1 debate because there wasn't any point to arguing with you. I don't expect you to argue against a stance you haven't taken. You didn't extend the same courtesy to me so the debate was over. There's not a debate judge or philosophy professor who would have awarded you a win.

That being said, let's get back on-topic.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Regardless of whether or not god is ACTUALLY omnipotent (or not), SCIENTIFIC LAW still states that things gods can do contradict existing proven laws leaving the burden on theists to prove god exists and agnostics to prove god is possible.

uh huh...

And when pressed on this issue, you will resort to your example of creating energy. A non-omnipotent creator could have created our reality by manipulating energy to initiate a big bang event. This would not contradict anything we know of science, has been postulated by some scientists, and thus should default to "unknown" rather than "no".

This is twice this discussion has devolved into you attacking a mischaracterization of my argument and twice you've fallen back on attacking me personally instead of my arguments.

No, Zhavric. I attack your arguments plenty, you just evade rather than counter.

I stopped posting in the misc 1 on 1 debate because there wasn't any point to arguing with you.

Translation: Your arguments don't hold up when I don't use your narrow definitions.

I don't expect you to argue against a stance you haven't taken. You didn't extend the same courtesy to me so the debate was over. There's not a debate judge or philosophy professor who would have awarded you a win.

I am not interested in their opinion. I am actually interested in discussing the topic of realistic notions of gods, rather than this tri-omni thing you fixate on.

And, since I defined a god in the opening post of our 1-on-1 as "a being capable of designing and implementing a reality such as our own" you really have no case about me not extending some courtesy to you. I made clear what I was arguing from the start.


Tell me, Zhavric, do you believe it is possible for non-omnipotent superbeings capable of designing and implementing a reality such as ours to exist? Do you see any reason why such entities would violate what we know of reality.

This is not just mindless speculation, you know. If a god, using a realistic definition, is possible, then it lends quite a bit of weight to apparent fine-tuning arguments, as well as my own infinite emergence argument.

And yes, this is on topic, because it is a counter to the atheist arguments put forth in the OP of this thread.