Given that I have a busy life outside of the forum, I could not be here to rebut against posts that were made after my last one until now. For that, I am sorry...since this is, most definately, going to be long, and arduous...I myself am put off by the sheer amount of nonsense I'm about to have to go and wade through.
Darwin, by no means, associated the discovery of natural selection with the meaning of life. This is an arrogant stretch made by biologists with no understanding of philosophy. You ought to read some Wallace before you start applying natural selection to human culture and identity.
Also, your evolution occurs t make the orgnism fit for ITS generation and not that of the future I think.I forgot to discuss that part. 
By what means is Wallace more relevant to natural selection applying to human culture than Darwin? Or Dawkins for that matter? It's important to remember the fall-out Wallace had with a good portion of the scientific community, the further and further he tried to force Spiritualism upon them. Dawkins is now the carrier of the torch for genetisists. I don't dare ask that you'd consider his work. It isn't covered in a 200-level philosophy class.Natural selection has everything to do with the meaning of life. What exists outside of natural selection that tangibly shoots this down? Evolution is random. The mutation of a cell happens by chance. It's the survival of that gene, the slow progress of establishing which genes are dominant, and how they are passed on that encompassed the "meaning of life". I'm sorry if there isn't enough glorious myth surrounding this speculation, but certainly glory shouldn't play a part in the truth. Evolution couple with Natural Selection looks only forward. It provides the individual cells, or species with certain traits, and then emulates them in future generations should the new genes be more capable at survival, attraction of mates, etc, whatever is best at preserving this species' existance. Life, when boiled down to it, is the replication of DNA, and the production of cells. If you stop making cells, you die. That's the way nature works. Evolution is an integral part of this process, in that its forays into a slightly differing present, set a cell/species for a radically different future. This gives all the required purpose for life, and certainly enough meaning. Must meaning really consist of what becomes of the individual in death? Or should the meaning of life actually pertain JUST to life itself? I favour the latter. So does rational thought.
*sigh*The FSM thought experiment only serves to disprove an medieval notion of God. It hardly dents the argument for the omnipotent being "God" we have been discussing here. This debate is not about the nature of "God" it is about whether or not he exists. It is foolish to think the only argument for God is majority opinion.
The FSM spoof goes miles to 'dent' the arguement for the omnipotent being. The nature of "God" is integral to his proof and disproof. If an omnipotent being had a definition that is mutable, then what does that say of that omnipotence? What does that say of the being? It says that we, as humans, can have the meaning of God entail whatever we damned please! We very simply could have associated the term, "God", with a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, while this may not make headway as to the existance of God, it tears away the faith aspect of belief. To have faith, there to be a basis to one's belief, and in the majority of, I dare say all, cases that faith is put in a being that cannot be changed in definition. Should I say that I fully believe in gravity and then the next day someone tells me that gravity pushes up instead of down, I couldn't simply say: Fine, I still believe. I wouldn't be putting my faith in gravity, I'd be putting it in something else, under the guise of gravity's name, which cannot be claimed to be the same thing. A believer will, in most if not all cases, begin their belief with an irrational concept of God. Then, throughout their life, go on to tweak that concept in order to fit God back into their newer perspectives on life. Does that mean that this first understanding of God is false? Bear in mind, a change in definition for the intelligent designer renders it a different being to whom you still apply the term, "God", to. You have admitted, to yourself at least, that the first understanding of God is less probable than the newest understanding.Again, I'll mention that this is a game of probability for God's existance until some manner of hard proof is brought forward in his defense.By changing your definition, you've ONLY stated that the prior is less probable. You cannot possibly disprove the original understanding if you will not cede that an athiest can. That would be absurdly arrogant, and I've come to understand that arrogance isn't something God values too highly. To continue: so, now there are two alternate theories within the believer's mind. It is important to note that this belief will also be tailored again, and again, as the believer matures, again bolstering the improbabilities surmounting God's various possible, improbable states. Now the believer has many improbable definitions. These improbabilities unfortunately will eat away at the 100% probability first associated with a believer's God's existance. Therefore, the more God's definition changes, the more that 100% belief is divided.Now, that makes any given understanding of God less probable than it would be should there be no differing opinons. So, why would someone arguing against God's existance address anything but a majority opinion? If we were to do so, we would be unfairly increasing our base number of probability God does not exist. It's much more polite of us to assume that the base ratio of probable versus improbable is 50:50. In this sense, when we add probability to our side in the forms of numerous scientific and logical theories, we won't have believers axclaiming that our math is biased.
What an enormous assumption. Believing that something will surely continue to solve problems is a foolish way of thinking, especially under the guise of a scientist. I noticed your use of Clifford below, in this point you are making right here, you are acting as the proverbial "shipowner." And why not? Furthermore, isn't believing that "science will someday disproove God, so belief in him is foolish" unjustified equally by your logic. Were these scientists not guided by a burning belief inside of them before their science confirmed their hypotheses? Belief is a necessary aspect of the human condition. Empiricism may work with chemistry and physics but there are plenty of things it does not. Read William James's "The Will to Believe." I think you'd appreciate his point of view.
You're right. What a blatantly ridiculous assumption I've made. I went and believed that a tool (science) of discovery would continue forever until there is little left to discover. How could I have been so blind!? I mean, science has yet to go for any significant period of time without making a discovery since it first set out to do so. In fact, if I look back, historically speaking, I should definately deduce from the facts that science indeed will fail to continue operating as intended! And when I factor in the applications being made to technology, ghee, how foolish it is of me to presume that the exponential arc of scientific advancement would indeed not hit a wall.If you've failed to pick up the sarcasm by now, stop reading this thread.A la Clifford, I've an incredible volume of discovery and advancement upon to base my belief. I'd go so far as to say roughly...oh...5000 years worth of scientific discovery and advancement. Yup, far be it from me to observe the obvious pattern...Now, a scientist is not guided by a burning belief. They are driven by the question of whether their hypothesis is correct or whether it is false. Curiosity suffices in the absence of burning belief, better actually than belief. Darwin did not propose his findings before his large base of research was finished. Einstein did not claim to be correct before his equations were complete. Neither claimed at the time of their publication that their products were the absolute truth. Now, that's not to say that their respective principles haven't been proven in the meantime, just that at the time of publication, they were more than happy to welcome differing opinions in the context of academic progress.
The big bang only discredits the classicalist view of creationism, by no means disprooving God, as I'm sure you're aware.
Covered. I will cover it in more detail when I address a later post's appeal to a half-hearted 'dis-proof' of Hawking's outlook on the Big Bang.
Again, read James. Clifford's entire argument can be discreditted with one simple question: What on earth determines what evidence is sufficient or not? Clifford never makes this distinction in his essay. Clifford's essay is a poor attempt at targetting the "right" of a person to believe rather than the object of his belief. It's a flawed attack as I and, much more eloquently, James have pointed out. I'd love to continue talking about the nature of belief and the responsibilities it entails, but I really think that's a different topic altogether.
Perhaps this is an all together different topic, but I will hardly cede that Clifford's claims are more flawed than James'. The arguement that the decision between belief in God and disbelief being a
forced option is tediously flawed. In what way is agnosticism not a viable option? For anyone, for that matter, is agnosticism not a viable option? Admittedly, the position of fence-sitter isn't a proverbally glorious one, but how is it moral to go about claiming belief, in either end of the option's spectrum, if one truly is unsure? The last time I checked, free will is still generally accepted in society. So, what exactly is forcing one to make the choice? Death? Judgement at the gates to heaven? If one finds the evidence for both outcomes generally unstirring, why make the choice? Doubt is the stick being shoved into James' arguement's spokes. Doubt weighs heavily on the decision making process, especially when pertaining to faith. If one doubts their faith, they haven't committed to their choice. Now, if one falls from the committment made to the
monumentous option's outcome, they have failed to truly choose. It isn't as simple as choosing between two colours of jelly beans. In such a decision, if considered in context, there is no going back. That is what defines a monumentous option, but if doubt creates a grey area of uncertainty that, certainly, lands one outside of their choice, then in what way was their option monumentous? They must again make the decision if they are to sit on either side of faith. If there is doubt, then the God decision cannot be monumentous. Even if not all believers suffer some sort of doubt, non-believers really ought to be included in this summation, it doesn't take everyone to tear down James' points put into context with God.
Very well Ill admit to being mistaken in my comparison of god to a dimension but: my note on String theory was merely an example of a scientific theory using higher dimensions and relying on spaces outside our universe, it doesn't necessarily have to directly relate to God, it merely aided the point that spaces and dimensions outside our universe can exist, and while you shot down the theory that God could have existed there due to this implying that God would have an origin (which would degrade from his title as God) within this dimension, and if not then where did he reside before hand, the idea was to show that Science has began exploring the idea of areas outside our universe, and if so then Gods realm of existance beyond this universe, while perhaps not being physical as this would defy the definition of his realm, doean't seem quite so farfetched as spaces beyond this universe are being hypothesised.As for the meaning of life, it makes all the difference in the end. I find the idea of death wherein my conscience simply ceases to exist absolutely terrifying and your saying that you find peace and happiness in that we're simply here because we're here? Don't you find that in the least bit degradeing. As for Darwins theory, yes hes influential, but hes basically glorifying the point that lifes only point is to continue life, which in itself is rather pointless as it would just be a vain cycle ultimately coming to nothingness. Yes we may be contributing to the evolution of our specie, but evolution has just about come to nothing as humans no longer need to adapt to the environment, we adapt it to us now. I cannot find peace in contributing to a biological legacy because its basically saying that we're pointless beings of meat who are only in existance to have sex, leave it to future generations to evolve beyond our faults.And finally just something in defence of the religious institutions in place. Even if they are completely wrong about God, to take God and the Churches (here churches refers to all religious institutions for want of a better word) away from the masses would be to take inspiration, meaning, and in fact happiness away from anywhere between thousands and billions of people globally. Such things can unify people and teach us morals and value of what is right and wrong, and to take away such a foundation of society by trying to disprove God by saying that we have no substantial proof of him would be to tear apart an idea that holds billions together. Yes they have made grievious errors in the past, but is it worth either clinging onto old grudges or synically trying to tear apart something simply because you dont see value in it when so many find such guidance, inspiration, meaning and in all, happiness within it. That seems pretty selfish.
Simply because you find that there is a need for God's existance because it would terrify you less than his non-existance, is hardly an arguement either way. The Proof of Necessity cannot stand. It is vain, and ultimately flawed. Things do not exist because of necessity. The moon does not exist because the ocean required a tide. The tide is caused by the moon's existance. Not the other way around. I do not see a reason to linger longer here. A claim of God's necessity does not prove God's existance.Religious teaches can bring people together. That was never in dispute. But, alternatively, so can music, politcal parties, parties generally, sports, etc. Just because religion and its beliefs have some up sides, does not justify its existance, nor outweigh the downsides. Religion is ultimately replacable, in that if humanity could find the ability to love one another instead of a fictional character, then where would be the necessity of organized religion?Again, neither are proofs for or against God's existance, and therefore negligible.
Here's where my Deistic views and my belief in the cosmological argument comes into play."The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence."– Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 59-60; quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 76In list format:1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect. Basically, everything I need to say about this already on Wikipedia so I'll provide the link.http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argumentYes this covers everything we'd talked about already, probably gives better proof for God than the Christans or other religious believers of a God could. Deism is more about logic and reasoning than faith so it's a philosophy rather than a religion. Well...I'll add a few notes specifically about the Big Bang theory and such. Primeval atom, wonderful...Now where exactly would that doohickey come from? Oh sure we could go the virtual matter within a vacuum route but honestly it falls apart on way too many levels for the primeval to achieve the specs it would need to have produced the universe we see thus far.I'd be happy to argue brane cosmology with you, but it doesn't help your case when everything you belief is basically relying on the Lage Hadron Collider to just keep Superstring Theory from being eliminated altoghter. And just because it finds supersymmetry it doesn't prove you right. Good luck trying to make it any more valid than religion. Oh and which string theory would you advocate?Either way, causality will inevitably point to a thing greater than our understanding to explain the origin of the universe.Taking on both Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, for the last segment of the wikipedia article I povided just now I offer these explanations: Within the physical universe there's always a cause if you look deep enough and assuming time covers the existence of the universe and the Big Bang exists as an event within time then it must also follow the rules of causality and thus have a cause.
Now, I believe I've done the whole discreditting of different definitions of God...so I leave you out of that.Instead, I'll focus first on your String Theory claim. The majority of scientist (physicists especially) refuse to stand behind the String theory, which was earlier used in an attempt of a God proof. Now, the reason they don't back it is because the theory was thrown, I'm using hyperbole admittedly with this choice of diction but bear with me, at a set of numbers to postulate a sort of connectedness. It was lifted to theory status on the use of these numbers, which were in no way assosciated with a string theory proof but were intending other findings which string theorist thought it would apply. THere has yet to be an experiment put forth with new numbers/evidence that support the string theory. While the theory may fit older experiments' evidence, theorists have made absolutely no head way in the realm of hard fact to support string theory. Thus, this connectedness is not accepted by anyone but a small majority of scientist whom have the qualifying studies to comprehend the concept.The numbers/evidence that I refer to is the study of black holes, where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are forcibly combined to study the object that has a 'peak density' (the most matter possible in a given volume) and a very small area. The two studies must be combined in order to predict conditions in such places. The problem arises as Relativity expresses that such space would be a gentle, smooth surface, while Quantum Mechanics predicts a random, jagged, warped surface. Thus the equations fall apart. A quick fix is to postulate the String theory, and bring in completely theoretical physics to the mix. This of course discredits any products due to the sheer amount of theorizing entailing the string theories' application without any observation whatsoever to go on. It is similar to the way God was a quick fix in the problem of creation, until Darwin came along and discovered a truthful solution.Now, on to your Big Bang point. The flaw here is that you've encaptured the Big Bang into your understanding of time. But, like Hawking and Kaku state and you so gleefully gloss over, it is the Big Bang that begins the universe. At the creation end of the time spectrum, there was the Big Bang, and to postulate beyond the occurance is a kin to trying to travel "North of the North Pole." There is simply nothing left on the time spectrum. The instant the Bang begun, time begun. There was nothing before.Now that this lengthy post is finally coming to a close, I have to propose an idea. This method of forum posting, where 8 or so people seem to post while I'm still typing this one up, is going to get tedious, and ridiculously lengthy. Perhaps we might be able to find a way in which we can continue the debate here in a more relaxed manner...as in rebuttle posts every few days to a week instead of multiple times daily. These posts are only going to get longer, as we'll need to continue to quote one another, whose posts are also getting longer each bout. Soon someone will start begging the point that we'll require citations, and so forth. So, perhaps if the pace were slowed down, the pertaining research could be done without the pressure of posting before another 8 or 9 people leap in to add to the points you are all ready in the process of arguing...PM with some ideas if this might suit the thread?
