View Single Post
Old 06-14-2008, 06:56 PM   #83
Senior Member
Alexrd's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,220
Current Game: F.E.A.R.
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
First, let's point out that none of these are argument for god. At best they are arguments for something supernatural, but no part of this is anywhere close to be an actual argument for the judeo-christian god.
But there is something then...It's God for me and for the christian, it's Allah for the muslim, etc...

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I will be returning to this point as tick through each part of this, so I wanted to lay the groundwork first. Okay:
The problem with first causes is that they lead to infinite regression. If Y created Z, then what created Y? Must have been X. Well what created X then? W?

Unfortunately for the purposes of my analogy we can eventually determine that A was the first cause, but for the purposes of the actual logic, there is no end. Hence the "infinite" in "infinite regression".
God is the alfa and the omega.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
However, our brain, being what it is has a very difficult time accepting this. Conflicting logic says, "well the whole thing had to have started somewhere!!!". And that's fine. Let's accept that yes, it did indeed all have to start somewhere.

But why is that answer "god"? Why isn't it "satan"? Or the titans, or the flying spaghetti monster, or magic fairiers with magic fairy dust? What evidence do any of us have for one of these fantastic ideas over any of the others? How could we possibly verify them?
Again, there is something. And that is against atheism, for them there's nothing.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Most importantly, how can we rule out a perfectly logic explanation that can be verified by science and requires no superstitious supernatualism at all? Decades of research into quantum physics brings us closer and closer to such an explanation. At some point in the future we'll be smart enough to be able to build the equipment necessary to test our predictions. At that point, there will be a few less gaps for god to hide in.
We aren't there yet to see what that explanation will be. Maybe the explanation it's God itself...

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
The appearance of design is not evidence of design. Furthermore, even if it were considered evidence of design, it tells us nothing about the designer.

The designer could be god, satan, the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, apollo, thor, invisible pink unicorns or anything else we care to dream up.

So not only do we not have any supportable argument for design, we have no supportable argument for the identity of the alleged designer. Unfortunately for the speaker, we have more than 150 years of scientific research that shows that not only is a designer not necessary, a designer is highly improbable at worst and highly incompitent at best.
However, there's a possibility that there's is a designer, and I beleive that it exists.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
At this point I feel confident that I do not need to repeat that even if we were to accept that morality required an external source, that we would not be able to determine what that source is.

Also similar to the examples above is that scientific research continues to offer up natural explanations that make supernatural hypothesis unnecessary (recent research with mirror neurons, etc). Even if that were not the case, we have centuries of moral philosophy that are capable of showing that we can discover morality on our own, if it took the science a long time to be able to figure out how we do it.
I would like to see that.

My time is valuable to me also, so I will answer to you whan I have more time left.

This is just my opinion, I hope everyone respect that, as I respect yours.

Star Wars: In Concert - Lisbon - Some pictures of the exhibition accompanying the event.
Alexrd is offline   you may: quote & reply,