Dear Chris: Evidences for God

December 20, 2012 in Evidences for God, General

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, your alleged “evidences” for a god do not stand up very well to criticism. You named quite a few, so let’s take them one by one, shall we?

1. Beginning of the Universe

You contend that the universe “hasn’t always existed”, and thus, if it hasn’t always existed, then it must have a cause. You also contend that there is no possible way for everything to come from nothing.

As it appears, however, there are multiple flaws with both sides of the statement. On one hand, to suddenly jump from the universe having a cause to that being a god is special pleading, not based on any particular evidence. So, if you’re implying that the universe was caused/created by god, I’d assume that you would have some evidence for that being the specific cause, and not another cause.

Also, just because the universe had a beginning, more or less described by the Big Bang Theory, does not imply that the universe hasn’t always existed. For example, in the case of an expanding and contracting universe, where the universe expands for a long period of time, and eventually collapses and brings itself together again, before starting a new Big Bang, the universe as we know it would have had a beginning, but the cause of the universe would have already existed without the presence of a god.

Also, moving to the second part of the argument, you contend that, basically, “everything cannot come from nothing”. However, that statement would be better said as “something cannot come from nothing”, because if a block of wood came from nothing, and that was it, then that block of wood would be everything that existed. Thus, that something can come from nothing basically implies that everything can come from nothing.

However, if that’s the case- if something cannot come from nothing, that is- then how did your God come to be? For your God is something as well.

Of course, there are two loopholes in this rebuttal: that there wasn’t always nothing, or that God is eternal and infinite. However, if there never was nothing, then clearly the idea of your argument behind nothingness falls apart, as one of your contentions was, to quote,

b. However, if there was nothing prior to the existence – how did this happen?  Nothing is not a property.  It means no thing.  That there was nothing.  No energy, no mass, no ways of coming into existence on it’s own.

Well, if something did exist prior to the universe, and something always existed, then this argument is invalid, because it contradicts the idea that there was nothing prior to the existence.

The other possibility is that, whatever came “before” the universe, it was “infinite and eternal”, an argument commonly used by theists. However, this argument falls apart as well, because then that would mean that, if something was infinite and eternal, that the argument from nothingness used above is invalid, because there was always something prior to the existence of the universe. Plus, if God can be infinite and eternal, why can’t the universe, like in the expanding and contracting universe explained earlier? Of course, none of your argument even explains why the cause of the universe must be God, and nothing else, because you seem to claim that your argument is evidence for the existence of a god, yet it fails to explain why God must be the only explanation here.

c. Let’s say it did come into existence on it’s own – this actually opens a can of worms to why other things don’t just POP into existence.

Again, unless you’re saying that God is eternal and infinite, then that means that, if God came to existence on his own, that, according to your argument, that would mean that we should still see things popping into existence.

On the other hand, if God is indeed eternal and infinite according to you, that the universe, like shown in the expanding-contracting idea aforementioned, can be eternal and infinite as well.

Plus, remember that the universe has its own set of laws that are seperate from anything that is not part of our universe; if our universe’s laws dictate that something cannot come from nothing, then that must be the case, regardless of how our universe began.

2. Objective Moral Values

First, I’m going to address something that you’ve been consistently repeating throughout your argument: that happiness is an emotion, that emotion can be irrational, and thus it is irrational to use happiness as my baseline for morality.

However, this ignores my original definition of happiness,

Happiness: this isn’t exactly an easy term to define. However, the definition I provided above gives a basic idea of what happiness is. To summarize it, happiness is the ultimate good, the ultimate desire; everything that we desire is desired as the result of happiness. I’ll talk more about happiness later.

You tried to mock me for saying that it isn’t an easy term to define, however, I said that because it isn’t something that I can observe crystal-clear in front of my eyes and describe it to you. Also, from my research, there were few sources that gave a decent definition of happiness, so I had to combine what little I had together to create my defintion. However, something being difficult to determine does not render it untrue.

Anyhow, there are two different types of happiness:

Happiness: the ultimate commodity, the one thing that we as humans strive for; the ultimate desire.

Happy/Happiness: the human state of being filled with happiness (as mentioned in the above definition).

One definition is a desire, the other is a state of emotion. I used the first definition, not the second.

And you accuse me of jumping to conclusions.

Anyways, happiness is the ultimate desire, as I defined. True. Everybody wants happiness; true. Even those of us who are starving. We don’t suddenly think to ourselves, “Oh, we need to eat something!”. No, we think “Man, my stomach sure is hurting [unhappiness]. I better go eat something [happiness after eating something]!”. This is because happiness is the ultimate motivator. Everything that we do eventually strives towards some kind of happiness for ourselves.

So, if the ultimate motivator is happiness, as it is truly the only thing that we actually desire, then that would mean that rational self-interest would dictate that we should pursue happiness as human beings.

Now, I’ll come back to that. Let’s look at your argument.

2. objective moral values.
a. Things are either right/wrong. Objectively. Regardless of benefit, emotion or opinion.
b. I believe they are. Seems you do too.

Yeah, I believe that things are right or wrong, not an in-between… But you extend things too far.

Here’s the thing: my entire argument, I have been stating that the reason for being moral, for wanting to follow my law of morality, is because it benefits us as human beings. True, if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. However, in my email, I told you that I would suggest that everybody follow it, because, speaking from rational self-interest, every rational person would want to pursue what benefits them, which is happiness. Thus, if you don’t want to follow the law, then you’re an irrational person.

Of course, my law doesn’t dictate that everybody’s going to act in the best interest of everybody overall. For example, murder: people murder people, generally, because it produces happiness in some form or another. However, my moral law does not say that everybody, automatically, follows the exact law. People murder others out of self-interest, out of self-motivation; to them, the happiness produced for them in particular is far more important than the unhappiness produced for others.

We make government to protect everybody’s overall best interests; thus, the government must punish ultimately immoral behavior. We formed government to protect us and our happiness, and thus the government ought to punish the criminal for producing ultimately more unhappiness than happiness.

Now, going back to what you said, you imply that an action is right or wrong regardless of “benefit, emotion, or opinion”. As I showed earlier, the happiness, as I define it, that I use is not an emotion. It is a desire, a benefit (I’ll come to that in a moment).

Nor is my moral law based on opinion; either an action promotes happiness, or it doesn’t. There’s no “Oh, in my opinion, we shouldn’t kill people”. It’s “Oh, we shouldn’t kill people because, out of millions and millions of situations in which we see one person murder another, we practically always see that that murder makes people a lot unhappier than happier”. There’s no opinion to that, it’s a true or false statement, and nothing in-between.

However, my moral law is based on benefit. But here’s the thing.

Like I said earlier, we all have a motivation to try and follow the moral law that we’ve set out; doing so benefits us. That’s why we have government, to help enforce that moral law. It’s not like the government suddenly decided “Oh, let’s make killing illegal, because that’s my opinion”. No, they make it illegal because nobody desires to be killed, no family member desires to have another family member killed, no friend desires another friend to be killed, and the like. With the moral law I’ve described, we actually have a reason to follow it: because it benefits us.

With your moral law, we have no reason to follow it.

With your moral law, something’s either right or wrong, with no explanation why or how; it’s based on the laws Jesus and God have set out for you. If they told you that you ought to murder every living person on the planet, you’d be forced to say that that’d be the moral thing to do, because you base your morality on deities.

Of course, if you want to whine and say that I’m jumping to conclusions by saying that your moral law is based on godlike beings, well, here’s the thing: either a god made your morality, or one didn’t. So, if you’re god didn’t make your morality, then the fact that we’ve been arguing this at all is ridiculous. If your god did make your morality, then my jump to a conclusion was a correct one.

So, take your pick.

Going back, though, in summary: my moral law is based on cost versus benefit; yours isn’t. I say that we ought to follow my moral law out of rational self-interest; you say that we ought to follow it because, well, God told us to. I have a reason to follow the moral law. You don’t.

There has to be some kind of motivation for us to actually give up our ability to do some things, like killing people. For me, that motivation is quite clear. For you, that motivation is as clear as mud.

So, just to say that morality is objective, regardless of benefit, is a rather silly point. The only reason we ought to act moral is because of the benefit. If you disagree, then there’s no motivation to act moral. If you agree, then you contradict yourself by saying that objective morals are objective regardless of benefit.

And, to address the point of objectivity, no matter where you are in the world, an action will either promote happiness, or it won’t. Regardless of culture, too. You mentioned self-mutilation. Although I see little reason to self-mutilate, I see even less reason to ban self-mutilation, as long as it isn’t clearly irrational- in other words, as long as it doesn’t violate rational self-interest. Now, if you took me against my will and mutilated me, that would be immoral, because it went against my desires. However, if I’m rational, and I believe that self-mutilation will benefit me, then I ought to have the right to self-mutilate. No matter where you are in the world, this remains the same. If you’re in the US, and nobody wants to self-mutilate, that’s their choice; that’s their action. However, if you’re in another part, if somebody does want to self-mutilate, again, that’s their choice, their action, and it fulfills their desires. So, really, self-mutilation isn’t much of a good point for you to make.

So, take your pick, Chris: either state that there is no benefit and thus no reason to follow moral law, or there is, and thereby contradict yourself.

3. The Resurrection

3. Jesus’ death and resurrection.
a. Can’t be done without a God.

As Dave mentioned, that assumes that Jesus ever existed, and that he was resurrected, which you haven’t provided proof for. Done.

From here on out, my rebuttals are basically going to be the same as Dave’s.

4. Sex

Uh… How does that provide evidence for a god?

5. Creativity

Same as above.

6. Existence of love.

Same again, plus it can be explained pretty easily by evolution/happiness.

7. Sin

Same, plus it can again be explained by the fact that happiness is a motivator and thus people don’t always act in the best interest of everybody, which again explains our invention of government.

8. Life in general

Chris, you appear to find it difficult to believe that life could arise from nonlife by chance. However, you miss a lot of major points.

For example, our universe isn’t very well fine-tuned to life in the first place. Considering that +99.999999999% of the places in the universe we could be right now would kill us in seconds, if not, a few minutes, the word “fine-tuned” seems a bit odd. However, looking at probabilities, eventually, given the formation of the stars and the near-infinite number of tests of trial-and-error, it would seem absurd to assume that a self-replicating molecule wouldn’t eventually form.

Also, further along with the belief that the universe/Earth is fine-tuned for life, that’s assuming life in its current form; there are other ways that life could portray itself, and there are possibly many other nonliving, yet still very interesting compounds of chemicals that could exist in other “versions” of the universe.

Furthermore, multiple constants in our universe are dependent on other constants (Kane et al. 2000).

Not to mention, it’s difficult for you to determine that this universe is only one of a near infinite number of possible universes; for all we know, this could be the only way the universe can form.

On top of that last point, with the expanding-contracting idea of the universe, even if there were a near infinite number of possible universes, as long as the universe expanded, then contracted, expanded, then contracted, eventually, a universe like ours would appear, even if it took a near infinite number of trials.

Also, you neglect the possiblity of multiple universes, in which case at least one could very well have life within it.

You neglect the idea that life could have started off in a form very similar to viruses, with a self-replicating RNA molecule, which viruses happen to be composed of. We’re talking about a near infinite number of chemical reactions on planets all across the universe; that you would believe that a self-replicating RNA molecule or self-replicating nucleic acid could not be created on at least one planet, a single planet, in the universe, is rather odd.

I hope I don’t have to go any further to explain this to you. Even if the chance of life forming is extremely, extremely small, to assume that it was created is ridiculous, due to the immense number of trials that occured all across the universe.

9. Sentient Life

Explainable through evolution, which is a very well-established, scientific theory.

10. The Bible

Assumes that it’s true, even though it contradicts centuries and millennia of evidence to the contrary. Assumes that it was written by the people it claims to have been written by, although the New Testament has been shown to be filled with forgeries, and the fact that Mark, John, Luke, and Matthew were all almost certainly illiterate, not to mention that there was no way that these Roman peasants suddenly developed excellent reading and writing skills in Greek that allowed themselves to write a book like the New Testament, among other things, like the Old Testament being a ragged copy of legends from the ancient world that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

11. Fine tuning of Earth for life

Yes, because out of trillions of planets and stars, a near-uncountable number of reactions throughout the universe, the great age of the universe, it still seems remarkable to you that a self-replicating molecule could have formed somewhere in the universe. It’s like flipping a coin; flip it enough times, and you’ll eventually get one hundred heads in a row.

12. Personality

How is this evidence for God?

13. Feelings

Same as above.

14. Cognitive Ability

Ditto.

15. Reason

Ditto again.

16. Logic

Again, ditto.

 

So, that’s my response to your alleged “evidences” for a God. I’ll be rebutting the rest of your comments soon.

25 responses to Dear Chris: Evidences for God

  1. Okay, I see we’ll have to take this slow – so for that reason I won’t be able to address everything today, or probably until next week (with the holiday weekend and all), but I can address a couple of thing.

    First let’s look at the universe evidence.

    “So, if you’re implying that the universe was caused/created by god, I’d assume that you would have some evidence for that being the specific cause, and not another cause”

    Let’s me clarify.

    Either the universe always existed or it began to exist. – established, it’s either or.

    I assert it began to exist.

    If this is true, it either came into existence 1) out of necessity, 2) chance, 3) design (on purpose)

    We know it’s not 1).

    Now, you can argue 2) – but chance doesn’t CREATE. It’s a happening with current variables, not a happening without variables.

    so that leaves us with 3) design (purpose)

    Okay, so now what could have caused this?

    Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist must have several attributes.
    1. timeless
    2. changeless
    3. non-material
    4. transcendental
    5. have purpose – design requires this.

    So, do we know anything that covers all five aspects?

    We have two options.

    1. abstract objects
    2. a non bodily mind.

    But, abstract objects don’t create nor do abstract objects have purposeful intentions. So it doesn’t fit the bill.

    A non bodily mind, however, fits this quite well.

    QUOTE: “Also, just because the universe had a beginning, more or less described by the Big Bang Theory, does not imply that the universe hasn’t always existed. For example, in the case of an expanding and contracting universe, where the universe expands for a long period of time, and eventually collapses and brings itself together again, before starting a new Big Bang, the universe as we know it would have had a beginning, but the cause of the universe would have already existed without the presence of a god.

    This would be arguing for an infinite past universe. Which even still has the problem of the infinite past (if not for OUR universe) but universes altogether. All you have done is kick the can further down the street, but NOT addressed the infinite past problem.

    Of course an infinite past doesn’t require a god – that isn’t the argument. the argument is IF the universe came to be – what caused it? Science points towards our universe coming to be.

    In addition, if we take our expanding contracting universe and NOT argue for an infinite past, we are still left with: how was the first universe created.

    QUOTE: “Well, if something did exist prior to the universe, and something always existed, then this argument is invalid, because it contradicts the idea that there was nothing prior to the existence.”

    Not as addressed above.

    QUOTE: The other possibility is that, whatever came “before” the universe, it was “infinite and eternal”, an argument commonly used by theists. However, this argument falls apart as well, because then that would mean that, if something was infinite and eternal, that the argument from nothingness used above is invalid, because there was always something prior to the existence of the universe.

    Again, not as addressed above.

    QUOTE:”Plus, if God can be infinite and eternal, why can’t the universe, like in the expanding and contracting universe explained earlier?”

    I explained as such.

    It’s a metaphysical absurdity – an infinite past.

    But I would be interested where you plant your flag.

    Infinite universe?

    universe came into existence?

    I’ll wait for your answer to those questions before moving on.

    • Cause of the Universe

      I’m sick of writing long responses on my phone, so I’ll address this the best I can with the most word efficiency.

      Which means I won’t address every little thing you said (though I will address one particular part of it). So…

      “Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist must have several attributes.
      1. timeless
      2. changeless
      3. non-material
      4. transcendental
      5. have purpose – design requires this.”

      1. The thing that created the universe could’ve been created by something else. Clearly untrue.
      2. No reason to believe what created the universe was changeless, especially if you’re talking about a god like yours, who has changed in multiple ways.
      3. No reason to believe this either, unless you mean “non-material” in the sense of what is considered material in this particular universe… Still, no real evidence.
      4. No reason to believe the cause was transcendental. For all we know, we could’ve been created as a high schooler’s science project in another universe.
      5. Design only implies purpose with a conscious, thinking designer. Genetics don’t have any “purpose”, yet they “design” us anyways.

      Then you brush aside abstract objects for no reason, mostly because of observations in our own universe that rocks don’t create universes. As for the purpose assumption, again, implying a conscious designer, so your own premises are biased towards a conscious designer in the first place. Back to creating things… Then again, neither do humans… Law of Conversation of Mass and Energy…

      “This would be arguing for an infinite past universe. Which even still has the problem of the infinite past (if not for OUR universe) but universes altogether. All you have done is kick the can further down the street, but NOT addressed the infinite past problem.”

      God suffers the exact same problem, so, either way, we face this same problem, based on your initial contentions. Not to mention that you earlier said things could be “infinite” with the idea of “timelessness”, which you said God had… So your idea that I “haven’t addressed the infinite past problem” is a bit silly, given that there was no such problem in the first place.

      Also, science points to a Big Bang, not to an initial cause, which still allows the idea of the expanding-contracting universe.

      You end by saying that an infinite universe is absurd, yet the idea of God being infinite apparently isn’t absurd… Um… Talk about bias…

      • QUOTE: 1. The thing that created the universe could’ve been created by something else. Clearly untrue.END QUOTE
        Please show otherwise – don’t just state it. As you don’t below.
        QUOTE2. No reason to believe what created the universe was changeless, especially if you’re talking about a god like yours, who has changed in multiple ways.END QUOTE
        Has to be changeless by necessity. (furthermore we aren’t talking about MY God for this piece of the puzzle but A God. And yes, it has to be changeless.
        QUOTE3. No reason to believe this either, unless you mean “non-material” in the sense of what is considered material in this particular universe… Still, no real evidence.END QUOTE
        Correct, THIS particular universe. God has to be outside it.

        QUOTE4. No reason to believe the cause was transcendental. For all we know, we could’ve been created as a high schooler’s science project in another universe.END QUOTE
        Ah, multi verse theory!

        QUOTE5. Design only implies purpose with a conscious, thinking designer. Genetics don’t have any “purpose”, yet they “design” us anyways.END QUOTE
        I’ll leave this one for now…
        QUOTEThen you brush aside abstract objects for no reason, mostly because of observations in our own universe that rocks don’t create universes.END QUOTE
        A rock is NOT an abstract object – it’s an ACTUAL object.
        Numbers are abstract objects.
        Again, read and understand – don’t just REACT.
        QUOTE: As for the purpose assumption, again, implying a conscious designer, so your own premises are biased towards a conscious designer in the first place. Back to creating things… Then again, neither do humans… Law of Conversation of Mass and Energy…END QUOTE
        1) humans are WITHIN the laws of the universe so as to energy, correct! We cannot create nor destroy energy.
        2) We can CREATE and DESIGN though. Both of which purpose and consciousness are required. Nothing that we humans do, gets done without either.
        God is outside the universe – or would be subject TO the universe.
        QUOTE“This would be arguing for an infinite past universe. Which even still has the problem of the infinite past (if not for OUR universe) but universes altogether. All you have done is kick the can further down the street, but NOT addressed the infinite past problem.”
        God suffers the exact same problem, so, either way, we face this same problem, based on your initial contentions. Not to mention that you earlier said things could be “infinite” with the idea of “timelessness”, which you said God had… So your idea that I “haven’t addressed the infinite past problem” is a bit silly, given that there was no such problem in the first place.END QUOTE
        No, God being outside our time/space doesn’t suffer from this problem at all. Since scientists contend that time/space were created at the moment of the Big Bang – within the universe.
        QUOTE:Also, science points to a Big Bang, not to an initial cause, which still allows the idea of the expanding-contracting universe.END QUOTE
        QUOTEYou end by saying that an infinite universe is absurd, yet the idea of God being infinite apparently isn’t absurd… Um… Talk about bias..END QUOTE
        LOL.
        It would help your cases more if you stopped to think now and again and not just fire off a response…take some time. I’ll wait.
        But I noticed you completely ignore the question as to what you believe.
        Always existed or became?
        Answer please.
        So far, we see the hoops you are willing to jump through to avoid the design aspect. More on this later.

  2. Your moral argument:

    You still haven’t jumped to objectivity. No amount of words will do this.

    I have listed numerous issues with your moral code why it can’t – you have ignored them an only focused on your definition of happiness and using THAT as your measuring rod. Which falls apart right away as in order to measure something, you need a baseline – you don’t have it.

    Now, WITHIN your moral code you can have fixed criteria – that isn’t my argument. But your code is not binding or true (even you admit that it isn’t the truth, the WHOLE truth…etc.

    By that, then it can’t be OBJECTIVE.

    Not sure why you have such a hard time with this.

    However, using more words and repeating yourself doesn’t make your code objective – (and ignoring the issues presented doesn’t help either) shows you are willing to be ignorant about your own code and not intellectually look at it.

    Enough said, believe it or don’t but it is a fact your code is NOT OBJECTIVE. I have repeatedly shown this, you chose to ignore it.

    So for there to be objective morals, there has to be a perfect moral authority. Humans, commodities, emotions, etc. cannot fit this bill.

    By the way, do you know how commodities work? As calling happiness a commodity ALSO shows that it’s NOT objective, but subjective even more so.

  3. I’ll get to the rest when I can – but these were the big two you have issues with.

  4. MORE ON MORALS!

    “So, take your pick, Chris: either state that there is no benefit and thus no reason to follow moral law, or there is, and thereby contradict yourself.”

    Again, because of this statement I don’t think you have truly read my argument against your moral code and it’s objectivity. I NEVER argued there wasn’t a benefit – in fact, I argued quite the opposite – guess you didn’t read that part of my critique when you skimmed it.

    But morals laws are not ALWAYS beneficial us personally, nor are they in and of themselves necessarily beneficial. Being moral, in the long run, yes – especially in the Christian world view.

    Atheist world view? I would argue not so much, since it all ends anyway, my actions don’t matter in the end…

    However, the end result in either case says nothing to whether or not objective moral values/duties exist.

    If they do…where are they found? Why do they exist? In what are they grounded?

    You say they do…to an extent – by saying I go too far? Yet you don’t say how I go too far.

    You wish to ground your moral code in happiness. But as we have seen, this doesn’t provide us with a plumb line – too many variables, including itself as a commodity.

    Thus for objective moral values to exist, there needs to be a moral authority.

    Happiness – either as a feeling or a commodity is not an authority. Nor is desire.

    For morals to be objective they exist despite our desire – that is something I desire to do may be immoral. Or I do not “like” a certain moral principal – but my feelings toward it, my desires do not make it right or wrong.

    In addition, this authority cannot be subjective itself, that would be fallible and thus could not be 100% right in determining a moral action.

    Only in objectivity can we say something is truly morally wrong. In subjectivity – such as your code is – we would never be sure and could argue for either side of an action.

    With objective morals, we can’t argue despite our want. It is, or it isn’t.

    Only an authority can do this.

    And while your code establishes that happiness IS a commodity that we all desire – you don’t establish that it OUGHT to be…thus again, your code is subjective.

    So, since authority is needed for objective moral values – where but a god can we find this?

    I argue, nowhere.

    “The only reason we ought to act moral is because of the benefit.”

    The ONLY reason? I could give you quite a few more than just that.

    As, your moral code provides no objective “ought” as I’ve shown time and again.

    So no, the benefit – while preferred – does not give us an “ought” in your case.

    Now, if you like to argue that in Christianity there is an ultimate “benefit” you may – as then I would argue in atheism there is no ultimate benefit – so yours would be lacking that as well. Because even IF all peoples were made happy all the time…in the end (according to atheism) everyone will be dead anyway…thus all actions prior to were meaningless in the end…

    Regardless, whether or not there IS a benefit in the Christian world view – it’s a moot point at this moment because we are just discussing the objectivity of morals…not what the ultimate benefit is.

    Thus this part of the discussion is irrelevant.

    As is this statement: “With your moral law, something’s either right or wrong, with no explanation why or how; it’s based on the laws Jesus and God have set out for you. If they told you that you ought to murder every living person on the planet, you’d be forced to say that that’d be the moral thing to do, because you base your morality on deities.”

    We are only establishing if there ARE objective moral values and WHAT are they grounded in.

    An authority or a commodity/emotion.

    We know they can’t be found in a commodity/emotion.

    We are then only left with authority.

    • I’ll be addressing your ideas soon. I won’t have great internet access (if any) for the next few days.

    • Morality

      Ok, so, you claim that I cannot possibly prove that my morality is objective. However, I gave you multiple objective truths that would, rationally, lead to an objective conclusion, such as:
      1. Happiness is the ultimate desire (objective truth)
      2. Everyone desires happiness (objective truth)
      3. Due to rational self-interest, a person is going to act in a way that benefits them, and, if everybody acts to gain happiness, then, clearly, happiness must be a benefit. (Objective)
      4. Morality deals with actions that we ought and ought not do. (Objective)
      5. Because everybody desires happiness ultimately, we ought to act in the manner that promotes most happiness, as benefits and disadvantages are the only rational reasons to perform actions in the first place, so we ought to perform actions based on cost vs benefit. Because happiness/unhappiness is the ultimate benefit/disadvantage, then moral actions promote happiness while immoral actions promote unhappiness. (Objective)

      Still, after all this, you say my morality is not objective. Looking at the definition of “objective”:

      Adjective
      (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

      I see no way whatsoever in which I just introduced “personal feelings” or my “opinions”. I think the fact that you still say my morality isn’t objective is insane.

      Then you continue your whining that I haven’t paid attention to your argument by saying that you can either admit that there’s no reason to follow your morality or you contradict yourself. Of course, I quoted you, from when you said that an action is moral or immoral regardless of benefit, emotion, or opinion, however, as I said, the only reason to do or not do something is because of the benefit, so an action is only objectively moral because of the benefit… I think it’s you who hasn’t been listening to yourself.

      Then, of course, you say moral actions can be moral without being beneficial right after that… Yeah… And if that’s the case, why do those actions?

      Then, out of nowhere, you say death makes the atheist’s life meaningless (even though I believe I addressed that earlier…). However, I think death gives life more meaning. It means you have to pick out your actions more carefully, that happiness means more. The happiness you get in life becomes much more valuable.

      I earlier addressed objective morality, so you can go back if you want to see that…

      For the trillionth time, morals are founded in happiness, which was created by evolution.

      They exist because of happiness.

      You say there are “too many variables” to use happiness- an argument from ignorance. Of course, I could say the same with love. However, I fail to see how, after millennia of experience, observing current-day events, and simple observations about happiness and unhappiness, we can’t tell how something, say, murder, is immoral, according to you through my moral law. Absolutely absurd.

      You say happiness isn’t an authority, but “authority” is defined as

      Noun
      The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

      Don’t see anything about the authority talking and walking. A mathematical equation could be an authority as well, in math, yet there isn’t anything about it that talks. The laws of our universe are authorities, but they aren’t sentient (well, as far as our scientific knowledge goes, anyways).

      “For morals to be objective they exist despite our desire – that is something I desire to do may be immoral. Or I do not “like” a certain moral principal – but my feelings toward it, my desires do not make it right or wrong.”

      Again, isn’t my argument at all. I might not like the fact that it’s immoral to kill my neighbors, but that doesn’t make it moral, certainly not through my moral law. How you interpreted me as saying this, I have no idea.

      You don’t address how happiness is fallible, how it “can’t be right 100% of the time”, yet don’t go into any depth with this claim. I have no idea how it’s subjective, too, given the earlier defined objectivity.

      Happiness, being ultimately the only thing desired, is desired, and the only reason to do/not to do an action is because of the cost vs benefit, unhappiness and happiness being the benefit…

      You say that their are many other reasons why we should be moral aside from the benefit, but don’t state them… I’d be interested in knowing.

      State that I have no objective “ought”, even though “ought” implies moral obligation, which I covered earlier under my morality being objective…

      “So no, the benefit – while preferred – does not give us an “ought” in your case.”

      Again, only reason to do/ not to do is the cost vs benefit, this, the only thing that defines “ought” is the cost vs benefit…

      You say there’s no benefit in atheism due to death, I earlier addressed that in this rebuttal…

      “Regardless, whether or not there IS a benefit in the Christian world view – it’s a moot point at this moment because we are just discussing the objectivity of morals…not what the ultimate benefit is.”

      Again, in your morality, we ought to do actions or ought not do them regardless of benefit, yet give no reason why we should thus follow those morals, thus rendering at least part of your morality pointless because there isn’t any motivation to follow the morality.

      You state that objective morals exist regardless of whether or not your god changes it, but that would defeat the point of objectivity, since an action could go from moral to immoral from one day to the next, while happiness doesn’t change…

      • Again, you fail to understand objective morality, which I’ll show AGAIN… however, let’s look at a couple things.

        “Again, in your morality, we ought to do actions or ought not do them regardless of benefit, yet give no reason why we should thus follow those morals, thus rendering at least part of your morality pointless because there isn’t any motivation to follow the morality”

        Something is either right/wrong REGARDLESS of our motivation or benefit. You seem not to get that point of objectivity.

        Many things that I wish to do WOULD benefit me personally – yet they are not moral to do. So REGARDLESS of the benefit to me, it would be immoral to do certain actions.

        Why would we want to do them?

        Not necessary to the point that ONLY through a moral authority can there be objective morals. Objective right/wrong. No matter the amount of words you use to further defend your morals, they don’t objectively do this.

        We can get to the “whys” later – main point – without a moral giver – God – there are no objective morals.

        QUOTE:You say happiness isn’t an authority, but “authority” is defined as

        Noun
        The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.END QUOTE

        This just shows that happiness ISN’T and authority. 1) it doesn’t have power or right to give orders. It’s either a commodity or emotion. NEITHER have power/rights to GIVE orders. 2) make decisions. Happiness can’t do that as well. It can INFORM or INFLUENCE but it doesn’t MAKE a decision this requires it to THINK. 3) happiness can’t ENFORCE obedience. It’s either a commodity or emotion – neither of which give it ENFORCEMENT power.

        Again, you just killed your moral authority and don’t even see it.

        QUOTE:”Don’t see anything about the authority talking and walking.”

        Ah, but there is about THINKING – cognition. GIVE orders – MAKE decisions – ENFORCE obedience. Requires thought (especially the first two) and purpose.

        Another strike against commodity and emotions.

        Another point for a god, a moral authority.

        QUOTE: A mathematical equation could be an authority as well, in math, yet there isn’t anything about it that talks. The laws of our universe are authorities, but they aren’t sentient (well, as far as our scientific knowledge goes, anyways).END QUOTE

        ONLY in the latter part of enforcing perhaps, but that would be using the definition very loosely. As math doesn’t GIVE orders, MAKE decisions. It’s ENFORCEMENT is in the logical necessity of it. But that isn’t a power of math. Math can’t make me use it, nor do I have to use it properly.

        As well as the “laws” of the universe – well, that just adds to my argument – not yours.

        Again, you have killed you objective morals, but either ignore it or just not thinking critically. By all means keep trying, but it shows you aren’t understanding mine (or your) position.

        ME – “For morals to be objective they exist despite our desire – that is something I desire to do may be immoral. Or I do not “like” a certain moral principal – but my feelings toward it, my desires do not make it right or wrong.”

        YOU – Again, isn’t my argument at all. I might not like the fact that it’s immoral to kill my neighbors, but that doesn’t make it moral, certainly not through my moral law. How you interpreted me as saying this, I have no idea.”

        See? You don’t even understand my statement.

        For morals to be objective, they must be INDEPENDENT of our feelings toward them. They cannot be INFLUENCED by our feelings. So regardless of if I agree/disagree with a moral principal it is either right/wrong morally.

        And lastly: “Adjective
        (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

        I see no way whatsoever in which I just introduced “personal feelings” or my “opinions”. I think the fact that you still say my morality isn’t objective is insane.”

        This is exactly what I am saying. YOU aren’t paying attention to what you are stating, nor reading my argument. The definitions you provided have KILLED your objective morality. Including that one.

        And that you can’t see it…very telling…but keep at it if you wish, but each time you “defend” your morality, you make the case worse and worse.

        And hey, that’s fine, GT keep thinking it’s objective.

        So one last time, I’ll show you how yours isn’t objective.

        Let’s look at the def. you provided: NOT (see that word? NOT) influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

        It’s your personal feeling that happiness is the greatest commodity – I disagree. That we all want to be happy is fine, but I don’t believe that happiness as an end goal is a solid basis for a moral code.

        You do. Because it’s YOUR opinion that happiness should be and IS the greatest commodity.

        Also, I showed you that happiness is influence by many things: opinion being one of them – you disagree with this? Well, if happiness IS influenced by opinion (and personal feelings) than it cannot be an objective moral basis, given the def. you provided can it?

        No.

        IN ADDITION – I have quoted you and showed that you take one moral principal and ADJUST it to fit your fancy – remember the whole slavery deal? Yes, you decide to “TWIST” a moral principal because it could lead to something you didn’t like….whoops! Opinion again! Personal feeling!

        Fact is, GT, I have shown your moral code to be subjective. Ignore this if you wish, be blind to it, but I have. if you wish to be intellectually ignorant is this way, by all means do so, but you are doing so on your own blog and hurting your case.

        QUOTE”For the trillionth time, morals are founded in happiness, which was created by evolution.”

        Another nail to your moral code…but you don’t see it.

  5. Here I will address life and fine tuning.

    “11. Fine tuning of Earth for life

    Yes, because out of trillions of planets and stars, a near-uncountable number of reactions throughout the universe, the great age of the universe, it still seems remarkable to you that a self-replicating molecule could have formed somewhere in the universe. It’s like flipping a coin; flip it enough times, and you’ll eventually get one hundred heads in a row.”

    Like Dave you are trying to invoke chance yet a “has to”..

    You seem to argue that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible. That, there HAD TO be at least one planet in the universe that was positioned in such a way to support life.

    Now, if this is the case, you are arguing that the universe is fined tune by NECESSITY.

    Well, I’d like you to flesh out that argument a bit more. Why is it necessary that there be fine tuning?

    Of course you could step your comment back and just say: chance.

    Ah, but that will cause you a problem (as you did mix my two pieces of evidence) when it comes to life.

    As, now you either claim life began out of NECESSITY or CHANCE.

    If you claim necessity, you got a pretty big hill to climb to show this. To argue that life HAD to arise.

    Otherwise you are left to: chance.

    So now, you are invoking chance TWICE.

    Well, then in both cases I would love to see your evidence for chance – as chance doesn’t create.

    I argue that purpose is needed in both…we see this in our everyday lives.

    Like the universe, we don’t see life popping in and out of existence via chance.

    So, I’ll ask you where you plant your flag again as it pertains to life.

    1. necessity
    2. chance

    Invoking chance TWICE to two very improbable, and different, outcomes verses being created, goes against much of what you witness around you in your daily life. As chance involves already known variables.

    Claiming necessity – well, I’ll let you climb that hill if you wish.

    Creation seems to be a more rational choice.

    • “Fine Tuning”

      I never invoke necessity, I say that the probabilities of life forming are so high that it’s ridiculous to think it couldn’t form. If the chance of an event occurring is 1%, then, out of 1 trial, the probability of that event occurring is quite low. However, the geometric mean of this distribution is 100. Given enough trials, this event is near guaranteed to happen. Not 100%, but, for example, 99.9999999999%. The same goes for life. Given trillions and trillions of solar systems, even if the probability of a single given planet holding life is, well, almost 0, the chance of at least one planet holding life in the universe, with trillions of trials, is much, much more likely.

      So, to address your first part, no, I don’t believe life “must” come to be; I just think the probability of it not coming to be is extremely, extremely low.

      “Invoking chance TWICE to two very improbable, and different, outcomes verses being created, goes against much of what you witness around you in your daily life. As chance involves already known variables.”

      You’re only taking into account one, single, randomly selected planet. Think of trillions, that’ll be more accurate. For example, the probability that my lottery ticket is winning is very low, but, out of millions of lottery tickets, the probability of at least one being winning is much higher. Same goes for life.

      Also, the last part about “already known variables” is just silly. There’s no reason to believe chance would cease to exist if humans and thus knowledge died out.

      You also say “chance doesn’t create”. Well, technically, nothing “creates”, due to the Law of Conservation of Mass. However, chance does “create” in the sense that we’re using of “create”. For example, the sun is composed of… A lot of hydrogen molecules that are bustling around. The energy of the sun comes from nuclear fusion. The random movement of hydrogen atoms within the sun eventually causes them to collide into one another, which fuses them into helium atoms and thereby releases energy, that has powered our planet throughout its entire history. Random flying of particles eventually causes one to slam into a uranium atom in a nuclear reactor, which creates nuclear fission, releasing energy, as well as forming lighter elements. Back to the sun example, the collision of hydrogen atoms “creates” heavier elements, like helium. In extremely large stars, these collisions can lead to the creation of iron, before a supernova. So, yeah, actually, chance can create, given enough trials (the innumerable hydrogen atoms in the star, neutrons in nuclear fission, etc).

      • You are confusing two issues.

        1) life supporting universe and
        2) life happening

        that is where you invoke chance twice.

        1) that the universe just happened to support life – chance number one.
        2) that life arose from non-life – chance number two.

        So, yes, now TWICE you invoke chance for your answer.

        Not to mention, you still have the life from non-life hurdle…

        But at least you finally have planted your flag – Chance.

        Now if you could for the universe: began to exist, or always existed?

      • As for chance itself.

        Chance happens for things that CAN happen.

        So, if you’d like to argue that life CAN arise out of non-life – I would like to see this presented. As we don’t find this happening.

        You may want to argue it happened once…but you would be arguing chance on something that may not be possible. So to argue chance, you have to show possibility.

        I would like to see that argument.

        If it’s not possible, then there is NO chance for it to happen.

        So, please present your argument and step by step process of life from non-life to show possibility.

  6. “Sentient Life

    Explainable through evolution, which is a very well-established, scientific theory.”

    Then it must be so.

    Then I would love for you to walk me through this process for creating sentient life. Start from the start, then show me how sentient life evolved out of non-sentient life.

    Show me what mutation took place and to where…

    Since evolution can account for this you should be able to do this.

    • Sentient Life

      Your scientific illiteracy is astounding. We don’t know every single genetic mutation in evolution, but we do see how humans changed to come into their present form. I can’t tell you that, exactly 23,694,654 years ago, such-and-such mutation occurred that started a process that lead to sentient life, but I can explain the evolutionary advantages to becoming a sentient species. It’d be like me trying to explain how a window broke, and you telling me that, since we don’t know exactly when the window broke, we can’t say that the window is broken. Same goes for evolution: I don’t know every detail, every genetic mutation, but the evidence we *do* have points overwhelmingly in the direction of evolution.

      • “direction” of evolution.

        Um, evolution has no direction – a mutation either works or it doesn’t. It’s random, non purposed. No design. As for evolutionary advantage – I can argue that it isn’t an advantage, just like happiness isn’t always an advantage.

        Besides, an advantage today, may not be tomorrow.

        QUOTE:”It’d be like me trying to explain how a window broke, and you telling me that, since we don’t know exactly when the window broke, we can’t say that the window is broken.”END QUOTE

        Well, since we’ve all seen or known of windows actually being broken we can certainly assume a number of ways it being broken. As well as HOW the glass was broken – just a crack, is there a small hole, etc.

        We may not know exactly how, but we can come to a reasonable conclusion.

        Evolution?

        Not once have we seen a sentience being mutate from a non-sentient being.

        Mutations? Certainly.

        Variations in species? You bet.

        But sentience from non-sentient – nope. Never been observed. Never been replicated.

        In addition, as you know, evolution is non-directional, non-purposeful. Yet sentience allows for purpose and direction.

        How can this happen with random mutations? How can purpose and direction come out of non-purpose and non-direction. You are giving evolution more power than it has…

        So if you can claim “evolution” to fill this gap – I’m perfectly rational in claiming design to fill mine. Especially when design IS purposeful, directional, creative, and OBSERVABLE.

        We sentient beings create all the time, with intent.

    • Hi Chris

      Perhaps you could demonstrate for us how a pile of dust can be used to create a human male, and show the process by which a human woman can be grown from a male human’s rib.

  7. I’ll get to the others later…

  8. So far, here is where you sit.

    Universe? Haven’t staked a claim.

    I side with science in showing that the universe HAD a beginning.

    Fine tuning for life?

    You go with “chance” where as I go with design.

    A planet that supports life?

    I’m guessing you’ll go chance again. Though with chance, it can also NOT happen.

    I go with design.

    Life?

    Chance again for you.
    Design again for me.

    So.
    1) no claim vs claim (based on scientific evidence)
    2) chance vs. design
    3) chance vs. design
    4) chance vs. design

    So in 3 out of four INDEPENDENT cases you find it MORE plausible that chance trumps design. (though in your multi-verse theory you presented, you did offer design as a “theory”)

    However, I am just as rational in belief of a designer in each of those aspects – since chance is not a defeater of this belief. It’s all you have to offer against design.

    Well, in all other aspects of life – this doesn’t happen.

    In Vegas, because of Odds (chance) they are able to find cheaters, card counters, and rigged games – and these are on things that CAN happen. Why? because while things “can” happen in games of chance, they don’t happen usually in certain “seemingly” designed ways.

    Example: if you and I were to play poker and each hand I kept getting full houses – you know what you would say?

    That I was cheating.
    I could argue that it was chance -
    you wouldn’t believe me.

    And that’s a silly little card game.

    Yet, as it pertains to life – which you agree is meaningful and much more important (and complex) – you give completely, and without reservation, over to chance. Same with fine tuning, and a life supporting earth.

    Each an independent circumstance.

    You want three full houses in a row to happen by chance and NOT design.

  9. Oh, and sentient life (after life arises out of nothing by chance)…you go with chance again. Evolution is NO guarantee for sentient life…so it happened by random, non purposed, mutations that just happen to come about at the “right” time – at any other time it wouldn’t have “survived” as a trait.

    So four full houses now…independent of each other.

    Chance is your defeater for a designer?

    You wouldn’t accept that in ANY other circumstance.

  10. I’d like to move onto Jesus – however, you do need to be honest with your answer of the following question first.

    What would you accept as evidence for a person’s historicity during the time of 30AD and before? To you, what is at minimum needed?

    Answer that, I will present you with evidence for Jesus.

  11. Okay, let’s deal with “life happening.”

    Which isn’t one listed above!

    So what are you arguing this for? Maybe, we’ll find out.

    QUOTE:As for the next event (life forming), I’ve already provided multiple ways in which the chance of life forming is almost certainly very, very high. There are trillions of stars and planets throughout the universe. The probability that a single randomly selected planet has life is near zero. However, given trillions and trillions of trials, eventually, you are likely to get at least one planet that has life on it. We are given trillions and trillions of trials, and, thus, the probability that at least one of them was able and did support life is quite high.END QUOTE

    Here you argue probability, however, you actually have no idea what the probability of life is – so what do you base this on?

    YOU—–…You neglect the idea that life could have started off in a form very similar to viruses, with a self-replicating RNA molecule, which viruses happen to be composed of. We’re talking about a near infinite number of chemical reactions on planets all across the universe; that you would believe that a self-replicating RNA molecule or self-replicating nucleic acid could not be created on at least one planet, a single planet, in the universe, is rather odd.

    ‘Nuff said.<<<<>>>>>

    I think it is good you ended there. Shall we look at what you just wrote?

    Form similar to viruses?

    You didn’t read the beginning of your own link, GT – it says “The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins.”

    NOT that life arose from something “similar to viruses” with SR-RNA but that it STARTED with SR-RNA.

    Well, which came first GT the self-replicating RNA or the “similar” virus that HAS it already?

    Since you link the RNA – World from Wiki – then you must be aware that even this theory has huge hurdles to jump!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Support_and_difficulties

    So you don’t get the hurdle jump, you in fact just throw up another one. And then invoke “chance” based on probabilities you don’t even cite – just figure chance plus time will get it done. However, you “chance” dances pretty dang close to: necessity. That is, given time it HAD to have happened.

    Well, so far science says it can’t happen, nor have scientists show it “could have” happened.

    Unless, you are ignorant or oblivious to the issues the SR-RNA has…then, yeah, it “could have” happened.

    So I don’t “ignore it” – I don’t accept it. Too many problems to just accept it “by faith” as you have.

    First Cause

    YOU —- You then go on to say things like “rocks aren’t abstract objects”.

    Well, now that I know what you meant by “abstract objects”, what I’m going to ask is this: why can’t non-abstract objects “create” the universe?<<<>>>

    It’s not what I mean by “abstract objects” it’s what it means.

    YOU —-You clearly don’t seem to think of god as abstract, as you originally presented two possible causes for the universe: abstract objects and god (talk about a leap of faith). You thus implied that God is not abstract. Thus, non-abstract objects could just as easily create the universe.<<<<>>>

    No, you didn’t read what I posted.

    Here’s what I posted: (and you even quoted me correctly in your first response to this)

    1. abstract objects
    2. a non bodily mind.

    THOSE were the two options I gave. I didn’t say God, because to do so would be circular in reasoning.

    This is evidence to point to God.

    God cannot be evidence for God.

    This is basic logic.

    Which is why it’s labeled non-bodily mind.

    PLUS said non-bodily mind ALSO had to meet other certain criteria:
    1. timeless
    2. changeless
    3. non-material
    4. transcendental
    5. have purpose – design requires this.

    If you can provide us with another beyond the two I provided, I’m all ears!

    So, no, according to my argument not just ANY non-abstract objects could create the universe.

    Again, not paying attention there GT, or purposefully misrepresenting my arguments.

    YOU —Then, you completely ignore the fact that you use “purpose” as a self-affirming bias. Ok.<<<>>>

    No, as it must be included with the other four properties. However, even if we were to take this out, and you might be able to make a case to do so, the other STILL stand and are all that are required.

    YOU —-You then say that God doesn’t suffer from the timelessness problem if the time only came to be when the universe did.
    Fair enough, but that still allows for the expanding-contracting idea (due to the fact that time was only created with the Big Bang, infinitely many of which would have occured due to the constant expansion and then contraction of the universe), nor to any other idea for what the cause of the universe is.<<<<>>>

    No, because we are dealing with a first cause.

    Again, you either believe there’s a first cause or that the universe ALWAYS existed. As in the case of the Big Bang in the expanding-contracting universe still would have time associated with it.

    As you have stated Big Bang is AFTER first cause – thus BB is within the confines of the universe and time – regardless of expanding and contracting.

    YOU —-“ A “Big Bang” is not the same as a cause”

    So, no it doesn’t.

    YOU (finally) —-My answer is that, simply, I don’t know if the universe has “always existed” (remember that time only came with the Big Bang) or “came to exist”. I think that, at this time, anybody who claims otherwise is just trying to con us, with no real evidence to their claims.<<<>>>

    Well, I did give logical evidence to that of a non-bodily mind causing the universe. Thus the discussion…
    Chance

    Dealt with this in my prior post…

    Evolution

    YOU —Right off the bat, you say that “evolution has no direction”, which basically contradicts every single thing evolutionists have said about evolution since Darwin. Mutations having direction? No, they are chance occurences. However, the overall process of all of those mutations works in a direction- say, to form wings, to make an animal smaller or larger, and the like.<<<<>>>

    First you contradict yourself.

    If mutations don’t have direction and are chance occurrences, then how does evolution have direction?

    You are the one that is on the wrong side, many scientist now DISagree with Darwin about evolution having direction. Darwin thought that evolution went from less complex to more – however, thanks to ACTUAL science, we see that even the smallest virus is vastly complex.

    I think you should do a little digging, or I can link up a few if you need. Wikipedia, talkorigins, etc. All say that evolution is directionless.

    YOU — And, evolutionarily speaking, an advantage is something that allows an animal to reproduce more often.<<<>>>
    Then how does mammalian sex enter into this? As this complicates reproduction and in fact slows it waaaay doooowwwwnnnnnn. We can only reproduce once every 9 months. That doesn’t sound like a benefit for reproduction…

    YOU —-We see this occur in the present day, with diseases. We find a cure to a disease, one individual of that disease eventually develops a random genetic mutation that allows it to protect itself from that cure, that organism reproduces, and, soon enough, the number of individuals with that genetic mutation outnumbers those without it and the disease essentially becomes immune to that cure.<<<<>>>

    Um, you really need to do some more reading on this man…

    Anyhow, if you want to discuss evolution, make it a post – this is side tracking (as you are needing to make an argument for evolution of sentient beings…you haven’t)

    You talk about mutation etc.

    YOU —-But you apparently didn’t pay attention in biology class.<<<<>>>

    No, seems you haven’t nor do you keep up.

    Again, if you want to debate evolution – make it post.

    Say top ten evidences for evolution!

    Back to Origin of Life

    YOU —-You make another comment gloating over how you’re obviously winning this argument (*snickers on the inside*), and, while most of it contains points I’ve already addressed, there is one thing that I would like to point out…
    You know, I’m not the greatest scientist to live on the planet (I just happen to care about it a heck of a lot more than some of my classmates do…). I’m not a brilliant writer. I’m not the most amazing historian. But, the one area that I personally believe that I have a decent amount of strength in is math. That encompasses probability.<<<>>>
    Okay.

    YOU ——In your poker example, we’re looking at one single “trial” (a single game). The probability that, in any single, randomly selected game, you get multiple full houses like that, is extremely low.
    However, looking at millions, billions even, of such games, you are likely to find at least one, if not multiple games in which such a thing occurs.

    So, it would be possible that, in our game, that I just happened to slip into that very, very tiny fraction of games in which such a thing occurs, but that’s unlikely. Maybe the probability of you cheating is .0001%, but the chance of you getting such hands are even smaller. If that’s the case, it would be more rational to suppose that you’re cheating than that you’re just really, really lucky.<<<<<>>>>>
    And again, dance ever so lightly on the line of it HAS to happen given enough time.

    YOU—–It’s like the lottery; the more tickets you buy, the more likely you’ll win.<<<<<>>>>

    I’m shaking my head right now…I cannot believe you just said that!!!

    The state lotteries are going to LOVE you when you can gamble….so are the casinos.

    But remember, in the case of life – we don’t see this happen.

    So you argument is solely based on: life can happen by chance, because we are here.

    That’s not very strong evidence for chance.

    Because we could ALSO be here by design.

    And in our everyday life – guess which is usually the more probable case?

    Back To Sentient Life Again

    You were never there to begin with.

    Jesus

    YOU —-I’ll just put this simply: it’s not up to me to decide what evidence is “enough”, it’s up to you to provide convincing evidence and argue that it is convincing.

    Now that I’ve finished, I will officially retire from this argument.<<<>>>

    Cool.

    But yet you continue with…

    …[Chris]: “Where did you pull this from? Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim. However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here. I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”
    [Chris]: Now, I supposed you could say that I was claiming that I was saying: “no, it’s true atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”

    However, what is my VERY FIRST LINE?

    “Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim.”

    What claim?

    “Atheists are less decent, less moral and overall worse people than believers.”

    I wouldn’t call that a “myth” of atheism, because I don’t know who makes that claim.
    Absolutely insane. You just showed that your own statement is self-contradictory. First and foremost, a myth doesn’t require for at least one person to believe in it. A myth is simply false information. So, even if nobody stated that atheists were less moral, less decent people than theists, it would still be a myth. However, with that last line, you implied that it is not a myth, suggesting that you actually believe in it. You’re trying to change words that already came out of your mouth. To say that something isn’t a myth because you don’t know anybody who believes in such a thing completely goes against the definition of “myth”<<<<<>>>>

    Oh, so NOW you know what I was saying…as before you used this same quote to make the argument that I was saying your were immoral and a bad person, etc.

    (haven’t seen you retract that yet, guess you still believe it, despite what I have ACTUALLY said)

    Second, this is what you call it: TOP 10 Myths…that means, GT, that there are more than just a handful of theist that say this…otherwise, how did it make the top ten list?

    YOU —Secondly, even after considering the first part, you then have to consider the second part of the equation: I brought up (multiple times) theists who had indeed claimed the statement that atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers. One such example was that of Bodie Hodge, from whom I cited an article multiple times. So, either way, either Chris completely skipped over those links or he suddenly forgot, magically and mysteriously, what Bodie Hodge had ever said.<<<<>>>
    No, I am just saying that it doesn’t amount to a top ten myth – nor do I believe it IS a myth, because it is NOT the case. (actually on your side on this one, but again….)

    ME —-Again, GT, jumping and not reading. And certainly NOT providing FULL context for a quote.<<<<>>>

    LOL! And here’s another example of not providing context – because GT what was that in regards to?____________________________

    And then you backpeddle and not man up to the fact you made a claim about me that is completely false and won’t apologize for doing so.

    Again, find where I was actually rude, and I will apologize. But you should have the guts to do the same when it’s presented to you.

  12. Crap, posted in wrong spot – ignore the above!

  13. Since this is more relevant to where it should be posted, I’m putting this here.

    Now, I could reinvent the wheel, but rather, when someone does such a great job providing not only the evidence, but insight and context – well it would be silly not to use it.

    So instead of taking up a TON of space I’ll just include the link below.

    I’ll leave it to you, and anyone else reading this post to go there and read for yourself – if for nothing more than to be familiar with the evidence that DOES exist for Jesus outside of the Bible.

    http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: