Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

The only reason people believe in god is because it's convenient.

As a sentient species that is aware of it's own mortality, the idea of not existing doesn't feel good. We can't even perceive the concept of nothingness. Plus, our egos are so big, we can't accept that space/time/matter will continue to exist without us experiencing them in some way.

So, religion comes in and offers us the thing we need the most. Everlasting existence. That's different than immortality. You still die but your "soul" still exists. It's not over yet. It will never be over. Maybe you will end up in heaven, feeling good 24/7. Or maybe you will end up in hell feeling bad 24/7. Maybe you will re-live as some other person. Maybe you'll become a ghost, stacking books and trolling the living ones because that looked fun in that movie you saw. Whatever, the point is that you will still exist in some way because you didn't live 70+ years, building up your memories, skills and personality for nothing! Fuck that!

Additionally, religion also offers bonus stuff like cosmic justice. The idea that a bad person will ultimately pay the price and a good person will be rewarded in the end. Such nice thoughts.

I wish reality was that interesting and magical. I would dig that. I also don't like the idea of not existing because i also have a huge ego and i want it to float in the universe forever. But the difference between me and a theist is that i know the difference between the truth and something that just makes me feel better.

I made discussions with other theists in the past and the conclusion is always the same. They literally believe in god because that's what makes them feel better and safer, not because it's necessarily the truth. I bet most theists know this back in their heads but they don't want to admit it.

1) Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with what the truth about the reality of existence is. No matter how selfish or convenient or whatever the belief in god or soul is, it has nothing to do with them being true or untrue. Convenience or selfishness or whatever else can't be used as a point against their existence. We can't really say the truth can't be convenient or selfish for us.

2) Convenience is definitely not the only reason people believe in god. People have been experiencing weird things as long as people have been around. You might think it's obvious that these experiences are just natural phenomena of the brain and only illusions without any connection to afterlife or god or a soul, but the experiences feel real and otherworldly to a lot of people and you can't deny their part in making people believe in god.

 

[Hatemachine]

Considering the concept of "faith" would be completely undermined if humanity had undisputable proof of God's existence, which is a core tenet of the Abrahamic religions, yes, it is a bit outrageous for you to feel that way.

 

[Punkster88]

Muhammad is a false prophet and also a child molester. Please don't ever mention him in the same breath as Christ. Thank you.

 

[strange headache]

I’m not, I’m just not going to play along with a false premise.

You’re working under the limited assumption that omnipotence means 100% sovereign control of everything at all times.

1, we are given free will, meaning God does not control everything we do (He could, but He does not).
2, God desires worship (I’ll call it love from now on) because why wouldn’t He?
3, Omnipotence does not mean you have everything, but the capability to have everything.
4, Can anyone have love if the love comes from someone who has no choice? It’s illogical.

You have a problem with the free will of man, not the omnipotence of God.

1. If we are but creations of god and are given our will, then our will isn't really free as everything we do is determined by how we were created.
2. Omni (= 100%) potence (ability), it literally means "sovereign control of everything at all times".
3. The capability to have everything is the same as having everything.
4. Nobody needs love if they are omnipotent. If you're omnipotent here's no need for anything. If there's no need, there's no desire either.

Tell me how I'm wrong with "It is a different thing to get someone to love and worship you by their own free will than forcing someone to love or worship you with your omnipotent power."
Do you think someone being omnipotent requires that entity/person to make everyone love and worship him?

If you're omnipotent you can just give yourself the feeling of being loved, you can also just wish that need away or create beings that love you out of their free will. It makes no damn difference if "we chose" to love god, since he gave us that ability in the first place. If we are created by god then our abilities and limitations are also dictated by god, hence we are not free to decide whatever we like and have no free will.

• You could develop a self-thinking AI and put it into a thousand sexdolls. Odds are, if you create enough of them, some of these sexdolls will end up loving you. That doesn't matter though, as their creator you would still feel disconnected from these artificial f*ckdolls.
• Alternatively, you could create a million artificial ants who spontaneously decided to worship you. Why would you care about a frikkin' ant loving you? The difference between a human being and god as defined by Christianity is bigger than between us and an ant. Why would we care about an ant loving us?
• If god created humans then he also has the recipe for love and can create as much love as he wants. Why go the extra step of creating humans then when you can just create love itself? Why put so much needless suffering in the world only to fulfill your desire? If love is the result of selfish action, then what is it worth? Nothing!
• If others have to suffer so that you can be loved then you are absolutely despicable. Why worship such a being?

Love is a chemical response triggered by our biological bodies, what would an omnipotent being that created reality and everything in it need from such a basic chemical reaction?

 

[nkarafo]

1) Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with what the truth about the reality of existence is. No matter how selfish or convenient or whatever the belief in god or soul is, it has nothing to do with them being true or untrue. Convenience or selfishness or whatever else can't be used as a point against their existence. We can't really say the truth can't be convenient or selfish for us.

My logic says that if something looks too good to be true, it probably isn't. And that kind of logic is statistically correct.

Also, the evidence to support all that goodness and pleasure is basically nothing. It's either anecdotes, personal testimonials or old stories from people who had no knowledge about anything. And a book written thousands of years ago, by those same people who didn't know anything and it shows, since their masterpiece is filled with contradictions.

So, while i admit, there is no way for me to know for sure, my logic says i'm 99,99% right. And that 0.01% only exists because it's impossible to disprove that something invisible and otherworldly doesn't exist. You can think of the most random thing in your head and it will still be impossible to disprove it. That's why it's the party who claims the existence of something who has the burden of proof.

2) Convenience is definitely not the only reason people believe in god.

True, but it's one of the things that keep them there and make it difficult for them to reject god. The other is fear of burning in hell.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

Considering the concept of "faith" would be completely undermined if humanity had undisputable proof of God's existence, which is a core tenet of the Abrahamic religions, yes, it is a bit outrageous for you to feel that way.

God and Christianity in general is literally Dutch van der Linde then?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Heaven and hell = magic, just like zombies = magic.

 

[showernota]

1. If we are but creations of god and are given our will, then our will isn't really free as everything we do is determined by how we were created.

Being given free will means we aren’t free, because it was given to us? I haven’t heard that argument before.

2. Omni (= 100%) potence (ability), it literally means "sovereign control of everything at all times".

Omnipotence means the *uncontrollable* ability to control everything, got it.

3. The capability to have everything is the same as having everything.

Meaning *everything* exists at all times for something omnipotent, rather than the unlimited power and ability to create like the definition of omnipotence?

4. Nobody needs love if they are omnipotent. If you're omnipotent here's no need for anything. If there's no need, there's no desire either.

It’s presumptuous for the creation to claim such things.

Isaiah 29: 16 You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 55: 8 “For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, Nor [are] your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11: 34 “For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?”
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him [are] all things, to whom [be] glory forever. Amen.

 

[strange headache]

Being given free will means we aren’t free, because it was given to us? I haven’t heard that argument before.

Omnipotence means the *uncontrollable* ability to control everything, got it.

Meaning *everything* exists at all times for something omnipotent, rather than the unlimited power and ability to create like the definition of omnipotence?

It’s presumptuous for the creation to claim such things.

At this point you're just acting dumb and twisting words because you've got nothing.
I shouldn't be surprised, that's what happens if one tries to have conversation with religious zealots.

 

[showernota]

At this point you're just acting dumb and twisting words because you've got nothing.
I shouldn't be surprised, that's what happens if one tries to have conversation with religious zealots.

Your points are illogical. God has a a nature He cannot (or will never decide to, since I know you’ll zero in on *my* use of words) go against. God gave us mathematics, and the laws of physics. Your version of god would have created a non-sensical universe because why not, he just can, and it all works because omnipotence right?

Either way, thanks for discussing this with me.

 

[strange headache]

Your points are illogical. God has a a nature He cannot (or will never decide to, since I know you’ll zero in on *my* use of words) go against. God gave us mathematics, and the laws of physics. Your version of god would have created a non-sensical universe because why not, he just can, and it all works because omnipotence right?

Either way, thanks for discussing this with me.

You should address my arguments directly instead of constantly shifting goalposts.

If god has a nature that he cannot escape, then who or what gave him that nature? If god created this reality, what prevents him from creating many others? You are simply assuming that an omnipotent creator has human-like characteristics, like desires and the want for love. There is absolutely no sufficient reason to make such an assumption.

 

[showernota]

You should address my arguments directly instead of constantly shifting goalposts.

I feel I’ve been very consistent.

If god has a nature that he cannot escape, then who or what gave him that nature?

No one, He’s God. If you can accept that life just sprung into being from primordial soup or the universe just exists, there’s no reason to be skeptical of a God who has always existed.

If god created this reality, what prevents him from creating many others?

Absolutely nothing is preventing Him.

You are simply assuming that an omnipotent creator has human-like characteristics, like desires and the want for love. There is absolutely no sufficient reason to make such an assumption.

I’m not assuming, I’m telling you what the Bible says.

You’re the one making assumptions, but your logic is far less sound than the Bible. From your perspective, you’re making a less effective philosophical argument than ancient desert people.
Scripture is in fact given by inspiration from God, so it’s impossible to beat.

 

[strange headache]

I’m not assuming, I’m telling you what the Bible says. You’re the one making assumptions, but your logic is far less sound than the Bible. Scripture is in fact given by inspiration from God, so it’s impossible to beat.

 

[lukilladog]

I disagree the point is moot. It is the first and strongest argument against the virgin birth of Jesus, and we see it falls apart completely when actually looked at.

It also goes back to “a child born from a woman” is a dumb sign. Judaism god has bad signs.

So what came of that prophecy according to Singer? God told it to Isaiah and it was never resolved?

It doesn´t fall apart lol, the prophecy is about king Ahaz and the war where Isaiah was around 700 years earlier, it is about an already pregnant woman, Mary didn´t call his son Immanuel, there is no record of Jesus eating cheese and honey, and neither Mark or John knew about the prophecy or believed it. I don´t know what Singer knows about the fulfillment of the "prophecy", but since it was probably about Isaiah´s own son or one of the King´s wives, it was "fulfilled" in his opinion lol.

 

[lukilladog]

The only reason people believe in god is because it's convenient.

As a sentient species that is aware of it's own mortality, the idea of not existing doesn't feel good. We can't even perceive the concept of nothingness. Plus, our egos are so big, we can't accept that space/time/matter will continue to exist without us experiencing them in some way.

So, religion comes in and offers us the thing we need the most. Everlasting existence. That's different than immortality. You still die but your "soul" still exists. It's not over yet. It will never be over. Maybe you will end up in heaven, feeling good 24/7. Or maybe you will end up in hell feeling bad 24/7. Maybe you will re-live as some other person. Maybe you'll become a ghost, stacking books and trolling the living ones because that looked fun in that movie you saw. Whatever, the point is that you will still exist in some way because you didn't live 70+ years, building up your memories, skills and personality for nothing! Fuck that!

Additionally, religion also offers bonus stuff like cosmic justice. The idea that a bad person will ultimately pay the price and a good person will be rewarded in the end. Such nice thoughts.

I wish reality was that interesting and magical. I would dig that. I also don't like the idea of not existing because i also have a huge ego and i want it to float in the universe forever. But the difference between me and a theist is that i know the difference between the truth and something that just makes me feel better.

I made discussions with other theists in the past and the conclusion is always the same. They literally believe in god because that's what makes them feel better and safer, not because it's necessarily the truth. I bet most theists know this back in their heads but they don't want to admit it.

For some I would agree, but I think most are fucked up beyond reasoning once their psychological attachment systems get hi-jacked by religions. The younger they get them, the better.

 

[Airola]

If you're omnipotent you can just give yourself the feeling of being loved, you can also just wish that need away or create beings that love you out of their free will.

Giving you the feeling of being loved does not equal someone loving you.
If you wish the need away, the problem of the lack of love still exists. This is about a relationship. It doesn't matter who feels any need for love. The only thing that matters is the existence of love in that relationship.
I don't think you really understand the concept of actual free will, because if you would you would see how nonsensical the last part of that quoted sentence is. You have written a logical impossibility there. The moment you set up your "free will" people to automatically love you, it's not about free will anymore.

It makes no damn difference if "we chose" to love god, since he gave us that ability in the first place. If we are created by god then our abilities and limitations are also dictated by god, hence we are not free to decide whatever we like and have no free will.

Again, I don't think you understand what free will really means. Us having free will specifically means god does not dictate our ability to love him back.

• You could develop a self-thinking AI and put it into a thousand sexdolls. Odds are, if you create enough of them, some of these sexdolls will end up loving you. That doesn't matter though, as their creator you would still feel disconnected from these artificial f*ckdolls.
• Alternatively, you could create a million artificial ants who spontaneously decided to worship you. Why would you care about a frikkin' ant loving you? The difference between a human being and god as defined by Christianity is bigger than between us and an ant. Why would we care about an ant loving us?
• If god created humans then he also has the recipe for love and can create as much love as he wants. Why go the extra step of creating humans then when you can just create love itself? Why put so much needless suffering in the world only to fulfill your desire? If love is the result of selfish action, then what is it worth? Nothing!
• If others have to suffer so that you can be loved then you are absolutely despicable. Why worship such a being?

Love is a chemical response triggered by our biological bodies, what would an omnipotent being that created reality and everything in it need from such a basic chemical reaction?

First of all, if you try to disprove god or the abilities of god, you should try to look at things from the context of god existing. If god exists, then obviously we have souls. If we have souls, there is much more to our existence than chemical reactions in our brains. If god exists, it's extremely likely that love is not only a chemical response triggered by our biological bodies, but it's something else. I think that what you describe as love is only about trying to explain how some of the feelings caused by love form in our bodies, but you are not explaining the actual cause of love. The way I see it is that love is more like a philosophical and psychological state of mind, and whatever the physical rushes and feelings someone might have are just the reactions to love.

No self-thinking AI will ever love anyone. Those sexdolls might act and perform the way humans do when they love, but that is only a simulation of what we do. There are no actually aware beings doing and thinking and feeling anything. Again, if you are to disprove the existence or the qualities of god, then you have to first understand what it actually would mean if god exists. It would mean that we have souls and it would mean that a robot with 1:1 same reaction and thinking patterns we have would still only be robots and not at all like us with our type of self-awareness, sense of self and free will.

Artificial ants: it's the same thing. We can't compare robots we have made or that we might make in future to the relationship between us and god. There's no love bond between a human and a robot.

What comes to creating love, well, if god exists, and if god is the one described by Jesus, then god IS love.

Suffering is not a requirement for love. You either are in a loving relationship with the eternal cause of everything or you aren't. If you aren't in that relationship and that eternal cause of everything actually IS love, then you will end up having an existence with no love whatsoever. The natural state of god and us is like magnets. When polarities are in balance the magnet attracts. When the polarities are not in balance, the magnet repels. God is what he is, and we have the free will to have an effect to the polarity on our side. Suffering in this life is only temporary. This kind of suffering will always come to an end. The eternal connection to the actual pure idea of love is a whole another thing and I can't even imagine what it might be to be completely away from that without even an ounce of it present ever again. Now, I'm not sure if you can truly love anyone back just out of fear of being out of love one day. So if anyone bases their choice to be in a relationship only out of fear that this love cannot be experienced ever again, it might not be love at all. There needs to be something more than that. If you are in a relationship with someone only because you fear rejection and loneliness, it's not really love that makes you stay in the relationship. So I would assume the loving relationship between a human and god would have to be something other than that too.

 

[Rentahamster]

Tell me how I'm wrong with "It is a different thing to get someone to love and worship you by their own free will than forcing someone to love or worship you with your omnipotent power."

Do you think someone being omnipotent requires that entity/person to make everyone love and worship him?

One would think, then, that an omnipotent being would at least be clever enough to have already created an argument persuasive enough to both reach everyone who has ever existed, and convince them as well.

 

[showernota]

It doesn´t fall apart lol, the prophecy is about king Ahaz and the war where Isaiah was around 700 years earlier,

You said specifically the argument between alma and betulah was moot, that is what I was replying to.

it is about an already pregnant woman,

If you disregard that alma always means virgin in the Bible, which we’ve covered and you said was moot.

Mary didn´t call his son Immanuel,

Immanuel meaning “God is with us,” prophesying He would be God incarnate.
Isaiah also said His name would be a lot of things:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Looking at that prophecy, it’s a wonder anyone was upset Jesus was “making Himself God.”

there is no record of Jesus eating cheese and honey,

You’ve got me on cheese (curdled milk to be exact. A staple of any Jewish diet), but:

Luke 24: 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?”
42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.

and neither Mark or John knew about the prophecy or believed it.

This is an argument from silence.

But about that:

Mark 6:3 “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.

That is very unusual, even Luke who documents the virgin birth calls Jesus the “son of Joseph.”

Meanwhile, in John:

John 8:19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”

John 8: 41 “You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father--God.”

John records the mocking of Jesus that took place over Mary’s story, clearly they think she was lying about being a virgin.

I don´t know what Singer knows about the fulfillment of the "prophecy", but since it was probably about Isaiah´s own son, it was "fulfilled" in his opinion lol.

Can we assume Jesus ate cheese if you can assume Isaiah had a son that fulfilled prophecy? He already had two sons according to Isaiah 7:3 and 8:3.
Neither were named Immanuel or ate cheese.

 

[Rentahamster]

No one, He’s God. If you can accept that life just sprung into being from primordial soup or the universe just exists, there’s no reason to be skeptical of a God who has always existed.

There's a difference. A significant difference that matters if one is at all concerned about the truth, skepticism, and reliable methods for determining what's real and what isn't.

There is evidence for a primordial soup of life or the universe just existing. Researched evidence. Physical evidence. Experimentally verified evidence. While we currently don't know the exact methods of the very beginning of life or the very beginning of the universe, our current technology allows up to investigate all the way up to that point.

We can simulate the conditions of an early Earth environment and see that yes, organic compounds can arise.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can observe the nature of space and detect a cosmic background radiation that can be analyzed and extrapolated to give us the age of the universe.

Cosmic background radiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The evidence for the God that you are arguing for is relatively speaking, not that strong. It is eyewitness testimony of third parties that is thousands of years old. There is no way to test for God or detect/observe/measure Him using an experiment. Would any of this be applicable in a court of law if trying to ague a case?

Do you recognize the two very different categories of evidence that you are using vs what others are using?

 

[Airola]

One would think, then, that an omnipotent being would at least be clever enough to have already created an argument persuasive enough to both reach everyone who has ever existed, and convince them as well.

Maybe there is a persuasive enough argument but some people are just too stubborn to accept it.
If god is real, then we should look at the subject through the way the bible depicts it. If god is real, then he has already gone through situations where people who KNEW he exists and who have actually talked to him decided to go against him. You can take it as an example of god not deserving to be followed, or you can take it as an example of a human being stubborn, or whatever. It's your choice. But the reality is that if god exists then he KNOWS that even if he showed up and told whatever, there would still be people who would immediately throw middle fingers at him. Even third of angels decided to rebel against him. You either take their side or you don't. If there just is nothing that would convince you to follow him rather than rebel against him, then it is what it is.

If god would create some argument that would magically bypass every person's free will to refuse, then there would be no free will. You would be essentially asking him to make you a robot so it would be easier for you to accept him without having to make that choice yourself. That choice is at the same time very simple but also very tough. It certainly would be a lot easier if we'd have some trigger that would turn on after hearing a couple of magic words and that would immediately make us love god and lose things that keep us loving the world and ourselves and our ego more than god. But if we'd have that, would we have free will? Maybe the only way to get to a true loving relationship with the eternal creator is through a real free will. Love cannot be forced. It can be chosen but it can't be forced. If anyone decides to refuse it, so be it.

Imagine a man being angry at his wife. He doesn't love her and is now accusing her of not making him love her. And he would tell her that he would love her if she would make her love him. That relationship would be quite insane.

 

[Celcius]

If Jesus had lived in today’s age then people would have videos and pictures and no faith would be required

 

[showernota]

There's a difference. A significant difference that matters if one is at all concerned about the truth, skepticism, and reliable methods for determining what's real and what isn't.

There is evidence for a primordial soup of life or the universe just existing. Researched evidence. Physical evidence. Experimentally verified evidence. While we currently don't know the exact methods of the very beginning of life or the very beginning of the universe, our current technology allows up to investigate all the way up to that point.

We can simulate the conditions of an early Earth environment and see that yes, organic compounds can arise.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can observe the nature of space and detect a cosmic background radiation that can be analyzed and extrapolated to give us the age of the universe.

Cosmic background radiation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The evidence for the God that you are arguing for is relatively speaking, not that strong. It is eyewitness testimony of third parties that is thousands of years old. There is no way to test for God or detect/observe/measure Him using an experiment. Would any of this be applicable in a court of law if trying to ague a case?

Do you recognize the two very different categories of evidence that you are using vs what others are using?

Abiogenesis study has been dead since that experiment occurred almost a hundred years ago. It was originally called chemical evolution, but was determined to be too much of a black eye on the term ‘evolution.’

The amount of energy required makes it impossible. The fact enzymes are needed for DNA and DNA needed for enzymes makes it impossible. The fact they could only create *some* amino acids in pristine labs, which is about 4 steps off from anything resembling biology means it was impossible for some random goop to manage in a catastrophic environment. UV would have destroyed anything being created almost instantly.
The evidence is lacking, and does not jive with any scientific understanding.

 

[Airola]

My logic says that if something looks too good to be true, it probably isn't. And that kind of logic is statistically correct.

Also, the evidence to support all that goodness and pleasure is basically nothing. It's either anecdotes, personal testimonials or old stories from people who had no knowledge about anything. And a book written thousands of years ago, by those same people who didn't know anything and it shows, since their masterpiece is filled with contradictions.

So, while i admit, there is no way for me to know for sure, my logic says i'm 99,99% right. And that 0.01% only exists because it's impossible to disprove that something invisible and otherworldly doesn't exist. You can think of the most random thing in your head and it will still be impossible to disprove it. That's why it's the party who claims the existence of something who has the burden of proof.

You have the choice to think the way you do and explain that choice to yourself the way you do.
You have the choice to give any anecdote and evidence the importance and gravity you want.

Ultimately we are all individual persons and it's only up to ourselves to react to things. Odd experiences will always be anecdotal. I've had small out of body experiences and only I can know what it really felt for me. Everyone else who have experienced the same can only speak for themselves. And people who've been in weird places by using drugs can only talk for themselves too. But if we choose to not talk about it then those real human experiences will never be exposed to anyone else but to the people who have experienced them, and that would be a shame. But the reality is that the odd experiences people are having in today's world have happened to people thousands of years ago. You are free to choose to believe it's 100% about chemicals in brains and the illusions that might come from it. That it's about that now and it has been about that then. But the reality is that these things happened then, happens now and will happen in future. And as long as that happens, religious thoughts will exist in this world. As long as some people have out of body experiences, have otherworldly feeling experiences while high on drugs, have "light in the tunnel" experiences when they are about to die, have a great sensation of love and someone embracing their body when they are about to die, have visions and voices, and anything else like that, belief in afterlife in one form or another will continue to exist and we can't dismiss that by saying it's just all because of convenience.

True, but it's one of the things that keep them there and make it difficult for them to reject god. The other is fear of burning in hell.

If god is real, then I'd assume it's good if there's something that makes it difficult to reject god. Again, I can't say this difficulty would be a sign of proof of god existing and I can't say it's proof of him not existing either. Things like this have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not god exists.

It's kinda like with when people say "oh but you just believe because you happened to be born in this and that country and if you were born somewhere else you would believe in something else." I mean, so what? The easiness of anyone's belief does not have anything to do with it being real or not. Truth doesn't change based on what other beliefs there are and how much different beliefs are part of different cultures. Sure I could say to someone in China that oh you are an atheist because you happen to live in China, but that has nothing to do with that person being right or not.

 

[Rentahamster]

Maybe there is a persuasive enough argument but some people are just too stubborn to accept it.

Read that statement again and recognize the problem. A sufficiently persuasive argument backed by sufficiently persuasive evidence can blow past any amount of stubbornness. If I attempt to convince you that a car is heading in your direction and is about to run you over, and I point to the car, what amount of stubbornness is required for you to not listen to me? An unrealistic amount.

If god is real, then we should look at the subject through the way the bible depicts it.

Why? How do you know those stories are accurate? Maybe the interactions between heavenly beings could not have been properly observed, comprehended, and written down by mere mortals.

But the reality is that if god exists then he KNOWS that even if he showed up and told whatever, there would still be people who would immediately throw middle fingers at him.

And an all powerful, all knowing would have both the power to create and the knowledge to create an argument as a rebuttal to those middle fingers and convince the unbelievers. Yet, He doesn't do that. Why?

If there just is nothing that would convince you to follow him rather than rebel against him, then it is what it is.

But there is something. An all powerful and all knowing God knows what it is.

If god would create some argument that would magically bypass every person's free will to refuse, then there would be no free will.

It's not bypassing free will. It's working with free will. That's why it's a persuasive argument and not a coercive action.

Imagine a man being angry at his wife. He doesn't love her and is now accusing her of not making him love her. And he would tell her that he would love her if she would make her love him. That relationship would be quite insane.

It would be insane. Which is why a smart, mentally stable man knows how to convince their wives to love them. By being a better husband, by teaching their wives how to be a better wife through communication and love. These are tools that are available to us mortals. God has an infinite amount of infinitely more powerful tools to convince us of His love and His wisdom, to sway us to his side. Yet, God does not demonstrate these tools in action. Why?

 

[Soodanim]

I'm tagging out. It had been a while since I've had the God debate and it's been fun, but my back and forth with showernota has begun to go round in circles based on the last reply I got and this whole thread in general is circling the drain. If the drain doesn't get clogged on the way, the inevitable end past the tunnels of argumentative shit is that when it comes down to it, it's all about the capacity to believe in that which has no evidence (faith).

There's nothing more or less than that, because the entirety of religion as a subject is based on that which has no evidence except that which was written down ages ago.

Here's what it always comes down to, the cliches I mentioned in my first post and the shit I referred to above:

• The god of the gaps argument
  • In science vs faith, the idea that because science hasn't got all of the answers yet it somehow validates that one person's particular faith
• Circular logic
  • Bible is true because God says so - it says so in the Bible!
    • This thread is the one time where they're actually relevant, so they get half a pass
• Semantics and goal posts on wheels
  • The least fun of them all
  • This is what leads to the term "Ignostic"
    • There's no point even discussing it when no one can agree on what key terms actually mean

Most of this has already come up. Whether you believe in one or more of the 2000 recorded deities from history or not, it's all good. Just remember that if you are of faith and think your religion is better than the rest (I can't imagine there are many people who think their religion is inferior), please remember that believers of the other faiths out there have just as many arguments for theirs and against yours. There's no moral high ground in mythology.

But that aside, I don't think anyone in the thread harbours ill will towards others so it's gone pretty well.

 

[Rentahamster]

Abiogenesis study has been dead since that experiment occurred almost a hundred years ago. It was originally called chemical evolution, but was determined to be too much of a black eye on the term ‘evolution.’

The amount of energy required makes it impossible. The fact enzymes are needed for DNA and DNA needed for enzymes makes it impossible. The fact they could only create *some* amino acids in pristine labs, which is about 4 steps off from anything resembling biology means it was impossible for some random goop to manage in a catastrophic environment. UV would have destroyed anything being created almost instantly.
The evidence is lacking, and does not jive with any scientific understanding.

Please source your arguments. It sounds like stuff that James Tour says. He is not a credible authority on abiogenesis. His expertise is in a different field of science, and he also conveniently believes that the better explanation is to invoke God. That would make him a biased source.



The evidence is not lacking. There has been much research done in the time between Miller's experiments and now.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

You still did not answer my question.

he evidence for the God that you are arguing for is relatively speaking, not that strong. It is eyewitness testimony of third parties that is thousands of years old. There is no way to test for God or detect/observe/measure Him using an experiment. Would any of this be applicable in a court of law if trying to ague a case?

Do you recognize the two very different categories of evidence that you are using vs what others are using?

Even if you're right about the ineffectiveness of abiogenesis research (you're not but this is just a thought experiment), that's still some kind of empirical research being done. There is no scientific research being done on God. In the thousands of years of modern civilization, science has provided or clarified many answers that theology could now answer. Not once has the reverse been done. How many research papers have been redacted because of the Bible, prophecy, or divine word/action?

 

[DeepBreath87]

Arguing about the minutia of Christianity is secondary to whether or not a god exists. I would argue that it is hubris of the highest order to look at just what we know about our planet and make any strong opinion about there being no creator at all. Life, even it’s most basic forms is incredibly intricate. If you stumbled upon a full powered sky scraper in the middle of nowhere, would you, using limited knowledge, assume it assembled itself?

I’m aware that is a simplified example. I understand the argument that life spontaneously generated and naturally evolved. I haven’t read anything that says we can create similarly naturally evolving life in a lab from scratch. Doesn’t mean it impossible. Also doesn’t mean life couldn’t have generated in nature. But at this point, you’d have to take a leap of faith in assuming it can be done, even in a lab, much less randomly in nature.

 

[Rentahamster]

I would argue that it is hubris of the highest order to look at just what we know about our planet and make any strong opinion about there being no creator at all.

Would you also argue that it is hubris of the highest order to look at just what we know about our planet and make any strong opinion about there definitely being a creator that did all of that based on no strong evidence?

Life, even it’s most basic forms is incredibly intricate. If you stumbled upon a full powered sky scraper in the middle of nowhere, would you, using limited knowledge, assume it assembled itself?

No, I would not. Why? Because I know what a sky scraper is, and I already know how they get built and what is required to build them. I can recognize that a sky scraper is a man-made construction, so the assumption that it assembled itself is not the most likely or most plausible candidate explanation.

But at this point, you’d have to take a leap of faith in assuming it can be done, even in a lab, much less randomly in nature.

No faith required. There is evidence that shows it is a plausible hypothesis since the precursors of life can be generated under conditions that simulate an early Earth.

A leap of faith is what is required to believe that this was done by God who also coincidentally doesn't want you to masturbate.

 

[Airola]

Read that statement again and recognize the problem. A sufficiently persuasive argument backed by sufficiently persuasive evidence can blow past any amount of stubbornness. If I attempt to convince you that a car is heading in your direction and is about to run you over, and I point to the car, what amount of stubbornness is required for you to not listen to me? An unrealistic amount.

You are underestimating the stubbornness what people can have. People are willing to take amazingly stupid risks for amazingly stupid reasons. Sometimes it's just about a death wish. Sometimes it's just about being an ass and not listening just out of spite.

Why? How do you know those stories are accurate? Maybe the interactions between heavenly beings could not have been properly observed, comprehended, and written down by mere mortals.

True, but if you try to argue against "christian god" then you have to use what we know about that and not make up your own set of qualities you then set out to break up. If the god of the bible exists then there are examples of people who knowingly knew god exists and still they went to go against him. That would bring up a whole new context to, for example, a discussion about how if only god would show up people would then change their ways. Now, if we allow the discussion to be about any sort of god, then things become different obviously. And I don't think we really could even entertain any sort of problem with omniscience or free will then.

And an all powerful, all knowing would have both the power to create and the knowledge to create an argument as a rebuttal to those middle fingers and convince the unbelievers. Yet, He doesn't do that. Why?

But there is something. An all powerful and all knowing God knows what it is.

It's not bypassing free will. It's working with free will. That's why it's a persuasive argument and not a coercive action.

All knowing and all powerful can have the knowledge and power that's logically possible. It is not logically possible to have free will and at the same time make an action that will 100% certainly persuade 100% of the people with free will to do a certain action. If there is a person who wants to take God's place no matter what, then the ability to speak a sentence that would 100% surely make him not want to do that anymore would mean there never was a free choice for him to begin with.

We can always of course argue that god is able to do logically impossible things. Then none of this shouldn't be a problem to you anyway.

To me, free will and omniscience are concepts that aren't as simple as it first seems like. I tried to explain it here. Strange Headache didn't get it and I assume you won't get it either.
The main point is that an all knowing entity can know all that is logically possible to know. And the concept of free will causes certain qualities to the essence of all-knowingness.
Obviously it could also be possible that an all-powerful god could be able to make it so that he knows or allows himself to know everything else but the choices they end up to choose. That he would know what will happen if they choose this or that, but he doesn't know which choice it will be. That he would know all paths of choices all the way to the end of the world. But he wouldn't know what the choice in each moment would be, unless the person is in a state of mind that only would lead him in paths that end up in a certain situation. I would argue that either this is because it is logically impossible to know what a person with free will chooses, or this is about god being so all powerful that he is able to allow him to not know everything. I mean, wouldn't a god who can't do that also not be all-powerful?

I think there is a cap in what an all-powerful and all-knowing person can do and know. If all-knowing includes knowing 100% what people will choose to do, it would make free will impossible. If free will is possible, then also the meter of all-knowingess doesn't include knowing what people will choose to do. Now, it can include knowing every choice and every single path of choices from birth to death beforehand, but it wouldn't include knowing what choices they will make because it would be logically impossible.

For example, god would know who is going to have the choice to have an abortion but he wouldn't know who would end up choosing abortion. And he would as well know what choices that baby would've had, had they not have been aborted, but again the choices would've been for that person to make without god knowing that. So he would know every single combination of possible realities, but we would have free will to choose our paths. And again, it could be that it is just logically impossible to know the choices of people with free will, or it could simply be a thing an all-powerful person is able to do. If that's not all-knowing enough, ok.

It would be insane. Which is why a smart, mentally stable man knows how to convince their wives to love them. By being a better husband, by teaching their wives how to be a better wife through communication and love. These are tools that are available to us mortals. God has an infinite amount of infinitely more powerful tools to convince us of His love and His wisdom, to sway us to his side. Yet, God does not demonstrate these tools in action. Why?

But what if that wife still does not want him? Besides, that "convince their wives to love them" could also be about manipulation. God doesn't manipulate people into loving him. The attraction isn't based on love then.

You seem to be thinking that god is at fault if every single person out there doesn't love him.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Would you also argue that it is hubris of the highest order to look at just what we know about our planet and make any strong opinion about there definitely being a creator that did all of that based on no strong evidence?


No, I would not. Why? Because I know what a sky scraper is, and I already know how they get built and what is required to build them. I can recognize that a sky scraper is a man-made construction, so the assumption that it assembled itself is not the most likely or most plausible candidate explanation.


No faith required. There is evidence that shows it is a plausible hypothesis since the precursors of life can be generated under conditions that simulate an early Earth.

A leap of faith is what is required to believe that this was done by God who also coincidentally doesn't want you to masturbate.

Plausible to you perhaps. You believe it to be plausible. There is no objectivity there. What about abiogenesis is plausible? It’s never been done on earth since. Either in nature or in a laboratory. You believe it happened, but there is no evidence it happened. It’s a theory you believe in based on assumptions.

Also, you know a skyscraper exists as a man made structure because you seen one built by people. You’ve never seen life created. To assume life, something orders of magnitude more complex than a skyscraper, just sprang from random chance is quite a bigger leap. It would be easier for the skyscraper to assemble itself.

 

[Rentahamster]

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we.

You are underestimating the stubbornness what people can have. People are willing to take amazingly stupid risks for amazingly stupid reasons. Sometimes it's just about a death wish. Sometimes it's just about being an ass and not listening just out of spite.

I am not underestimating stubbornness. By definition, a highly persuasive argument is just that. Highly persuasive.

All knowing and all powerful can have the knowledge and power that's logically possible. It is not logically possible to have free will and at the same time make an action that will 100% certainly persuade 100% of the people with free will to do a certain action. If there is a person who wants to take God's place no matter what, then the ability to speak a sentence that would 100% surely make him not want to do that anymore would mean there never was a free choice for him to begin with.

If I take 100 people of sound body and sound mind, bring them out into an open field on a clear, sunny day, point to the sky and say, "Hey the sky is blue.", would not those 100 perfectly healthy people agree with my argument and thus be persuaded by it?

You say it is "not logically possible" to both have free will and be persuaded by a 100% effective argument. By that logic, does it make it impossible for 100 people in my thought experiment to agree with me that the sky is blue?

 

[Airola]

Just remember that if you are of faith and think your religion is better than the rest (I can't imagine there are many people who think their religion is inferior), please remember that believers of the other faiths out there have just as many arguments for theirs and against yours. There's no moral high ground in mythology.

Honestly though it's like that with everything that involves people's thinking.
Everyone thinks they're right about whatever they believe, no matter what the subject is.
And when they finally think they are wrong about something, or when something comes up that they agree with but that goes against their previous belief, they will change their position, and then they will again think they are right about that. This includes atheists and agnostics too. Even when people claim they don't claim they are right about whatever they believe, they still think they are right about claiming they aren't right. And when people say we shouldn't claim to be right about anything in general, they think they are right in claiming people shouldn't claim they are right.

People change their religion all the time. Believers become atheists, atheists become believers. Christians become Muslims, Muslims become Christians. If a person thinks there is a god but doesn't like any current religion, they probably become Theosophists.

Actually right now there is a person, a musician, who in the beginning wasn't a Christian but became one in the 80's. He thought he is right about his beliefs. Then somewhere around 2000 he left Christianity. He wrote songs about his new way of thinking and even wrote a book about why sincere believers lose faith. He had all these philosophical arguments against Christian god and talked about contradictions in the bible. And he thought he was right about his beliefs. And now about 20 years later he has become Christian again. During each of these eras of his life he thought he was right until he didn't and changed his view into something where he can feel to be right again. That's very natural for everyone.

Anyway, it's true that it is easy for people to say they were wrong about something, but it's a lot harder to say they are wrong about something. This goes to every single believer and unbeliever out there, including me.

 

[Airola]

If I take 100 people of sound body and sound mind, bring them out into an open field on a clear, sunny day, point to the sky and say, "Hey the sky is blue.", would not those 100 perfectly healthy people agree with my argument and thus be persuaded by it?

You say it is "not logically possible" to both have free will and be persuaded by a 100% effective argument. By that logic, does it make it impossible for 100 people in my thought experiment to agree with me that the sky is blue?

Looking at how many people believe men can have periods and become pregnant, I would say that at least some of those people would at the very least make a claim such as "well, it's maybe blue to you but not for everyone." And they would certainly claim to have a sound mind.

 

[Rentahamster]

Plausible to you perhaps.

To me and basically the entire scientific world.

You believe it to be plausible.

I do. It is one of the most plausible candidate explanations, and it is also made more plausible every year due to the research being done in this field.

There is no objectivity there.

False. The hypotheses around abiogenesis are rooted in physics, chemistry, biology, statistics, geology, astrophysics, and other multi disciplinary fields. These experiments are done according to the scientific method, which strives for objectivity and empiricism. It is my educated assessment of this research that it is credible.

What about abiogenesis is plausible? It’s never been done on earth since. Either in nature or in a laboratory.

The current scientific understanding of abiogenesis is plausible because there is a clear pathway of selection and evolution that gets from mere chemical processes to biological processes. You do not know if it's never been done on earth since. It would be really hard to detect and observe as it is happening. Abiogenesis itself has not been experimentally verified but that is a complicated process involving conditions that are hard to simulate in a laboratory. What we have simulated in a laboratory are simpler representations that contain parts of the puzzle to show that those parts are possible. For example, synthesis of amino acids, or the presence of organic compounds in meteorites, or the synthesis of autocatalytic and self selecting compounds.

You believe it happened

I believe it is the best candidate explanation.

but there is no evidence it happened

We don't have a time machine to collect that evidence. We can only investigate to the extent that our current technology allows us.

It’s a theory you believe in based on assumptions.

It is not based on assumptions. It is based on a variety of logically consistent theories and hypotheses, of which many have been experimentally shown to be plausible.

As I said, there is experimental evidence that backs up the theories. It is much stronger evidence than copies of copies of copies of eyewitness testimonies from thousands of years ago.

Also, please answer the other question that I asked you thanks.

 

[Rentahamster]

Looking at how many people believe men can have periods and become pregnant, I would say that at least some of those people would at the very least make a claim such as "well, it's maybe blue to you but not for everyone." And they would certainly claim to have a sound mind.

You didn't answer my question. Does their answer mean they agree with me that the sky is blue or that they don't?

 

[showernota]

Please source your arguments. It sounds like stuff that James Tour says. He is not a credible authority on abiogenesis. His expertise is in a different field of science, and he also conveniently believes that the better explanation is to invoke God. That would make him a biased source.



The evidence is not lacking. There has been much research done in the time between Miller's experiments and now.

Here’s a much better video of James Tour. He never mentions God, simply explains the scientific process, and gaps, in abiogenesis theory.
Hopefully you give it a chance, I’ve already watched the entire professor dave video.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

A list of scientific papers neither you nor I understand isn’t going to affect this discussion.

You still did not answer my question.

he evidence for the God that you are arguing for is relatively speaking, not that strong. It is eyewitness testimony of third parties that is thousands of years old. There is no way to test for God or detect/observe/measure Him using an experiment. Would any of this be applicable in a court of law if trying to ague a case?

No it wouldn’t. I’ve already responded to about 3 other people about the necessity of faith and ‘mysterious ways.’ It’s not a bug, it’s a feature of God y’know.

Do you recognize the two very different categories of evidence that you are using vs what others are using?

Your evidence being a google scholar search is less than impressive, as is professor dave’s.

Even if you're right about the ineffectiveness of abiogenesis research (you're not but this is just a thought experiment), that's still some kind of empirical research being done. There is no scientific research being done on God.

I do not disagree scientific research isn’t being done on God. That doesn’t make something like abiogenesis actually answer anything.

In the thousands of years of modern civilization, science has provided or clarified many answers that theology could now answer. Not once has the reverse been done. How many research papers have been redacted because of the Bible, prophecy, or divine word/action?

None (that I know of).

Most religions don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny; like Islam saying women have semen, or that meteors are demons being shot down by Allah.

 

[Rentahamster]

Also, you know a skyscraper exists as a man made structure because you seen one built by people. You’ve never seen life created. To assume life, something orders of magnitude more complex than a skyscraper, just sprang from random chance is quite a bigger leap. It would be easier for the skyscraper to assemble itself.

Correct, I've never seen life created. Just as you've never seen God do it either.

However, what I have seen are the experiments that show how the building blocks of life can be created from natural processes. I have never seen rivets, screws, windows, steel beams, or other building blocks of a skyscraper being created from natural processes.

Assuming that life could have arisen from natural processes is not a big leap at all. Natural processes is the only process that we know of and can verify. We cannot verify the existence of any supernatural processes, so it would be the bigger leap to assume that supernatural processes were what created life.

I will stick to the processes that we can observe and verify in reality to serve as the basis for my beliefs and knowledge of this world we live in.

When we have lab verified experiments of organic chemicals being synthesized under a simulation of early Earth environments; when we have lab verified experiments of chemicals organizing themselves into a system that is self selecting and evolving; when we have proof that natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex life from simple life, and when we can theoretically model a plausible pathway from chemicals to a form of the simplest kind of self replicating structure, then no, it is not easier to think that a skyscraper can assemble itself. There are many examples of natural processes that show an assembly of something unordered to something ordered.

 

[Rentahamster]

Here’s a much better video of James Tour. He never mentions God, simply explains the scientific process, and gaps, in abiogenesis theory.
Hopefully you give it a chance, I’ve already watched the entire professor dave video.

That is not a much better video. James Tour makes errors and quotes others out of context, and speaks about stuff that he is not an authority on. I cannot take him as a credible authority if he himself makes so many errors.

Dave already responded to this and demonstrates step by step, the problem with James Tour's video essay.

 

[Airola]

You didn't answer my question. Does their answer mean they agree with me that the sky is blue or that they don't?

Some will agree, some won't. And some will take your word on it and agree without even looking. And some will without even looking agree because they knew it already.

 

[Rentahamster]

Some will agree, some won't. And some will take your word on it and agree without even looking. And some will without even looking agree because they knew it already.

You're telling me that it's a certainty if I tell 100 people of sound body and mind that the sky is blue, and then point to a clear blue sky, that "some" won't believe me?

 

[Liljagare]

But then the greedy humans wouldn't have had time to build their churches/mosques and collect their gold, to build even bigger and fancier churches/mosques (which goes against most religions written tenets)!!



Serious, I am fine with people believing what they want, but when it gets organized, it's all for naught, and it turns into to serve the "clergy" and fattening the coffers. Our history sort of points towards this, in that regard, it doesn't serve the poor/lost/needfull/humanity. Just another way to hide fattening the upper classes.

 

[strange headache]

The hamster is on fire, laying down straight facts.

Stay strong my rodent friend!

 

[Airola]

You're telling me that it's a certainty if I tell 100 people of sound body and mind that the sky is blue, and then point to a clear blue sky, that "some" won't believe me?

No.
Some would probably argue against you for whatever reason. And of course that certain group of 100 people could very well all agree with you. It's just 100 people out of billions anyways.

But my point is that there are people who would argue even against the most obvious things. I would bet that even if god would show up, there would be people who would tell it's a hallucination or whatever. Telling the sky is blue isn't even really that good of an example because there's nothing written in between the lines in that fact. With things like the existence of god and if one should follow him, there's all kinds of other things that a person would go through in his mind. People are claiming men can have periods and 2+2 can be 5, and they definitely can make a claim that the sky isn't blue too. I would assume/hope there aren't too many people like that though.

With the "sky is blue" example it of course is easier to have people to agree with that, but if you're trying to say a persuasive argument that would make even the most vicious god-hater to love god should and would be to god like saying the sky is blue and having someone to agree with it, I don't agree with that. Just the idea of Hell on its own is probably enough to have some people to choose to not accept god no matter what. And yes, if you have made an idea which only by saying it would turn the head of even the most anti-god person 100% surely, then free will doesn't exist. It would be like a magic potion that you would use to force everyone follow you, but I don't think love works like that. You can't persuade someone to love you. It needs to happen freely. You might persuade someone to be interested in you for sure, but love? No I don't think so.

 

[Rentahamster]

No.
Some would probably argue against you for whatever reason. And of course that certain group of 100 people could very well all agree with you. It's just 100 people out of billions anyways.

Uh, ok then. If they are arguing against me for whatever reason, then that does mean they do believe me and that my argument was 100% effective but they're just lying about it to be assholes.

Let's scale up this thought experiment. Out of 100,000 people of sound body and mind, if I tell them the sky is blue and point to the blue sky, will 100,000 people believe me?

How about out of 1 billion people?

 

[Rentahamster]

But my point is that there are people who would argue even against the most obvious things. I would bet that even if god would show up, there would be people who would tell it's a hallucination or whatever. Telling the sky is blue isn't even really that good of an example because there's nothing written in between the lines in that fact. With things like the existence of god and if one should follow him, there's all kinds of other things that a person would go through in his mind. People are claiming men can have periods and 2+2 can be 5, and they definitely can make a claim that the sky isn't blue too. I would assume/hope there aren't too many people like that though.

With the "sky is blue" example it of course is easier to have people to agree with that, but if you're trying to say a persuasive argument that would make even the most vicious god-hater to love god should and would be to god like saying the sky is blue and having someone to agree with it, I don't agree with that. Just the idea of Hell on its own is probably enough to have some people to choose to not accept god no matter what. And yes, if you have made an idea which only by saying it would turn the head of even the most anti-god person 100% surely, then free will doesn't exist. It would be like a magic potion that you would use to force everyone follow you, but I don't think love works like that. You can't persuade someone to love you. It needs to happen freely. You might persuade someone to be interested in you for sure, but love? No I don't think so.

The whole point of this was constructing an argument that is100% (or close enough to 100%) persuasive. I gave you an example of a statement that is 100% persuasive. You told me that is logically impossible.

Can we agree then, that it is logically possible to create a persuasive argument that is 100% persuasive to all perfectly healthy people?

 

[Liljagare]

But my point is that there are people who would argue even against the most obvious things. I would bet that even if god would show up, there would be people who would tell it's a hallucination or whatever. Telling the sky is blue isn't even really that good of an example because there's nothing written in between the lines in that fact. With things like the existence of god and if one should follow him, there's all kinds of other things that a person would go through in his mind. People are claiming men can have periods and 2+2 can be 5, and they definitely can make a claim that the sky isn't blue too.

Someone claiming that the sky isn't blue, whilst technically it can be different colours, is going against the nomenclature of the word "sky" itself.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Correct, I've never seen life created. Just as you've never seen God do it either.

However, what I have seen are the experiments that show how the building blocks of life can be created from natural processes. I have never seen rivets, screws, windows, steel beams, or other building blocks of a skyscraper being created from natural processes.

Assuming that life could have arisen from natural processes is not a big leap at all. Natural processes is the only process that we know of and can verify. We cannot verify the existence of any supernatural processes, so it would be the bigger leap to assume that supernatural processes were what created life.

I will stick to the processes that we can observe and verify in reality to serve as the basis for my beliefs and knowledge of this world we live in.

When we have lab verified experiments of organic chemicals being synthesized under a simulation of early Earth environments; when we have lab verified experiments of chemicals organizing themselves into a system that is self selecting and evolving; when we have proof that natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex life from simple life, and when we can theoretically model a plausible pathway from chemicals to a form of the simplest kind of self replicating structure, then no, it is not easier to think that a skyscraper can assemble itself. There are many examples of natural processes that show an assembly of something unordered to something ordered.

Yeah. Except you don’t have any proof of abiogenesis. Which what we are talking about. Life has never even been synthesized in a controlled environment. Much less in an uncontrolled one. So you can convince yourself however you want. There is no actual evidence for it beyond your speculation. It’s a theory you put faith in.

We have synthesized the building blocks? So when those blocks assemble themselves into that skyscraper, let me know.

 

[Airola]

Uh, ok then. If they are arguing against me for whatever reason, then that does mean they do believe me and that my argument was 100% effective but they're just lying about it to be assholes.

Let's scale up this thought experiment. Out of 100,000 people of sound body and mind, if I tell them the sky is blue and point to the blue sky, will 100,000 people believe me?

How about out of 1 billion people?

No, them being assholes is only one reason to say it. People aren't claiming men can have periods because they are assholes either. They believe in it.

Your original claim was that every single one would agree with you that sky is blue. You gave the sky is blue argument as an example of people believing a convincing persuasion, after the warning about the car example failed. Let's not move the goalposts any further.

The whole point of this was constructing an argument that is100% (or close enough to 100%) persuasive. I gave you an example of a statement that is 100% persuasive. You told me that is logically impossible.

Can we agree then, that it is logically possible to create a persuasive argument that is 100% persuasive to all perfectly healthy people?

Depends on the argument. Every argument might be something that not everyone would ever agree with. We have examples of that in today's world especially what comes to biology. But this is all beside the point. As I said, saying the sky is blue, or making any other hyper simple claims is not comparable to a situation where god would persuade a god-hater to love him. If the god of the bible exists, then satan exists too. And that's one huge example of the idea of someone knowing god and even being with god wanting to go against god. He even took a lot of the other angels to conspire against god (one third of all of the angels is one understanding of it).

One's resentment against authority can be so big that persuasion to love that authority just doesn't happen. You can take it as "lol, god isn't all powerful if he can't come up with something that persuades all of them to change their ways", or you can accept that this is how free will works.

 

[Airola]

Someone claiming that the sky isn't blue, whilst technically it can be different colours, is going against the nomenclature of the word "sky" itself.

The definition of the word sky doesn't include depictions of color. It simply is word for an area over earth.

 

[Liljagare]

The definition of the word sky doesn't include depictions of color. It simply is word for an area over earth.

Its a part of the English language, it has a nomeclature meaning by definition.

What you are arguing, is the equivalent of stating that a circle isnt round, or that a square isnt a square.

Are you scandinavian by any chance?