EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
you can prove all of creation is merely accidental you would falsify creation
Science currently does not have access to the non observable Universe only local cosmic expansion
And so this hypothesis of yours still cannot be tested but in the meantime do you have one that can

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well what do you think of the scientific arguments for God
Can any of these so called scientific arguments actually produce a potentially falsifiable hypothesis pertaining to God
They cannot which renders them non scientific by default so science cannot investigate God and everyone knows this

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:25 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Design can be detected
How can science determine that the Universe was designed or not designed
By a whole bunch of criteria. Specified complexity is one thing. The presence of information (such as DNA holds) is another. Probability is a third.

It's really something we all do all the time. We recognize design features in all kinds of things. Nobody sees a bicycle or car, for example, and then thinks, "That's interesting: I wonder how that was spontaneously generated."

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:29 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
But you only asked that it be falsifiable . I showed you how it is . Now where do you go with that ?
it is not actually falsifiable in practice
"In practice?" That's not a problem. It's not the case that a theory has to be falsified in order to be coherent: in fact, if it is falsified, it's false. So that would be silly.

The argument is that it must be falsifiable, meaning that in principle, a method could be devised to show it false. It doesn't suggest that the method (thus devised) works to show it false in practice...for if it did, again, the thesis would be false every time. And that would be silly.

The failure to falsify in practice actually indicates it's more likely the hypothesis is true...not that it is unscientific.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:31 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: If you can prove all of creation is merely accidental you would falsify creation
Science currently does not have access to the non observable Universe only local cosmic expansion
That's not a problem. Even to detect design locally would suffice to necessitate a Designer. We don't have to test everything.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:32 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Well what do you think of the scientific arguments for God
Can any of these so called scientific arguments actually produce a potentially falsifiable hypothesis pertaining to God
The Design Hypothesis.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:54 pm

Nothing science knows about the origin and composition of the Universe references the need for such a hypothesis
There are gaps in knowledge of course but those have always existed and will always exist so that is not a problem

Furthermore you cannot claim that God designed the Universe if the Universe has always existed unless you claim both are infinite
So if you then say that the Universe has not always existed you need to explain why you think this because infinity is not a problem

I see no problem in principle with an eternal God creating an infinite Universe even though I dont actually think this is true
A Universe that had a finite beginning in time is very problematic while one that was infinite is absolutely no problem at all
This is because infinite time already exists within finite time and so temporal infinity is simply a logical progression from this

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Specified complexity . The presence of information ( such as DNA holds ) . Probability

Nobody sees a bicycle or car for example and then thinks That is interesting I wonder how that was spontaneously generated
A naturally occurring Universe could be complex and contain DNA and be more probable than one that was designed
Bicycles and cars were designed but the Universe appears natural and so even if it was designed it is not so obvious

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:29 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:55 pm
Most atheists are agnostic atheists [ I am too ] - they do not believe in God but cannot disprove his existence
Only gnostic atheists will actually make the claim that God does not exist but they cannot support that claim
There is no evidence to support "most" atheists are agnostic atheists.

I am absolutely indifferent to the idea [philosophical] of God which is a transcendental illusion.
As such any argument for God is a non-starter.

Note my argument;
God is an impossibility to be real.

But there is a good pragmatic reason why theists forced the impossible-to-be-real-God as real.
Why theists claimed God to exists as real is solely due to psychology, i.e. the desperation to cling the ultimate omnipotent entity that "will definitely" resolve their existential crisis via salvation or other eschatological solutions. Such an approach works immediately and effectively in many cases.

Whilst theism has its pros in the past and the present, the cons are outweighing the pros, i.e.net-evil as we move into the future. This is why from now on humanity must strive to wean off theism using foolproof approaches that are voluntary.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:31 am

Immanuel Can,

Why happen to your theory, [a]theist are incapable of establishing an effective moral and ethics system to deal with evil acts.
Anymore toothless arguments?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:20 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:47 am
A naturally occurring Universe could be complex and contain DNA and be more probable than one that was designed
Not nearly.

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, (Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 88.

I assume you know who Francis Crick is...

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:20 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:47 am
A naturally occurring Universe could be complex and contain DNA and be more probable than one that was designed
Not nearly.

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, (Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 88.

I assume you know who Francis Crick is...
Your counter points as usual are full of holes based on ignorance, shallow and narrow field of knowledge.

You are deceptive trying to imply Crick support theism and its miracles.

Creation-science implies theism, but note;
  • Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[98] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[99]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Creationism
There are no indications Crick has any propensity towards theism at all.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:06 am
There are no indications Crick has any propensity towards theism at all.
That's the point!

Crick has NO reason to agree with my claim that DNA is highly improbable, UNLESS IT WERE TRUE. :shock:

(Incidentally, "miracle" was HIS word, not mine.)

You can't see beyond the ad hominem, it would seem. You think that quoting Crick means I'm invoking his person, not quoting his claim.

Oy vey.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:49 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
I assume you know who Francis Crick is
He is using very subjective language and is claiming only one possible conclusion from all available knowledge
What he claims to be almost a miracle is nothing more than argument from emotion which is a logical fallacy
And who Crick is is entirely irrelevant to what he is actually saying which is the only thing of relevance here

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:59 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:49 am
who Crick is is entirely irrelevant to what he is actually saying which is the only thing of relevance here
It's relevant only for this: that he's a world expert on the subject of probabilities and DNA, and interestingly, one with absolutely no motive for agreeing with me and every reason not to...and yet he does. :shock:

It reassures you that the books are not being "cooked" there. You might wish to accuse me of misrepresentation in an ad hominem way; but such an accusation will not stick to Crick.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests