People are atheists at birth; it's our "default", if you will. People only believe in a man in the sky when their parents/guardians begin forcing it into their minds as children. This is why the vast majority of people follow the most popular religion in their country of origin. Atheism is not "losing the battle with the sense of morality." Atheism is eschewing baseless claims in favor of facts. Finally, religion has absolutely no authority on morality.
Thank you for your excellent post. Dawkins assertion of people being atheists at birth is curious because it is based on a premise of absolute truth. Logical positivists shouldn't believe anything to be true unless it can be proven through demonstration. If you want to see the mother of all departures from logical positivism, please watch the 4 part youtube video Richard Dawkins and the first living cell and see Dawkins' astounding flying spaghetti monster - infinite cosmos.
“they lose their battle with their sense of morality.”
How do you feel this could be approached as far as your idea of an answer to this problem?
You have done some work (with your videos) to address the issue, and yet as a church or religious and or spiritual view how to speak to a lowering sense of morality?
I think you said at one point that some (most evangelicals) will not go there, and so what could be a working social religious strategy in your view?
The Apostle Paul put it this way. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law ... shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom 2:14-15). We must preach experiential regeneration as God's grace to become experientially holy, the only way to peace with God and the only way to have a clean conscience.
Before the twentieth century, evangelists went into established churches and explained the difference between experiential regeneration and "thinking you are saved". The result was "false professors" got truly saved and revivals happened. But the evangelical establishment does not want to admit that the modern "make a decision for Christ" approach has produced mostly rotten fruit. They have too much to lose.
This does lead to some human clarity (or fear of the lord) that I think results in moral tuning, and if that is a word I can use here.
So I have experience as my compass, and I’m not sure what else to tell people other than such facts.
And I wish to say that when I said I once asked God if he was there, and that I meant I asked for help, and that is when I had many complex occurrences that I will never forget, and by simple and profound logic, and emotional faith I feel must build on.
“Atheists have a "revelation" that there is no God at the same time they lose their battle with their sense of morality.”
I have thought about your words, and because I see things through my own experiencing I continue to think without any absolute conclusion.
I seem to have approached the situation from some other angle, and by that I mean by reaching my deepest feelings I gained more insight to Gods presences, and also by Gods links in various ways.
I think much of what we see of the (God is delusion movement) is the result of rebellious feelings deep inside personal life experiences. It can be very hard to see through confusion, and I had early experiences that felt spiritual and I think that helped. I personally was never moved by my church attendance, and was led back to thinking of God by revisiting my deepest feelings.
But how to get people going to deepest feelings, or to ask God if he is there?
I agree with you. I'll go one step further. Dealing with atheists is similar to dealing with people involved in some type of addiction. People "discover" they are atheists. They do so when they lose a battle with their own sense of morality. People "discover" they are pedophiles and "discover" they are alcoholics when they lose their battle. Atheists have a "revelation" that there is no God at the same time they lose their battle with their sense of morality.
I’ve noticed something through all the internet conversations I have had with those convinced that science is all, and God is not, and it is that no one has ever taken up my challenge of asking God if he is there. I know the curse of suggestion is a problem because people don’t trust suggestions of this sort, and when I tried it I was aware that it was my own idea. I experienced some very real communications and no doubt about the source.
This particular video (above) doesn’t deal with numbers but is an invitation for some to look at another way of seeing things, and without preaching yet with some emotional appeal. I’m interested in different styles of writing ( I'm writing some of my own experiences) and communicating and I think you struck a very unique moment of communication here.
I consider this short video to be a gem of a message.
Thank you for your friendship and your kind words. My passion these last few years has been to awaken the evangelical community to the fact that we have abandoned the number one appeal to agnostics of all types - moral consciousness. Unfortunately, most evangelicals have left the moral consciousness battlefield and ask agnostics to fight on the mountain they call grace. It may be a safer place for evangelicals, but most agnostics won’t go there.
I’ve seen some of the number conversations you had here with people, and further I’ve seen the other video or two you made concerning the vast (or slim to none) chance numbers that some like to cling to, and you have analyzed. I’m not much for math but your logic is clear and it’s good someone makes these points.
People have their own experiences of God, and can further seek and find more, and yet many don’t that idea so they throw out the word delusional amid their muti- universe fantasy...
Silly idea on their part and not scientific, and I wanted to thank you for pointing out the nature of the wild numbers that go so far off any logical (or evidence line) line of thought regarding their fantasy put forth as science.
Thank you for your friendship and the clarification. I'm sorry I haven't been following the threads and did not know what you were referring to. I agree that experiences of God are the key to approaching the atheist. Unregenerated people still have a knowledge (but not saving knowledge) of God. I look at moral self-knowledge as the most obvious evidence of God in nature Paul is referring to in Romans Rom 2:15 "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts".
I know theirs (no god) is not science as it’s a ploy, a manipulation, and even an attack on the thinking and the knowing experiences of others.
I find this discouraging not from the standpoint of Gods existence ( on which I rely on personal experience), but from that of the pollution of science with the manipulation put forth into the science field, and in other words I want these guys like Dawkins and Hawking off my science back, or more off the back of science.
By bad example I meant my own, as I was writing about the close and far effects of the likes of the moon, maybe that was confusing as I look back, but think you may have thought I meant one of your examples.
My approach to science which I have had a keen interest throughout my life has not induced me to proclaim God or no God conclusions as science theory or fact, as do (Dawkins and Hawking) maybe they have a home science kit to prove the non- existence of God.
Excellent comments. Regarding the "all the matter in the cosmos cooperating in the experiment to produce one living cell' ... The moon and other planets in our solar system are close enough to prevent disaster on earth from comets, etc. In that sense they cooperated to (according to atheists) allow life to start and prosper. My "all the matter" comments referred to planets that are so many light years away from one another as to be irrelevant to each other.
If life were not co- operating here in this one sphere it would be no more life giving than the moon, or countless other planets. Bad example, and I know because the moon is part of our life environment (and the universe), but that’s a longer story!
But in other words, Earth is incredibly designed for the life that subsequently inhabits it, and that’s a fact!
The "all the matter in the cosmos could not cooperate" comment is like saying "the humidity has no effect on the operation of a submarine". The comment refers to the humidity above the water and not the humidity within the submarine. Within the context of the statement is the explanation of which humidity. The first living cell experiment required all the matter in the cosmos, not just the matter in our solar system, so that is how the comment is understood. God bless.
You Patrick have shown that you know why they came up with the multi- universe idea- theory, and that is to get around the numbers of their own beloved science that shows it isn’t going to happen (life) here. But by adding multi universes of course they need to connect the two, or three, or……..
And as you know there is no connection to endless universes, or for that matter the endless planets that may exist, and of course this one (Earth) with all its co- operation that allows such life.
I’m guessing this god would want satisfaction from this deceitful behavior of his, so evil would be the way if he’s after it and went to so much trouble. I guess the only way we could make a move in this chess game would be to fool him back and find some way to overcome and abolish the god given instincts for compassion and love that he implanted in us. Then maybe we would not feel frustrated when the world leaves us feeling unsafe and disappointed.
It seems increasingly clear to me that you do think much like Dawkins and other god naysayers, so it might be the only question I can ask you now is have you ever as an individual tried to experience the spiritual.
One way or the other that is, I don’t count on the Bible or others experiences, my experiences have been my own which is the only reason I can connect to them and trust them.
@theloosegoose333 I used to be religious. I had no spiritual experiences then, and nor do I now. I see no reason to try to have a spiritual experience.
Your “messing with” concept of God is interesting, an evil spirit rather than a loving one. In this case I guess he would have had to structure us to feel we are connected to our deepest selves when we experience joy, love, and compassion, but only as a deceitful play. As the real deepest connection would be the things we normally see as dysfunctional and cruel, and as giving no real long lasting satisfaction, but they would be deepest because they would be this god’s nature.
@theloosegoose333 He needed to make us feel connected to things and enjoy things, and love things, so we can suffer more when he takes it away. If you don't love or care about someone, why would you care when they are killed?
But examine what religion wants people to do, worship their god, give their money away, etc.
Also, God demanded sacrifices, as does most gods.
You have explained your position on the god or no god issue, as unchangeable.
Your view is very clear that you don’t desire a spiritual connection, and your thoughts of a god are those of a parent that treats their child in an unfair and deceptive manner, and this is certain.
So thanks for your responses, but it seems I have nothing to offer.
“I see no reason to try to have a spiritual experience.” But what if there was a reason to try and you just were not aware of it, wouldn’t you want to know that much?
And Dawkins never considers the spiritual experiences of any others, and simply for the reason that he has not experienced (apparently) anything spiritual (and may not wish to), and which may be at least partially his fault.
So his is a very narrow point of view (not communicating with others that have had spiritual experiences,) certainly, if he is not listening to others and simply relying on his science diploma to get the attention he desires to propagate his no God ideas.
@theloosegoose333 People from all religions and even those of no religion have all had similar "spiritual" events, as has people been abducted by aliens.
They can be explained by hallucinations. If there is a deity, how are we meant to know what one, considering people of all faiths experience similar events.
Also, you don't need a diploma to prove God doesn't exist.
The only meaningful definition of God (the Christian god), is in the Bible, that contradicts itself. So God cannot exist.
@theloosegoose333 I acknowledge that the god defined by the Bible is possible, however I also acknowledge that a deity could have made the Bible, to mess with us. Although this is unlikely, it is far more likely to be an intelligent alien life form.
If any God exists, they are not omnipotent and omnibenevolent. A god could exist that just doesn't care, or one that messes with us.
By the way, I think Dawkins is angry and this is why his behavior is so attack oriented toward anything spiritual. I’m actually much more science minded than religious minded, I’m spiritual but not big on all the rules and rituals, some people enjoy them.
So I’m not happy with Dawkins representing science in the minds of so many, because I’m spiritual and science minded, and he attacks the spiritual with no knowledge of it, and pretends that's being scientific by doing so.
Conscious design does not rely on endless chance, as Dawkins knows because he raises the issue to counter God. And God does not rely on chance to exist, as God either does or does not exist, and as this is not a hand of cards because it’s a, Yes, or a No.
I agree with the feeling approach to the questions your raising, and Patrick addresses the idea (why do we feel God has to be at least as good as us) in the video.
I’m out of time right now I was just skimming certain pages but will return to see if your conversation is still going on, there are things I would like to say.
@theloosegoose333 The fact remains that the God of the Bible (with his positive attributes) does not live up to reality. Furthermore, I do not believe a god like that deserves worship.
The first point I thought of in regard to the chances of the first living cells, and multi universes, is that the entire math equation is about solving the problem of there not being a conscious God. This is why the math is so drawn out to endless universes by those that feel the need to do so. If God is included then the need for endless chance exists no longer.
@theloosegoose333 I would beg to differ. When you introduce God, you now need to explain the impossible chance of an omnipotent, vastly complex being spontaneously forming from nothing, that then created the universe. While it makes the universe simpler, it doesn't make everything simpler.
@ blackjeffry1 “Yes the answer is obvious. God is not good, either he created us and abandoned us, or is simply using us a toy, messing around with us.”
You’re using your sense of justice and goodness as a human being, and also some of the emotional reactions we can experience in this life when we feel abandoned, to make that statement.
Dawkins gave that as an example of the best example of intelligent design, where an evolved being creates life, as we have done. He does not believe, he was misrepresented by the film.
Additionally, I acknowledge that there might be a god, but that it cannot be all powerful and all loving. I also see no point of it, as it just makes things harder, as now you have a massively complex entity existing out of nowhere, as opposed to a singularity (rather simple).
Thank you for your reasoned comment. I can not disagree with your logic except for the fact that according to accepted scientific "fact", the cosmos is around 13.7 billion years old and the amount of matter is just ten to the 80th power particles (protons, nuetrons, electrons). As Dawkins knows, that's far too short a time too little matter for life to happen by chance from a single Big Bang. Please watch the 4 part video Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell.
In Hawking's Brief History Of Time/ Universe In a Nutshell you will learn on page 156 that there was one chance in 10 to the 17th power that in the first second after the Big Bang the universe would expand at exactly the necessary rate to ultimately produce life. In Smolin's The Life Of The Cosmos, you will learn on page 45 that there was one chance in 10 to the 229th power that our cosmos would have the laws and constants necessary to ultimately produce life.
@patrickmcintyre Sorry I can't find where it says this. Do both books have it on the same page? I am reading a brief history of time, in a different format, so the page numbers don't match.
Could you give me the sentence that says it?
Dawkins does not believe this, he is a biologist, and thus does not make ideas about the origin of the universe, he is simply stating what others believe.
The sentence from A Brief History Of Time is "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it reached it's present size." Hawking made the statement in discussing various anthropic principles. Dawkins doesn't believe in a singular Big Bang because the laws and constants or our cosmos are impossible from a singular event.
@patrickmcintyre Notice how it says if it was that much smaller. What about bigger? How much bigger could it have been to get a universe that would allow life?
And sure, that universe (the one that wouldn't reach it's present size) would live for less time, but how long would it live for? Could it sustain life for a short period?
@patrickmcintyre These multiple universe can exist at the same point in time.
It is only this universe that has been around for 13.7 billion years, there could have been a googolplex years before the big bang.
All the variables are scalable, i.e. if they are all larger, it will still work. So this partially negates that probability of collapse. Also, it could expand more, not just collapse in. There would be a large range that it would be fine in.
So now we come down to the heart of the matter - Dawkins is willing to believe in an infinite number of cosmos before the Big Bang - something that there is no scientific evidence to suggests. This is the mother of all Spaghetti Monster - the ever increasingly fantastic "X " which stands for "anything but God".
@patrickmcintyre To make it expand too much, you need to have it blow apart so fast, gravity cannot make it form galaxies, I'm not sure if this is possible, it might just make it take much longer. If that is true, then there just needs to be a minuscule amount of universes that don't support life to those that do.
I know of no scientist that uses monkeys on typewriters. First, they wouldn't hit letters randomly, second, the letters have no way of interacting with each other like chemicals do.
@patrickmcintyre You also assume it must be a specific set. You seem to ignore or not know that there are multiple variations. For example, with the monkeys making Shakespeare's sonnet, you are trying to get them to make 1 specific one. There are heaps of them. Similarly, there are heaps of possible universes that could support life, there are heaps of possible variations of first life. This gives a much larger probability of it happening.
@patrickmcintyre The Biggest error you make, is assuming that the probability of a deity existing to create the universe is bigger.
What is the probability of a god existing to make us? What is the probability it will make us?
You are saying the probability of option A is so small, it is essentially impossible. There is also another option, option B. As A is impossible, B must have been how it happened. What if option B has even less probability.
The difference between my belief in God and Dawkins' belief in the Spaghetti Monster of endless cosmos is I make no pretense of being scientific. Also, while Dawkins claims his theory is something more than religion, it's nothing more than a groping for an "anything but God" X factor. At least I'm honest enough to recognize that the "X" factor must be infinite and endless - which is the primary definition of God.
@patrickmcintyre Another big problem is arguing about past events. One universe had to happen, all possible universes are equally likely. Again like the Lotto, they had to pick a number, it could have been any number, so why should the small chance mean it can't be that one.
We could be here purely by that impossible chance, as every other universe has that impossible chance as well.
Sometimes, when generating things randomly, you get it first go.
If you roll a six-sided die, you have a one in six chance of getting the number you want. If you roll a ten to the 50th sided die, there is no chance. This is hard for people to understand because they deal with small numbers and apply the small number logic to big numbers. You might be Cleopatra reincarnated. You might be God having a dream. All these things are possible. But they are less foolish than comparing small numbers to large numbers.
@patrickmcintyre There is still a chance, it is very small, but still possible. By reasoning that it is impossible, it must also be impossible to roll it, as there is no chance of getting a number. The fact remains that a number had to come out, why should it be less likely that it was that number?
I personally believe that the being that created everything did so for His own glory. That's what the Bible says and I have no reason to doubt it. Patrick
@patrickmcintyre Well, my definition of God is a little more consistent not involving a Holy book which "God" himself wrote for the people of this planet, and this planet alone.
@patrickmcintyre Perhaps you should read it, see if that gives you reason. Look at stark differences between a timeless unchanging god between the NT and the OT. Examine what is said, things like God is love, love does not envy/is not jealous, is slow to anger/not easily provoked, and keeps no record of wrongs, yet it also says God is a jealous god, those who call the holy Ghost names wont be forgiven, and lots of examples of his anger, and just how easy it is to anger him.
If God exists, do you think He would reveal Himself to cannibals the same way He would reveal Himself to you? Look at the way Jesus Christ explained the Old and New Testament revelations of God. Jesus explained a fulfillment of the Old Covenant requirements in His sacrifice. Old and New Testament sacrifices were only effective if the person partaking of the sacrifice "dies" to the sin he is supposed to be repenting of. In that respect they are entirely moral in nature.
@patrickmcintyre Well, as he is a god, he would command them to behave, anything they are doing that is wrong, such as eating other people, he would stop, or command them to stop. He would not permit their evil ways. This is not the case with God, he seems to do what the people at that time wanted, bar a few epic displays of power.
@theloosegoose333 Yes the answer is obvious. God is not good, either he created us and abandoned us, or is simply using us a toy, messing around with us.
If you want to know what Dawkins really thinks (it's actually far more fantastic than aliens seeding earth), please watch the four part youtube video called Richard Dawkins and The first Living Cell. I think you will be surprised at the off-the-charts Flying Spaghetti Monster he believes in. At least he's honest that according to current science data, our cosmos could never produce life (without a Designer) unless our cosmos evolved from endless other cosmos.
@patrickmcintyre lol, he has never said he believes in any dieties that you mentioned. He's simply asserted numerous times that if you wanna believe in somthing that CAN'T be disproven, then believe in Spaghetti monsters and fairies!
Dawkins believes our cosmos has evolved from endless other cosmos. This is his " Spaghetti Monster". Read pages 174-175 in his paperback "The God Delusion". It is his best theory for how life could come about in our cosmos when it is impossible without a Designer. Lee Smolin, the theorist who Dawkins likes best, places the chances at 1 in ten to the 229 power. As you know, anything above 1 to the 50th power is considered impossible. More at first living cell dot com.
@patrickmcintyre What are the probabilties for the alternatives? Such as an infintely complex being just popping out of no where? I would put that at about 1 in 10 to the power of a googolplex (10 to the power of a googol (10 to the power of 100)).
So which is more likely? Us evolving, or a god making us?
Also, how did he get those numbers? And why is anything less than 1 in 10^50 impossible?
Consider a raffle with 10^50 tickets, by your reasoning, it is impossible to have a winner.
You are correct. The possibility of an infinitely complex being is scientifically impossible. Of course, God, if He exists, existed outside of space and time and has always been. Such a Thing is scientifically impossible, because something can not come from nothing. Which is why matter is also scientifically impossible, because something can not come from nothing. Unless we accept that matter has always existed, we can not explain anything.
@patrickmcintyre This gives a total count of 2 billion billion per second. This means that it would take around 10^40 seconds, which is still quite a while, but still possible.
Let's do the math - 2,000,000,000 counts x 1,000,000,000 computers x 60 seconds x 60 seconds x 24 hours x 365 days x 100,000,000,000 (that's 100 billion) years = ten to the 37th power. In 100 billion years we have only counted up to ten to the 37th power. It would take a billion computers each counting 2 billion counts per second 1,585,489,599,188,229,325,215,626 years to count up to ten to the 50th power. I hope this will be a revelation. It blew me away a year ago.
I'm not sure how you got your figure, but ten to the 40th power seconds is over ten to the 32nd power years. That's over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
Consider a game of lotto, with 50 balls, where they draw every single ball, and a winner is puts the numbers in order they are drawn. By your reasoning, the drawing of the numbers is impossible, as overall, there is a 1 in 3*10^64 chance in getting that result, and of course winning is too, as it has similar odds (more if you buy more tickets).
Ten to the 50th power is so large that if all the computers on Earth were linked together, they couldn't count that high. A Lottery analogy that can help you put large numbers in perspective is available in my Youtube video called: What if the first living cell had 68 genes?
@patrickmcintyre How fast do you want them to count? Considering they run at around 2 billion cycles per second, and counting just requires 1, this means each second, each computer can add 2 billion to its count. (assuming you are counting by 1. If you are simply pooling their count together, so each has to count a small part, then how many computers would you say there are? Don't forget to include new game consoles, as they are just as powerful. There should be at least a billion of them.
Most of our disussion has been over probability. Please do the math so you can have a revelation of how big ten to the 50th power is. Use your 2 billion counts per computer per second and start doing the math with say a billion computers. Then tell me how many years it would take to reach ten to the 50th power.
@patrickmcintyre One problem with that vid, you are assuming those 68 genes appeared together. While it might have needed all 68 to be classified as life, it could have fewer and still do fine, just not yet truly be life.
Also, arguing about probability of past events is essentially pointless. It was effectively impossible for the lotto company to get that number, yet they still did. There is a chance that it could happen the very first time.
Life is life. Crystals are not life. Applying the multiplication of crystals to the reproduction of life is as illogical as giving ketchup in a transfusion or saying the first chocolate milk happened when a cow ate a coco bean. None of this is science.
@patrickmcintyre I know crystals are not life, however crystal growth has similar affinities that biological molecules have for each other. Crystals grow as a the current crystal acts as a catalyst for the growth of itself. Biological systems act in a similar manner, where they are catalysts for their own growth. I take it you have little to no knowledge of chemistry.
It has been great talking with you. It is rare to find someone that actually wants to talk as apposed to throwing bombs. I wish you all the best. God bless you. Patrick.
@patrickmcintyre I have read this very book three times coz I love it so much. I don't have it infront of me at the moment but nothing out of ordinary was said in any of his pages. Its is more probable for Aliens to have created this world than a God who can listen to millions of prayers per second!
HAHAHHA, this guy has to be one of the dumbest dumb creationist I have ever seen! It's possible that an Alien introduced life on Earth he didn't say its a fact! He prolly would have put the probability of 1% on this idea as well!
The innate sense in every human being is that they will be judged and punished for sin. This innate sense is not dependent on the Bible or Koran or other holy book. The deists like Thomas Paine all believed they would be judged for their sin. The God who judges sin must be at least as good as us. This is logical. Why would He judge sin if he was guilty of it Himself? Eastern religion presents the struggle against sin as achieving godhood. I myself believe what the Bible says.
so where can we find the answer that we should not expect god to be at least to be as "good" as us, (for things we did not cause like disease or climat catastrophies etc) as you say in the end?
Patrick if you just let go of the fear that there is no God then you will feel a lot better,I know from experience. I woke up one day when I realised that if God were such a great guy he would feed and put a roof over all his children instead of letting all the suffering continue.Lets face it,your on a sinking ship man. wake up and smell the roses before you cant smell them anymore. dont waste your life.....or do,fuck it!
Did you know that even Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin believed they would be judged for their sins? The innate concept of sin is not based on the Bible, Koran or whatever holy book. It's based on self-evidence. I thank God that there are more people who have engaged and struggled to overcome sin than those who have given into it. I used to give into sin and I was, (best words), an ass hole. I destroyed other people’s lives. Now I help people. Thank you for your comment.
@patrickmcintyre I take back what I said man! I dont agree with you but I am glad to see you are no longer an asshole and I take off my hat to you my friend. Id have no problem with religon as long as it sticks to itself. However I do have a problem with it if its imposed,such as the catholic school I had to go to where I was force fed all this "voodoo" and it only incited fear. That is what I call child abuse. Religon imposed=BAD. Religon minding its own business=OK
You know what's annoying? You deceived viewers into watching your anti-Dawkins (more or less anti-evolution) videos by titling them "Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell." These videos are about your arguments, not Dawkins'. Not only do you take his arguments out of context, but you have presented them incompletely. How is that honest?
Please tell me how I took Dawkins out of context. If you don't answer the question and come back with groundless attacks, I will also say to you "This will be my last communication with you" because it is pointless to go on. Look at the thread where I said "this will be my last communication with you." In most cases it will be after going back and forth with someone who hasn't read science books and whose beliefs are based on the a priori assumption "anything but God".
I posted a 4 part youtube video called Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell if you'd like to know what he believes. It may surprise you how big a Spaghetti Monster Dawkins is willing to believe in.
evolution via common ancestry have been proven irrefutably..life can evolve, and life has evolved..however, the question is still there..did it happen by chance, or did a creator initiate the process and then leave it be for it to continue on its own? (cont)
patrick, u are a goof ball..dawkins point in expelled is as follows:
IF he had to accept some sort of intelligent design, he would accept that a higher intelligence, such as aliens, were responsible for initiating life on earth..he of course doesn't believe this to be true, but ben stein pushed the question, and he gave him an answer..dawkins believe it's more likely that intelligent design would be from aliens, rather than a magical invisible god-like being.
You told us what every atheist means when he says "god." You also assume that any idea of god is reprehensible and laughable to all atheists.
Atheists don't define god in any one way, or at all. A believer says god is and an atheist rejects the notion. The believer is the one who has to do the defining.
Nor do all atheist think of the idea of god as abhorrent. Some atheists wish there was a god but reject the notion for lack of evidence.
of course a god is less reprehensible than a personal god but there's no proof for either, besides why would a god create the universe and then "walk away to pursue other interests"? also if there was a god and he did enjoy hurting people then our lives would be a lot more miserable
of course a god is less reprehensible than a personal god but there's no proof for either, besides why would a god create the universe and then "walk away to pursue other interests"?
If you found a computer in a field, you would assume it was made by an intelligent being. No scientist believes the cosmos could have made itself in a single big bang. The laws and constants necessary for life to ultimately spring forth had one chance in 10 to the 229th power. Anything above ten to the 50th power is considered impossible. Please watch the youtube video Richard Dawkins and the first living cell for more information. Thank you.
u have demonstrated very well in your video u recommended that i watch, that even with a multiverse, our current level of complexity is still unlikely to have happened via mere chance..but, have u considered the concept of an eternal omniverse?..if there exists an eternal omniverse, every possible manifestation of every level of complexity and simplicity not only becomes possible, but inevitable.
I don't see why thats embarrassing. You can imagine humans introducing life to say, Mars.
He does say that the species that introduces the life still needs to come about by natural means. ALL that he is doing is shifting the burden of explaining why humans exist to why the creating species exist.
Thank you for your reasoned comment. The reason it was perhaps embarrassing to scientists is Dawkins used an insider tease (evolved life seeding Earth) to answer a fundamental yes or no question. It did nothing to answer the question of life. If seeding took place, it would be more logical that life exists on comets - like most atheist theorists suggest.
@patrickmcintyre If you look at the unedited clips you can see that Dawkins was persuaded by Ben Stein to admit this as a rare possibility despite Dawkins insistence that he personally did not at all think for a second that life on Earth was created by aliens. But when pushed he had to admit it was a possibility that could not be dismissed. And they left out Dawkins pointing out that it doesn't answer the question.n
Life on earth is dependent on what happened at the Big Bang. Dawkins knows how improbable our cosmos is if there is no designer. According to his favorite theorist, it is one chance in 10 to the 229th power (Pg 45, Lee Smolin, Life Of The Cosmos). Mathematicians say anything less than one chance in 10 the 50th power is impossible. If you want to learn what Dawkins believes watch the YouTube video Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell. Thank you.
@patrickmcintyre Life on Earth has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion of the universe (Big Bang). And the mathematicians you are relying on do not understand math because the calculations being used are absurdly incorrect. Please show us the calculations used to get to 10 to the 229th power and you will see.
Please read any book on the subject like The First Three Minutes, A Brief History Of Time or Vital Dust . Why not start with the book Dawkins quotes most - Lee Smolin's Life Of The cosmos? That's where you'll find the calculations Smolin uses to get the one chance in 10 to the 229th power figure. Thank you.
@patrickmcintyre So you can't provide the calculations. You cannot show how he got to that figure. If you could, you would be the first person in history to do so.
If you promise to read it, I'll scan pages 324 through 326 of Lee Smolin's book Life of the Cosmos and upload it onto the internet for you to read. Let me know if you are interested. It will take me 15 minutes so I will only do it if you promise to read it.
@patrickmcintyre Seeing as I have read it, I would like to see you quote the part so we can demonstrate where you are taking him out of context. Because anyone who has ACTUALLY read it understands that he is comparing theoretical parent universe with children universes. Will you also admit then that you think there are multiple universes which is what the book is discussing? Or were you just trying to quote mine something out of context.
This will be my last communication with you. To anyone following this thread, please read Page 45 of Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos where he gives the chance of a single Big Bang producing our cosmos at one in 10 to the 229th power. Then Go to pages 324 through 326 where he gives his reasons.
@patrickmcintyre So you aren't aware of what Lee is talking about. Noted. Lee was talking about the possibility of universes being created by other universes and there being an infinite number of them. He calculated the odds of this particular one exactly as it is out of an infinite number of existing universe. Do you agree with Lee about the multiverse? Do you agree with Lee that there are no supernatural causes (aka gods)? How about his claim of universes evolving over time?
and if such an omniverse exists, it would be infinite, timeless, self-existing, self explanatory, and contain every manifestation of everything ever possible to be..the neat thing, is that this can easily be looked at as god..perhaps "god" is an eternally existing reality of everything, every when, and everywhere. the mystery is, does this "god" care about our infinitely small dot in space containing billions of advanced primates?..that's where faith comes in.
@patrickmcintyre "This will be my last communication with you." Well isn't that convenient? I remember doing that when I was a Christian. It's easy to cut off your opponent during an argument, especially when you are clearly losing.
@patrickmcintyre "Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario." - Dawkins
Thanks for filling me in. If you look at the youtube video at h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 1 x J s L 7 0 4 u K g called Richard Dawkins on God and Aliens you'll hear him speak on the exact subject a year before the Expelled interview. Thank you.
@patrickmcintyre You mean where he said that IF it was proven that life on Earth was designed he would ask what kind of alien life the designer was? Who wouldn't? If intelligence is proof of design as claimed by ID, then the intelligence that created is must have been designed or evolved. Pretty straight forward. But it's not his claim, it's ID's claim. He isn't claiming anything to be designed, ID is.
Cute vid...but every religion I've ever encountered holds the belief that a god does intervene on a daily basis and does have a 'divine' plan. Atheists do not believe in any type of god to answer your question. That is what Atheist means...what don't you understand?
The video goes to the heart of why people are atheists. It asks whether the deist God is just as laughable and reprehensible to the atheist as the personal God. In other words, is the God of Thomas Paine just as laughable and reprehensible to the atheist as the God of Jimmy Carter?
Hey Pat. I don't think you really understand what an atheist really is. I don't think you're getting to the 'heart of the matter' at all. Personal or deist god...none extist in our eyes. It's like asking a lesbian or gay man..."do you REALLY not desire members of the opposite sex?"
I think you use an excellent analogy. You think you are an atheist because you were either born that way or because you don't have a desire to believe in any god. Thank you for answering the question.
You're welcome. I would like to examine your statement; "You think you are an atheist because you were either born that way or because you don't have a desire to believe in any god" I AM an atheist BECAUSE I don't believe in any god. AND...we are ALL born atheists. We don't begin to 'believe' in ideas like the supernatural or fantastic until we are told or forced to believe them.
I agree with your statement, except for "we are forced to believe in them". It shows a profound ignorance of human nature and history. It's like saying heterosexual marriage is forced. In the same way people "discover" they are homosexual when they have a desire to have sex with someone of the same sex, so people "discover" they are atheists when they desire to do something that goes contrary to the teachings of revealed religion. That's why your analogy is appropriate.
But Patrick, this IS the case with human nature and history. One must be told about something in order to have a belief. That is why I maintain that humans are born as atheists and 'discover' or are taught by parents/guardians/friends to be religious. It is ignorant to claim other wise. When you examine history, people have been forced to believe in certain ideologies/religions for thousands of years.
My analogy was appropriate for answering "what makes an atheist an atheist." So, I maintain that the teaching of religion is an addition to our natural, or intial state when we are born, which is without any religion.
Whether we are thermostats or thermometers is a deep subject. I prefer to think of myself as a thermostat. Somehow I think you see yourself as a thermostat also - but you choose to believe the faceless masses are thermometers. That's your prerogative.
Not sure I get where you're coming from or getting at here. You will have to be less vague in order for me to respond. You are welcome for the civil convo. Thanks to you as well. All too often these conversations get heated and totally unintelligable.
A thermostat controls its environment and a thermometer merely represents it's environment. I believe man has control over what he wants to believe and is not forced to do anything. I believe if someone held a gun to your head and told you to say "I believe in God", I believe you have the ability to say "fire away". I believe the faceless masses are made of the same stuff as you are. Despite the fact they usually choose the path of least resistance, it's still a choice.
IMO, if the above mentioned or similar were firmly established in education, there would not be the confusion on the origins of life. Speculative thought would remain speculative and not taken as fact. Certainly not allowed to assert itself as replacement for what is at the core of our humanity.
Thank you for your reasoned comment. Revealing the "core of our humanity" was the purpose of the video. Beauty, love, the ineffable experience when someone looks at a night sky or a sunset are tied to that core. Helping atheists understand that fact is what I am about. Americans atheists are almost all existentialists. Philosophy means nothing to them. Most modern atheists are logical positivists an irrational position, but there you have it.
@patrickmcintyre - "Most modern atheists are logical positivists an irrational position"
Agreed. However to cast doubt by highlighting the obvious flaw in a rigid dependency on the fallible senses would undermine the belief I should think.
Thank you for your response and your nicely presented video. God bless.
2 - The word "God" is a label which points to a set of attributes of the Absolute Truth, one of which is "personality". The AT cannot be refuted, it's attributes may be contested, debated, denied etc.
3 - The method of empirical enquiry is not sufficient to allow entrance into the subject of a transcendent nature.
4 - The proper framework of reasoning must be established for the candidate with respect to matters of a spiritual/transcendent nature to avoid erorrneous conclusions.
An interesting video sir and thank you. My only criticism and in respect to atheists, too much theology. One need not go further than logic to offer a plausible explanation to an atheist. I offer a few simple key points:
1 - The claim "There is no God" can only be truly made by God ie: one situated in the absolute platform.
I think the fact that we eventually die raises much confusion and anger in our human hearts and minds, and I think this says something about many peoples reactions to anyone that attempts to communicate the existence of God.
We have to experience it, for we cannot just find God through our intellects, as it is about that feeling from the depth of our humanity, and it is about experiencing all of this.
Thank you for your reasonable comment. I wonder what some of the atheists I deal with would do if they were visited by an angel who told them some event would happen at an exact time and then that event happened as promised. I think some would commit themselves into an insane asylum rather than investigate the possibility that they were visited by an angel. They would rather think themself insane than countenance the existence of God.
I have wondered about that myself; lets say the angel simply announces an occurrence to someone, who tells the media that a bright star will appear in the sky and last three months. The person that gave the angels word to the press is declared insane. The star appears, lasts three months, so now the person is not insane, just clairvoyant, and a science authority like Dawkins steps in, and announces that people should wait for a science answer regarding extrasensory evolution.
People are atheists at birth; it's our "default", if you will. People only believe in a man in the sky when their parents/guardians begin forcing it into their minds as children. This is why the vast majority of people follow the most popular religion in their country of origin. Atheism is not "losing the battle with the sense of morality." Atheism is eschewing baseless claims in favor of facts. Finally, religion has absolutely no authority on morality.
engproud93 2 months ago
Hello engproud93-
Thank you for your excellent post. Dawkins assertion of people being atheists at birth is curious because it is based on a premise of absolute truth. Logical positivists shouldn't believe anything to be true unless it can be proven through demonstration. If you want to see the mother of all departures from logical positivism, please watch the 4 part youtube video Richard Dawkins and the first living cell and see Dawkins' astounding flying spaghetti monster - infinite cosmos.
patrickmcintyre 2 months ago
Merry Christmas and Gods caring love to you Patrick.
Thanks for the videos.
Thomas.
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
God bless you also. I hope to see you in heaven in the blink of an eye.
patrickmcintyre 2 months ago
@patrickmcintyre
You will, and yet as time goes it will take a few more blinks.
theloosegoose333 1 month ago
Patrick
“they lose their battle with their sense of morality.”
How do you feel this could be approached as far as your idea of an answer to this problem?
You have done some work (with your videos) to address the issue, and yet as a church or religious and or spiritual view how to speak to a lowering sense of morality?
I think you said at one point that some (most evangelicals) will not go there, and so what could be a working social religious strategy in your view?
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
The Apostle Paul put it this way. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law ... shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom 2:14-15). We must preach experiential regeneration as God's grace to become experientially holy, the only way to peace with God and the only way to have a clean conscience.
patrickmcintyre 8 months ago
Hello @theloosegoose333 -
Before the twentieth century, evangelists went into established churches and explained the difference between experiential regeneration and "thinking you are saved". The result was "false professors" got truly saved and revivals happened. But the evangelical establishment does not want to admit that the modern "make a decision for Christ" approach has produced mostly rotten fruit. They have too much to lose.
patrickmcintyre 8 months ago
This does lead to some human clarity (or fear of the lord) that I think results in moral tuning, and if that is a word I can use here.
So I have experience as my compass, and I’m not sure what else to tell people other than such facts.
And I wish to say that when I said I once asked God if he was there, and that I meant I asked for help, and that is when I had many complex occurrences that I will never forget, and by simple and profound logic, and emotional faith I feel must build on.
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
While I can not know precisely what you mean, I appreciate knowing a little more about what is inside of you. Thank you for sharing. God Bless you.
patrickmcintyre 8 months ago
Patrick
“Atheists have a "revelation" that there is no God at the same time they lose their battle with their sense of morality.”
I have thought about your words, and because I see things through my own experiencing I continue to think without any absolute conclusion.
I seem to have approached the situation from some other angle, and by that I mean by reaching my deepest feelings I gained more insight to Gods presences, and also by Gods links in various ways.
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Patrick
I think much of what we see of the (God is delusion movement) is the result of rebellious feelings deep inside personal life experiences. It can be very hard to see through confusion, and I had early experiences that felt spiritual and I think that helped. I personally was never moved by my church attendance, and was led back to thinking of God by revisiting my deepest feelings.
But how to get people going to deepest feelings, or to ask God if he is there?
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
I agree with you. I'll go one step further. Dealing with atheists is similar to dealing with people involved in some type of addiction. People "discover" they are atheists. They do so when they lose a battle with their own sense of morality. People "discover" they are pedophiles and "discover" they are alcoholics when they lose their battle. Atheists have a "revelation" that there is no God at the same time they lose their battle with their sense of morality.
patrickmcintyre 8 months ago
I’ve noticed something through all the internet conversations I have had with those convinced that science is all, and God is not, and it is that no one has ever taken up my challenge of asking God if he is there. I know the curse of suggestion is a problem because people don’t trust suggestions of this sort, and when I tried it I was aware that it was my own idea. I experienced some very real communications and no doubt about the source.
So I think people should go ahead and ask.
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Patrick
This particular video (above) doesn’t deal with numbers but is an invitation for some to look at another way of seeing things, and without preaching yet with some emotional appeal. I’m interested in different styles of writing ( I'm writing some of my own experiences) and communicating and I think you struck a very unique moment of communication here.
I consider this short video to be a gem of a message.
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
Thank you for your friendship and your kind words. My passion these last few years has been to awaken the evangelical community to the fact that we have abandoned the number one appeal to agnostics of all types - moral consciousness. Unfortunately, most evangelicals have left the moral consciousness battlefield and ask agnostics to fight on the mountain they call grace. It may be a safer place for evangelicals, but most agnostics won’t go there.
patrickmcintyre 8 months ago
Hello Patrick
I’ve seen some of the number conversations you had here with people, and further I’ve seen the other video or two you made concerning the vast (or slim to none) chance numbers that some like to cling to, and you have analyzed. I’m not much for math but your logic is clear and it’s good someone makes these points.
theloosegoose333 8 months ago
Patrick
People have their own experiences of God, and can further seek and find more, and yet many don’t that idea so they throw out the word delusional amid their muti- universe fantasy...
Silly idea on their part and not scientific, and I wanted to thank you for pointing out the nature of the wild numbers that go so far off any logical (or evidence line) line of thought regarding their fantasy put forth as science.
Thanks
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
Thank you for your friendship and the clarification. I'm sorry I haven't been following the threads and did not know what you were referring to. I agree that experiences of God are the key to approaching the atheist. Unregenerated people still have a knowledge (but not saving knowledge) of God. I look at moral self-knowledge as the most obvious evidence of God in nature Paul is referring to in Romans Rom 2:15 "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts".
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
I know theirs (no god) is not science as it’s a ploy, a manipulation, and even an attack on the thinking and the knowing experiences of others.
I find this discouraging not from the standpoint of Gods existence ( on which I rely on personal experience), but from that of the pollution of science with the manipulation put forth into the science field, and in other words I want these guys like Dawkins and Hawking off my science back, or more off the back of science.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Hello patrickmcintyre
By bad example I meant my own, as I was writing about the close and far effects of the likes of the moon, maybe that was confusing as I look back, but think you may have thought I meant one of your examples.
My approach to science which I have had a keen interest throughout my life has not induced me to proclaim God or no God conclusions as science theory or fact, as do (Dawkins and Hawking) maybe they have a home science kit to prove the non- existence of God.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
Excellent comments. Regarding the "all the matter in the cosmos cooperating in the experiment to produce one living cell' ... The moon and other planets in our solar system are close enough to prevent disaster on earth from comets, etc. In that sense they cooperated to (according to atheists) allow life to start and prosper. My "all the matter" comments referred to planets that are so many light years away from one another as to be irrelevant to each other.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre
If life were not co- operating here in this one sphere it would be no more life giving than the moon, or countless other planets. Bad example, and I know because the moon is part of our life environment (and the universe), but that’s a longer story!
But in other words, Earth is incredibly designed for the life that subsequently inhabits it, and that’s a fact!
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
The "all the matter in the cosmos could not cooperate" comment is like saying "the humidity has no effect on the operation of a submarine". The comment refers to the humidity above the water and not the humidity within the submarine. Within the context of the statement is the explanation of which humidity. The first living cell experiment required all the matter in the cosmos, not just the matter in our solar system, so that is how the comment is understood. God bless.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
You Patrick have shown that you know why they came up with the multi- universe idea- theory, and that is to get around the numbers of their own beloved science that shows it isn’t going to happen (life) here. But by adding multi universes of course they need to connect the two, or three, or……..
And as you know there is no connection to endless universes, or for that matter the endless planets that may exist, and of course this one (Earth) with all its co- operation that allows such life.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
the thing is people always responds with, go study evolution, you're just too stupid and ignorant.
Funny how their head Honcho Mr. Dawkins admits that no one knows how it started but it can't be God.
I prefer to be, as they say.. stupid and ignorant in this case.
chrism76 9 months ago
Hello chrism76-
Thank you for your comment.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
I’m guessing this god would want satisfaction from this deceitful behavior of his, so evil would be the way if he’s after it and went to so much trouble. I guess the only way we could make a move in this chess game would be to fool him back and find some way to overcome and abolish the god given instincts for compassion and love that he implanted in us. Then maybe we would not feel frustrated when the world leaves us feeling unsafe and disappointed.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
And is why Dawkins can only claim that they are delusional, because they mean nothing to him, of course, because he did not experience them.
The intellect won’t do it; it has to be a heartfelt experience.
One of my experiences did include the bible, but I’m not preaching, just suggesting individual wisdom.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
It seems increasingly clear to me that you do think much like Dawkins and other god naysayers, so it might be the only question I can ask you now is have you ever as an individual tried to experience the spiritual.
One way or the other that is, I don’t count on the Bible or others experiences, my experiences have been my own which is the only reason I can connect to them and trust them.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 I used to be religious. I had no spiritual experiences then, and nor do I now. I see no reason to try to have a spiritual experience.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@blackjeffrey1
Your “messing with” concept of God is interesting, an evil spirit rather than a loving one. In this case I guess he would have had to structure us to feel we are connected to our deepest selves when we experience joy, love, and compassion, but only as a deceitful play. As the real deepest connection would be the things we normally see as dysfunctional and cruel, and as giving no real long lasting satisfaction, but they would be deepest because they would be this god’s nature.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 He needed to make us feel connected to things and enjoy things, and love things, so we can suffer more when he takes it away. If you don't love or care about someone, why would you care when they are killed?
But examine what religion wants people to do, worship their god, give their money away, etc.
Also, God demanded sacrifices, as does most gods.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
You have explained your position on the god or no god issue, as unchangeable.
Your view is very clear that you don’t desire a spiritual connection, and your thoughts of a god are those of a parent that treats their child in an unfair and deceptive manner, and this is certain.
So thanks for your responses, but it seems I have nothing to offer.
Thanks
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 I don't desire it because I see no point in it.
If I do find a point in it, I might desire it.
Your welcome.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@blackjeffrey1
“I see no reason to try to have a spiritual experience.” But what if there was a reason to try and you just were not aware of it, wouldn’t you want to know that much?
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theloosegoose333 I see it as useless, if there is a reason, feel free to tell me.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
And Dawkins never considers the spiritual experiences of any others, and simply for the reason that he has not experienced (apparently) anything spiritual (and may not wish to), and which may be at least partially his fault.
So his is a very narrow point of view (not communicating with others that have had spiritual experiences,) certainly, if he is not listening to others and simply relying on his science diploma to get the attention he desires to propagate his no God ideas.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 People from all religions and even those of no religion have all had similar "spiritual" events, as has people been abducted by aliens.
They can be explained by hallucinations. If there is a deity, how are we meant to know what one, considering people of all faiths experience similar events.
Also, you don't need a diploma to prove God doesn't exist.
The only meaningful definition of God (the Christian god), is in the Bible, that contradicts itself. So God cannot exist.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@blackjeffrey1 “The only meaningful definition of God (the Christian god), is in the Bible, that contradicts itself. So God cannot exist.”
If you’re so convinced of this than I wonder why you bother to discuss God as if he might exist.
Or to show your anger that he may be playing with us?
Are you suggesting that you’re emotionally connected to something that does not exist?
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 I acknowledge that the god defined by the Bible is possible, however I also acknowledge that a deity could have made the Bible, to mess with us. Although this is unlikely, it is far more likely to be an intelligent alien life form.
If any God exists, they are not omnipotent and omnibenevolent. A god could exist that just doesn't care, or one that messes with us.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@blackjeffrey1
By the way, I think Dawkins is angry and this is why his behavior is so attack oriented toward anything spiritual. I’m actually much more science minded than religious minded, I’m spiritual but not big on all the rules and rituals, some people enjoy them.
So I’m not happy with Dawkins representing science in the minds of so many, because I’m spiritual and science minded, and he attacks the spiritual with no knowledge of it, and pretends that's being scientific by doing so.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Conscious design does not rely on endless chance, as Dawkins knows because he raises the issue to counter God. And God does not rely on chance to exist, as God either does or does not exist, and as this is not a hand of cards because it’s a, Yes, or a No.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@jeffry- continued
I agree with the feeling approach to the questions your raising, and Patrick addresses the idea (why do we feel God has to be at least as good as us) in the video.
I’m out of time right now I was just skimming certain pages but will return to see if your conversation is still going on, there are things I would like to say.
Thanks.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 The fact remains that the God of the Bible (with his positive attributes) does not live up to reality. Furthermore, I do not believe a god like that deserves worship.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1
The first point I thought of in regard to the chances of the first living cells, and multi universes, is that the entire math equation is about solving the problem of there not being a conscious God. This is why the math is so drawn out to endless universes by those that feel the need to do so. If God is included then the need for endless chance exists no longer.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
@theloosegoose333 I would beg to differ. When you introduce God, you now need to explain the impossible chance of an omnipotent, vastly complex being spontaneously forming from nothing, that then created the universe. While it makes the universe simpler, it doesn't make everything simpler.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@ blackjeffry1 “Yes the answer is obvious. God is not good, either he created us and abandoned us, or is simply using us a toy, messing around with us.”
You’re using your sense of justice and goodness as a human being, and also some of the emotional reactions we can experience in this life when we feel abandoned, to make that statement.
theloosegoose333 9 months ago
Dawkins gave that as an example of the best example of intelligent design, where an evolved being creates life, as we have done. He does not believe, he was misrepresented by the film.
Additionally, I acknowledge that there might be a god, but that it cannot be all powerful and all loving. I also see no point of it, as it just makes things harder, as now you have a massively complex entity existing out of nowhere, as opposed to a singularity (rather simple).
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
Thank you for your reasoned comment. I can not disagree with your logic except for the fact that according to accepted scientific "fact", the cosmos is around 13.7 billion years old and the amount of matter is just ten to the 80th power particles (protons, nuetrons, electrons). As Dawkins knows, that's far too short a time too little matter for life to happen by chance from a single Big Bang. Please watch the 4 part video Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre When you consider how little you need for life, I see no reason why it can't happen.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1 -
In Hawking's Brief History Of Time/ Universe In a Nutshell you will learn on page 156 that there was one chance in 10 to the 17th power that in the first second after the Big Bang the universe would expand at exactly the necessary rate to ultimately produce life. In Smolin's The Life Of The Cosmos, you will learn on page 45 that there was one chance in 10 to the 229th power that our cosmos would have the laws and constants necessary to ultimately produce life.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Sorry I can't find where it says this. Do both books have it on the same page? I am reading a brief history of time, in a different format, so the page numbers don't match.
Could you give me the sentence that says it?
Dawkins does not believe this, he is a biologist, and thus does not make ideas about the origin of the universe, he is simply stating what others believe.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
The sentence from A Brief History Of Time is "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it reached it's present size." Hawking made the statement in discussing various anthropic principles. Dawkins doesn't believe in a singular Big Bang because the laws and constants or our cosmos are impossible from a singular event.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Notice how it says if it was that much smaller. What about bigger? How much bigger could it have been to get a universe that would allow life?
And sure, that universe (the one that wouldn't reach it's present size) would live for less time, but how long would it live for? Could it sustain life for a short period?
Also, if all forces scale together, it is fine.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre These multiple universe can exist at the same point in time.
It is only this universe that has been around for 13.7 billion years, there could have been a googolplex years before the big bang.
All the variables are scalable, i.e. if they are all larger, it will still work. So this partially negates that probability of collapse. Also, it could expand more, not just collapse in. There would be a large range that it would be fine in.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
So now we come down to the heart of the matter - Dawkins is willing to believe in an infinite number of cosmos before the Big Bang - something that there is no scientific evidence to suggests. This is the mother of all Spaghetti Monster - the ever increasingly fantastic "X " which stands for "anything but God".
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre To make it expand too much, you need to have it blow apart so fast, gravity cannot make it form galaxies, I'm not sure if this is possible, it might just make it take much longer. If that is true, then there just needs to be a minuscule amount of universes that don't support life to those that do.
I know of no scientist that uses monkeys on typewriters. First, they wouldn't hit letters randomly, second, the letters have no way of interacting with each other like chemicals do.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre You also assume it must be a specific set. You seem to ignore or not know that there are multiple variations. For example, with the monkeys making Shakespeare's sonnet, you are trying to get them to make 1 specific one. There are heaps of them. Similarly, there are heaps of possible universes that could support life, there are heaps of possible variations of first life. This gives a much larger probability of it happening.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre The Biggest error you make, is assuming that the probability of a deity existing to create the universe is bigger.
What is the probability of a god existing to make us? What is the probability it will make us?
You are saying the probability of option A is so small, it is essentially impossible. There is also another option, option B. As A is impossible, B must have been how it happened. What if option B has even less probability.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
The difference between my belief in God and Dawkins' belief in the Spaghetti Monster of endless cosmos is I make no pretense of being scientific. Also, while Dawkins claims his theory is something more than religion, it's nothing more than a groping for an "anything but God" X factor. At least I'm honest enough to recognize that the "X" factor must be infinite and endless - which is the primary definition of God.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Another big problem is arguing about past events. One universe had to happen, all possible universes are equally likely. Again like the Lotto, they had to pick a number, it could have been any number, so why should the small chance mean it can't be that one.
We could be here purely by that impossible chance, as every other universe has that impossible chance as well.
Sometimes, when generating things randomly, you get it first go.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
If you roll a six-sided die, you have a one in six chance of getting the number you want. If you roll a ten to the 50th sided die, there is no chance. This is hard for people to understand because they deal with small numbers and apply the small number logic to big numbers. You might be Cleopatra reincarnated. You might be God having a dream. All these things are possible. But they are less foolish than comparing small numbers to large numbers.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre There is still a chance, it is very small, but still possible. By reasoning that it is impossible, it must also be impossible to roll it, as there is no chance of getting a number. The fact remains that a number had to come out, why should it be less likely that it was that number?
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Patrick, do you think the universe was created for us?
treasuredroperX 10 months ago
Hello treasuredroperX-
I personally believe that the being that created everything did so for His own glory. That's what the Bible says and I have no reason to doubt it. Patrick
patrickmcintyre 10 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Well, my definition of God is a little more consistent not involving a Holy book which "God" himself wrote for the people of this planet, and this planet alone.
treasuredroperX 10 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Perhaps you should read it, see if that gives you reason. Look at stark differences between a timeless unchanging god between the NT and the OT. Examine what is said, things like God is love, love does not envy/is not jealous, is slow to anger/not easily provoked, and keeps no record of wrongs, yet it also says God is a jealous god, those who call the holy Ghost names wont be forgiven, and lots of examples of his anger, and just how easy it is to anger him.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
If God exists, do you think He would reveal Himself to cannibals the same way He would reveal Himself to you? Look at the way Jesus Christ explained the Old and New Testament revelations of God. Jesus explained a fulfillment of the Old Covenant requirements in His sacrifice. Old and New Testament sacrifices were only effective if the person partaking of the sacrifice "dies" to the sin he is supposed to be repenting of. In that respect they are entirely moral in nature.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Well, as he is a god, he would command them to behave, anything they are doing that is wrong, such as eating other people, he would stop, or command them to stop. He would not permit their evil ways. This is not the case with God, he seems to do what the people at that time wanted, bar a few epic displays of power.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
Free will and love go together. Robots and slaves make lousy lovers.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
“I want to talk about the G word!”
I’ve always loved that wordage.
And I think your video is most impressive, and encouraging in my view.
The answer is obvious, and so it must be left to the viewer.
Love your style.
Theloosegoose333.
theloosegoose333 11 months ago
Thanks theloosegoose333.
Patrick
patrickmcintyre 11 months ago
@theloosegoose333 Yes the answer is obvious. God is not good, either he created us and abandoned us, or is simply using us a toy, messing around with us.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
HAHAH his ideology was even worse, he said his God is EVIL! What a tool!
attractivue 11 months ago
Hello attractivue-
If you want to know what Dawkins really thinks (it's actually far more fantastic than aliens seeding earth), please watch the four part youtube video called Richard Dawkins and The first Living Cell. I think you will be surprised at the off-the-charts Flying Spaghetti Monster he believes in. At least he's honest that according to current science data, our cosmos could never produce life (without a Designer) unless our cosmos evolved from endless other cosmos.
patrickmcintyre 11 months ago
@patrickmcintyre lol, he has never said he believes in any dieties that you mentioned. He's simply asserted numerous times that if you wanna believe in somthing that CAN'T be disproven, then believe in Spaghetti monsters and fairies!
attractivue 11 months ago
Hello attractivue-
Dawkins believes our cosmos has evolved from endless other cosmos. This is his " Spaghetti Monster". Read pages 174-175 in his paperback "The God Delusion". It is his best theory for how life could come about in our cosmos when it is impossible without a Designer. Lee Smolin, the theorist who Dawkins likes best, places the chances at 1 in ten to the 229 power. As you know, anything above 1 to the 50th power is considered impossible. More at first living cell dot com.
patrickmcintyre 11 months ago
@patrickmcintyre What are the probabilties for the alternatives? Such as an infintely complex being just popping out of no where? I would put that at about 1 in 10 to the power of a googolplex (10 to the power of a googol (10 to the power of 100)).
So which is more likely? Us evolving, or a god making us?
Also, how did he get those numbers? And why is anything less than 1 in 10^50 impossible?
Consider a raffle with 10^50 tickets, by your reasoning, it is impossible to have a winner.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
You are correct. The possibility of an infinitely complex being is scientifically impossible. Of course, God, if He exists, existed outside of space and time and has always been. Such a Thing is scientifically impossible, because something can not come from nothing. Which is why matter is also scientifically impossible, because something can not come from nothing. Unless we accept that matter has always existed, we can not explain anything.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre So why assume God always existed rather than matter?
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre This gives a total count of 2 billion billion per second. This means that it would take around 10^40 seconds, which is still quite a while, but still possible.
Also, I forgot to count multiple cores.
And ignored GPUs.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1 -
Let's do the math - 2,000,000,000 counts x 1,000,000,000 computers x 60 seconds x 60 seconds x 24 hours x 365 days x 100,000,000,000 (that's 100 billion) years = ten to the 37th power. In 100 billion years we have only counted up to ten to the 37th power. It would take a billion computers each counting 2 billion counts per second 1,585,489,599,188,229,325,215,626 years to count up to ten to the 50th power. I hope this will be a revelation. It blew me away a year ago.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
I'm not sure how you got your figure, but ten to the 40th power seconds is over ten to the 32nd power years. That's over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre Or, for a more realistic example,
Consider a game of lotto, with 50 balls, where they draw every single ball, and a winner is puts the numbers in order they are drawn. By your reasoning, the drawing of the numbers is impossible, as overall, there is a 1 in 3*10^64 chance in getting that result, and of course winning is too, as it has similar odds (more if you buy more tickets).
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
Ten to the 50th power is so large that if all the computers on Earth were linked together, they couldn't count that high. A Lottery analogy that can help you put large numbers in perspective is available in my Youtube video called: What if the first living cell had 68 genes?
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre How fast do you want them to count? Considering they run at around 2 billion cycles per second, and counting just requires 1, this means each second, each computer can add 2 billion to its count. (assuming you are counting by 1. If you are simply pooling their count together, so each has to count a small part, then how many computers would you say there are? Don't forget to include new game consoles, as they are just as powerful. There should be at least a billion of them.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
Most of our disussion has been over probability. Please do the math so you can have a revelation of how big ten to the 50th power is. Use your 2 billion counts per computer per second and start doing the math with say a billion computers. Then tell me how many years it would take to reach ten to the 50th power.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre I understand big numbers, I know it would take heaps long to do it, but it is still possible.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre One problem with that vid, you are assuming those 68 genes appeared together. While it might have needed all 68 to be classified as life, it could have fewer and still do fine, just not yet truly be life.
Also, arguing about probability of past events is essentially pointless. It was effectively impossible for the lotto company to get that number, yet they still did. There is a chance that it could happen the very first time.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
Life is life. Crystals are not life. Applying the multiplication of crystals to the reproduction of life is as illogical as giving ketchup in a transfusion or saying the first chocolate milk happened when a cow ate a coco bean. None of this is science.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre I know crystals are not life, however crystal growth has similar affinities that biological molecules have for each other. Crystals grow as a the current crystal acts as a catalyst for the growth of itself. Biological systems act in a similar manner, where they are catalysts for their own growth. I take it you have little to no knowledge of chemistry.
blackjeffrey1 9 months ago
Hello blackjeffrey1-
It has been great talking with you. It is rare to find someone that actually wants to talk as apposed to throwing bombs. I wish you all the best. God bless you. Patrick.
patrickmcintyre 9 months ago
@patrickmcintyre I have read this very book three times coz I love it so much. I don't have it infront of me at the moment but nothing out of ordinary was said in any of his pages. Its is more probable for Aliens to have created this world than a God who can listen to millions of prayers per second!
attractivue 11 months ago
HAHAHHA, this guy has to be one of the dumbest dumb creationist I have ever seen! It's possible that an Alien introduced life on Earth he didn't say its a fact! He prolly would have put the probability of 1% on this idea as well!
attractivue 11 months ago
Offtopic: Ancient Aliens is a pretty interesting documentary, check it out!
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
Hello wolfgang911-
The innate sense in every human being is that they will be judged and punished for sin. This innate sense is not dependent on the Bible or Koran or other holy book. The deists like Thomas Paine all believed they would be judged for their sin. The God who judges sin must be at least as good as us. This is logical. Why would He judge sin if he was guilty of it Himself? Eastern religion presents the struggle against sin as achieving godhood. I myself believe what the Bible says.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
so where can we find the answer that we should not expect god to be at least to be as "good" as us, (for things we did not cause like disease or climat catastrophies etc) as you say in the end?
wolfgang911 1 year ago
Patrick if you just let go of the fear that there is no God then you will feel a lot better,I know from experience. I woke up one day when I realised that if God were such a great guy he would feed and put a roof over all his children instead of letting all the suffering continue.Lets face it,your on a sinking ship man. wake up and smell the roses before you cant smell them anymore. dont waste your life.....or do,fuck it!
Evolutionbgtr 1 year ago
Hello Evolutionbgtr-
Did you know that even Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin believed they would be judged for their sins? The innate concept of sin is not based on the Bible, Koran or whatever holy book. It's based on self-evidence. I thank God that there are more people who have engaged and struggled to overcome sin than those who have given into it. I used to give into sin and I was, (best words), an ass hole. I destroyed other people’s lives. Now I help people. Thank you for your comment.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre I take back what I said man! I dont agree with you but I am glad to see you are no longer an asshole and I take off my hat to you my friend. Id have no problem with religon as long as it sticks to itself. However I do have a problem with it if its imposed,such as the catholic school I had to go to where I was force fed all this "voodoo" and it only incited fear. That is what I call child abuse. Religon imposed=BAD. Religon minding its own business=OK
Evolutionbgtr 1 year ago
You know what's annoying? You deceived viewers into watching your anti-Dawkins (more or less anti-evolution) videos by titling them "Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell." These videos are about your arguments, not Dawkins'. Not only do you take his arguments out of context, but you have presented them incompletely. How is that honest?
thenebbishroute 1 year ago 2
Hello thenebbishroute-
Please tell me how I took Dawkins out of context. If you don't answer the question and come back with groundless attacks, I will also say to you "This will be my last communication with you" because it is pointless to go on. Look at the thread where I said "this will be my last communication with you." In most cases it will be after going back and forth with someone who hasn't read science books and whose beliefs are based on the a priori assumption "anything but God".
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@thenebbishroute It is totally inflamatory - what a slime bucket this guy is!
jimmajamma2006 1 year ago
“The believer is the one who has to do the defining.”
Says who?
Says the non- believer.
That’s a belief.
theloosegoose333 1 year ago
lol i think u shud stop labilng all atheists
1navyseal1962 1 year ago
and FYI, spontaneous generation was refuted is 1864!..what u are referring to is abiogenesis.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
Hello itzahazylife-
I posted a 4 part youtube video called Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell if you'd like to know what he believes. It may surprise you how big a Spaghetti Monster Dawkins is willing to believe in.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@itzahazylife
evolution via common ancestry have been proven irrefutably..life can evolve, and life has evolved..however, the question is still there..did it happen by chance, or did a creator initiate the process and then leave it be for it to continue on its own? (cont)
itzahazylife 1 year ago
patrick, u are a goof ball..dawkins point in expelled is as follows:
IF he had to accept some sort of intelligent design, he would accept that a higher intelligence, such as aliens, were responsible for initiating life on earth..he of course doesn't believe this to be true, but ben stein pushed the question, and he gave him an answer..dawkins believe it's more likely that intelligent design would be from aliens, rather than a magical invisible god-like being.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
You told us what every atheist means when he says "god." You also assume that any idea of god is reprehensible and laughable to all atheists.
Atheists don't define god in any one way, or at all. A believer says god is and an atheist rejects the notion. The believer is the one who has to do the defining.
Nor do all atheist think of the idea of god as abhorrent. Some atheists wish there was a god but reject the notion for lack of evidence.
dangerics 1 year ago
Hello dangerics-
Thank you for your reasoned comment.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
What idiot did the sound over this video?
nevdelap 1 year ago
of course a god is less reprehensible than a personal god but there's no proof for either, besides why would a god create the universe and then "walk away to pursue other interests"? also if there was a god and he did enjoy hurting people then our lives would be a lot more miserable
riddletron 1 year ago
of course a god is less reprehensible than a personal god but there's no proof for either, besides why would a god create the universe and then "walk away to pursue other interests"?
riddletron 1 year ago
Hello riddletron-
If you found a computer in a field, you would assume it was made by an intelligent being. No scientist believes the cosmos could have made itself in a single big bang. The laws and constants necessary for life to ultimately spring forth had one chance in 10 to the 229th power. Anything above ten to the 50th power is considered impossible. Please watch the youtube video Richard Dawkins and the first living cell for more information. Thank you.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre
u have demonstrated very well in your video u recommended that i watch, that even with a multiverse, our current level of complexity is still unlikely to have happened via mere chance..but, have u considered the concept of an eternal omniverse?..if there exists an eternal omniverse, every possible manifestation of every level of complexity and simplicity not only becomes possible, but inevitable.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
type in Richard Dawkins On Aliens, God And The Complexity. then watch it.
fairy2000 1 year ago
I can't allow for a god that walked away is because there is no need for a god.
customerjon 1 year ago
Hello customerjon-
Thank you for your honest, insightful comment.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@customerjon •
I can't allow for a god that walked away is because there is no need for a god.
Your right, there is no need for a god, because there already is a God, and there has been no walking away.
theloosegoose333 1 year ago
booring...
nonseans 1 year ago
I don't see why thats embarrassing. You can imagine humans introducing life to say, Mars.
He does say that the species that introduces the life still needs to come about by natural means. ALL that he is doing is shifting the burden of explaining why humans exist to why the creating species exist.
This whole video has no basis
Dahvood 1 year ago
Hello Dahvood-
Thank you for your reasoned comment. The reason it was perhaps embarrassing to scientists is Dawkins used an insider tease (evolved life seeding Earth) to answer a fundamental yes or no question. It did nothing to answer the question of life. If seeding took place, it would be more logical that life exists on comets - like most atheist theorists suggest.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre If you look at the unedited clips you can see that Dawkins was persuaded by Ben Stein to admit this as a rare possibility despite Dawkins insistence that he personally did not at all think for a second that life on Earth was created by aliens. But when pushed he had to admit it was a possibility that could not be dismissed. And they left out Dawkins pointing out that it doesn't answer the question.n
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Hello jonnyclueless-
Life on earth is dependent on what happened at the Big Bang. Dawkins knows how improbable our cosmos is if there is no designer. According to his favorite theorist, it is one chance in 10 to the 229th power (Pg 45, Lee Smolin, Life Of The Cosmos). Mathematicians say anything less than one chance in 10 the 50th power is impossible. If you want to learn what Dawkins believes watch the YouTube video Richard Dawkins and the First Living Cell. Thank you.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre Life on Earth has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion of the universe (Big Bang). And the mathematicians you are relying on do not understand math because the calculations being used are absurdly incorrect. Please show us the calculations used to get to 10 to the 229th power and you will see.
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Hello jonnyclueless-
Please read any book on the subject like The First Three Minutes, A Brief History Of Time or Vital Dust . Why not start with the book Dawkins quotes most - Lee Smolin's Life Of The cosmos? That's where you'll find the calculations Smolin uses to get the one chance in 10 to the 229th power figure. Thank you.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre So you can't provide the calculations. You cannot show how he got to that figure. If you could, you would be the first person in history to do so.
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Hello jonnyclueless-
If you promise to read it, I'll scan pages 324 through 326 of Lee Smolin's book Life of the Cosmos and upload it onto the internet for you to read. Let me know if you are interested. It will take me 15 minutes so I will only do it if you promise to read it.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre Seeing as I have read it, I would like to see you quote the part so we can demonstrate where you are taking him out of context. Because anyone who has ACTUALLY read it understands that he is comparing theoretical parent universe with children universes. Will you also admit then that you think there are multiple universes which is what the book is discussing? Or were you just trying to quote mine something out of context.
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Hello jonnyclueless-
This will be my last communication with you. To anyone following this thread, please read Page 45 of Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos where he gives the chance of a single Big Bang producing our cosmos at one in 10 to the 229th power. Then Go to pages 324 through 326 where he gives his reasons.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre So you aren't aware of what Lee is talking about. Noted. Lee was talking about the possibility of universes being created by other universes and there being an infinite number of them. He calculated the odds of this particular one exactly as it is out of an infinite number of existing universe. Do you agree with Lee about the multiverse? Do you agree with Lee that there are no supernatural causes (aka gods)? How about his claim of universes evolving over time?
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre
and if such an omniverse exists, it would be infinite, timeless, self-existing, self explanatory, and contain every manifestation of everything ever possible to be..the neat thing, is that this can easily be looked at as god..perhaps "god" is an eternally existing reality of everything, every when, and everywhere. the mystery is, does this "god" care about our infinitely small dot in space containing billions of advanced primates?..that's where faith comes in.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre "This will be my last communication with you." Well isn't that convenient? I remember doing that when I was a Christian. It's easy to cut off your opponent during an argument, especially when you are clearly losing.
thenebbishroute 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre "Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario." - Dawkins
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Hello jonnyclueless-
Thanks for filling me in. If you look at the youtube video at h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 1 x J s L 7 0 4 u K g called Richard Dawkins on God and Aliens you'll hear him speak on the exact subject a year before the Expelled interview. Thank you.
patrickmcintyre 1 year ago
@patrickmcintyre You mean where he said that IF it was proven that life on Earth was designed he would ask what kind of alien life the designer was? Who wouldn't? If intelligence is proof of design as claimed by ID, then the intelligence that created is must have been designed or evolved. Pretty straight forward. But it's not his claim, it's ID's claim. He isn't claiming anything to be designed, ID is.
jonnyclueless 1 year ago
Mining the Eddington Concession. Look it up. You seem to be almost as good at it as that dishonest reprobate, Stein.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
But is an "intriguing possibility"
I am not atheist btw
bcbobbie 1 year ago
Cute vid...but every religion I've ever encountered holds the belief that a god does intervene on a daily basis and does have a 'divine' plan. Atheists do not believe in any type of god to answer your question. That is what Atheist means...what don't you understand?
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
Hello JZacharyFenner-
The video goes to the heart of why people are atheists. It asks whether the deist God is just as laughable and reprehensible to the atheist as the personal God. In other words, is the God of Thomas Paine just as laughable and reprehensible to the atheist as the God of Jimmy Carter?
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
Hey Pat. I don't think you really understand what an atheist really is. I don't think you're getting to the 'heart of the matter' at all. Personal or deist god...none extist in our eyes. It's like asking a lesbian or gay man..."do you REALLY not desire members of the opposite sex?"
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
Hello JZacharyFenner-
I think you use an excellent analogy. You think you are an atheist because you were either born that way or because you don't have a desire to believe in any god. Thank you for answering the question.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
You're welcome. I would like to examine your statement; "You think you are an atheist because you were either born that way or because you don't have a desire to believe in any god" I AM an atheist BECAUSE I don't believe in any god. AND...we are ALL born atheists. We don't begin to 'believe' in ideas like the supernatural or fantastic until we are told or forced to believe them.
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
Hello JZacharyFenner-
I agree with your statement, except for "we are forced to believe in them". It shows a profound ignorance of human nature and history. It's like saying heterosexual marriage is forced. In the same way people "discover" they are homosexual when they have a desire to have sex with someone of the same sex, so people "discover" they are atheists when they desire to do something that goes contrary to the teachings of revealed religion. That's why your analogy is appropriate.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
But Patrick, this IS the case with human nature and history. One must be told about something in order to have a belief. That is why I maintain that humans are born as atheists and 'discover' or are taught by parents/guardians/friends to be religious. It is ignorant to claim other wise. When you examine history, people have been forced to believe in certain ideologies/religions for thousands of years.
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
My analogy was appropriate for answering "what makes an atheist an atheist." So, I maintain that the teaching of religion is an addition to our natural, or intial state when we are born, which is without any religion.
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
Hello JZacharyFenner -
Thank you for your civil conversation.
Whether we are thermostats or thermometers is a deep subject. I prefer to think of myself as a thermostat. Somehow I think you see yourself as a thermostat also - but you choose to believe the faceless masses are thermometers. That's your prerogative.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
Not sure I get where you're coming from or getting at here. You will have to be less vague in order for me to respond. You are welcome for the civil convo. Thanks to you as well. All too often these conversations get heated and totally unintelligable.
JZacharyFenner 2 years ago
Hello JZacharyFenner -
A thermostat controls its environment and a thermometer merely represents it's environment. I believe man has control over what he wants to believe and is not forced to do anything. I believe if someone held a gun to your head and told you to say "I believe in God", I believe you have the ability to say "fire away". I believe the faceless masses are made of the same stuff as you are. Despite the fact they usually choose the path of least resistance, it's still a choice.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
insightful and interesting vid, nicely put together also bud.
itsnolongeri 2 years ago
IMO, if the above mentioned or similar were firmly established in education, there would not be the confusion on the origins of life. Speculative thought would remain speculative and not taken as fact. Certainly not allowed to assert itself as replacement for what is at the core of our humanity.
mhearstify 2 years ago
Hello mhearstify-
Thank you for your reasoned comment. Revealing the "core of our humanity" was the purpose of the video. Beauty, love, the ineffable experience when someone looks at a night sky or a sunset are tied to that core. Helping atheists understand that fact is what I am about. Americans atheists are almost all existentialists. Philosophy means nothing to them. Most modern atheists are logical positivists an irrational position, but there you have it.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
@patrickmcintyre - "Most modern atheists are logical positivists an irrational position"
Agreed. However to cast doubt by highlighting the obvious flaw in a rigid dependency on the fallible senses would undermine the belief I should think.
Thank you for your response and your nicely presented video. God bless.
mhearstify 2 years ago
2 - The word "God" is a label which points to a set of attributes of the Absolute Truth, one of which is "personality". The AT cannot be refuted, it's attributes may be contested, debated, denied etc.
3 - The method of empirical enquiry is not sufficient to allow entrance into the subject of a transcendent nature.
4 - The proper framework of reasoning must be established for the candidate with respect to matters of a spiritual/transcendent nature to avoid erorrneous conclusions.
mhearstify 2 years ago
An interesting video sir and thank you. My only criticism and in respect to atheists, too much theology. One need not go further than logic to offer a plausible explanation to an atheist. I offer a few simple key points:
1 - The claim "There is no God" can only be truly made by God ie: one situated in the absolute platform.
mhearstify 2 years ago
I think the fact that we eventually die raises much confusion and anger in our human hearts and minds, and I think this says something about many peoples reactions to anyone that attempts to communicate the existence of God.
We have to experience it, for we cannot just find God through our intellects, as it is about that feeling from the depth of our humanity, and it is about experiencing all of this.
theloosegoose333 2 years ago
Hello theloosegoose333-
Thank you for your reasonable comment. I wonder what some of the atheists I deal with would do if they were visited by an angel who told them some event would happen at an exact time and then that event happened as promised. I think some would commit themselves into an insane asylum rather than investigate the possibility that they were visited by an angel. They would rather think themself insane than countenance the existence of God.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago
I have wondered about that myself; lets say the angel simply announces an occurrence to someone, who tells the media that a bright star will appear in the sky and last three months. The person that gave the angels word to the press is declared insane. The star appears, lasts three months, so now the person is not insane, just clairvoyant, and a science authority like Dawkins steps in, and announces that people should wait for a science answer regarding extrasensory evolution.
theloosegoose333 2 years ago