Jacoby-Shermer debate, 2/10

[mzyzer19]

my math gave me different numbers.

[rjcumigad]

Douglas Jacoby is an infected moron. The magnetic poles have changed several times. There were 5 or so documented major mass extinctions. The young earth had lesser daily 24 hours during earlier times.. Some design ha?

[dwheel39]

With all that we know now of the complexity of life, information encoded in DNA, and the fine tuning of the cosmos for life, how can ANYONE still be an atheist????? Arguing with militant atheists is like talking to someone who still believes the earth is flat. Time to get out of the "dark ages" and wake up. God is there and He is not silent :)

[julieksings]

Wow! Douglas, that was incredible! So powerful! So enlightening! And frankly, you just socked it to anyone who can contest the existence of God!

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

A note to theists: stop quoting Nietszhe, he wrote the anti-christ and saw religion as inhuman and unnatural. Furthermore he and sartre both came up with solutions to the godless problems in existentialism if people are brave enough to take up responsibility and guilt for themselves which we should all do instead of hiding behind gods that may or may not exist.

[DrAmorphos]

This is all very well...about the fine tuning argument. But there are fields of science that the fine tuning argument falls down i.e. Quantum mechanics, where all the laws of science are turned on their heads.

The universe is not only stranger than we suppose its stranger than we can suppose.

[CyberBushBush]

Oh, atheism is a world view now?

[JerezJulio]

I god news for this nutjob, there are people who won the lottery more than once.

[BabySatch1]

Its so frustrating watch religious clowns cherry pick science in order to fit their fairy tales. EVERYONE WATCH THIS - "LAWRENCE KRAUSS - A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING"

[HConstantine]

Now he's pretending the Euthyphro was never written. How stupid does he think we are?

[Ricardius1710]

I love Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot!

[GrittyMcCheese]

"...otherwise all talk about good and bad is relative"

All talk about good and bad IS relative, retard.

[shernajwine]

@GrittyMcCheese so when you're loved one gets murdered, you can't get mad cuz the murderer thought it was okay. the law may punish them but morally it is completely acceptable because it's relative and subjective to the individual. no ultimate moral law giver? no ultimate moral law, thus a moral free for all and everyone can do whatever the hell they want. you know what else is relative? intelligence.....you're relatively unintelligent.

[GrittyMcCheese]

@shernajwine

1)"you can't get mad cuz the murderer thought it was okay."

Of course I can. What they think doesn't determine how I feel.

2)"morally it is completely acceptable because it's relative and subjective to the individual."

Perhaps. That is exactly the point, someone may indeed deem it acceptable. I would not as I have quite a strong sense of moral integrity.

[GrittyMcCheese]

@shernajwine

3)"thus a moral free for all and everyone can do whatever the hell they want."

That's how the world is, people can do whatever they want, and some do.

4)"know what else is relative? intelligence.....you're relatively unintelligent."

Relative to what?

Relative to the average IQ of the population of earth I am indeed intelligent.

[doaftheloaf]

@shernajwine if someone managed to convince you that god did not exist, would you stop being moral? in other words, do you need to believe in god in order to be what you consider "good"?

[MRfullon]

@shernajwine Alright fucktard, it's completely fucking irrelevant to even argue about where morals come from because you first must prove wether or not there is a god. But I will enlighten you. Morals are, in a sense a byproduct of social evolution. As we evolved societies, we needed to work together, and going around raping and killing people in your group would be incredibly disadvantageous(though I'm sure it still did happen on occasion). Just like wolf packs and all other social animals.

[MrStillframe]

@MRfullon The easiest way to interpret this argument is as follows:

There are intelligent aliens from a distant planet who have evolved and use rape as a common reaction with each other. These aliens come to earth and start raping humans. How would you explain to them what they are doing is wrong? The point is although we know they have evolved this way, something deep down tells us it is OBJECTIVELY wrong. Without a standard of morals we must except them for simply evolving differently.

[MRfullon]

@MrStillframe Well unfortunately for them, they would be on our planet, our rules. We would kick them out I guess, maybe try to persuade to realize societies work better when people don't go around raping other people. Try defining "wrong". To even say "objectively wrong" doesn't really make sense, since wrong is subjective. But I suppose that's what you're arguing. I still think your logic is warped.

[MRfullon]

@MrStillframe Not too mention, not everyone would think thats wrong I"m sure.

[MrStillframe]

@MRfullon True, but that goes back to the argument that the nazi's didn't think what they were doing was wrong.I would like to think that it wasn't just their opinion but that it was truly wrong. The moral argument is used because there is something deep that tells us things are wrong. It is more than just evolution. If it was just a social evolution trait then we can't be angry or disgusted with someone who steps outside of the boundaries we have created.We can only except them for being taboo.

[MRfullon]

@MrStillframe Yes it can be strictly evolution: and it is. Maybe you feel "deep down" that something is wrong, but some people don't. The vast majority of people want something along the lines of world peace, but some people genuinely don't. If one is raised in a society that is based off nazi morals and values, they will truly grow up believing it. Look at jihadist's, they really believe the bs they are fed.

[alexhamster1134]

sounds like preaching to me

[Domzdream]

Again. Throw in as many improbabilities as you want, Jacoby. All you're sprouting is the awe of the universe and it's fractional probability to exist. WHere the fuck does the god subject come in I have no idea, other than based on supposition. Wanting something to be true doesnt make it real.

All this guy is doing is telling us how vast the universe is. That's all Im getting. If a muslim did this debate, the same credence would have to be lent to him, and it would be...in Iran.

[wildreams]

Infinite regression my friend.

[ronpaulbot]

If pi was off by even the slightest bit from its value of 3.1415.... circles wouldn't form. Creationists! come up with new material!

[IconicFiber]

@ronpaulbot lol, that is super funny.

[weedsomoka]

If one knows how to speak he can control the masses. Back when the strongest survived, if you were weak u would die. God were created to counter their weakness. Boxers, ufc fighters and so on are controlled by educated or articulate people. Cause mentally they're WEAK. Hitler,MLK, Ghandi, have all this in common, they knew how to get their idea or beliefs across. Gods are man made to control the weak and masses. The strong minded are viewed as evil or a threat.

[drumrnva]

I can never get my head around theists that quote statistics and mathematical probability. That would seem to be cheating, imo.  If you believe in miracles, then by default you are dismissing probability as a reliable resource, right?

[diogok]

Funny how people without any degree in science here are trying to argue with Dr. Jacoby using "scientific" arguments, forgetting that he is the one with a "DR" title. And worst, by using arguments that he already replied to.

Guys, I think YOU should do your homework...

Well, for now, I will stick with the Dr.

[TasteOfGreen]

@diogok Scientists and doctors are some of the most intelligent, driven and admirable people on the planet, but this does not make them flawless. Smart people are often quite good at convincing themselves of stupid things. Furthermore a scientist usually thinks in ways parallel to what they study, which can easily cloud their thoughts from logic and make their own preconceived ideals more prominent in their way of thinking.

[Warsel]

I can't believe that someone with a "Dr." in front of his name can't see that looking back at how inprobable an event is AFTER it happened tells you nothing. Just because the chance to win in the lottery is small doesn't mean noone ever wins it.

[MrBlamemeforit]

Hes such a missinformed noob.. but lets grant him that scientists believe nothing made something.. How did your god come about? ... oh well hes outside of nature.. blabla fuck you.

[dirkson]

@MrBlamemeforit

Most scientists, nor the informed public, believe nothing made something. The best answer to "Well, what caused the big bang?" is a strong and confident, "Dunno!".

The ability to separate what one knows from what one doesn't know is insanely valuable- It allows us to keep asking questions and keep expanding our knowledge. The instant you replace "Dunno!" with "Goddidit.", you stop all forward progress.

[cero86]

there was no explotion, no sound there was no air, jacoby needs to do his homwork

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

My biggest problem with the "life sitting on a knife's edge ergo God did it" argument is that it represents the complete antithesis of design. Did God not make the laws that would cause our destruction? (either side of the knife's edge) - if you understand the law of large numbers then our existence appears to be part of a completely random universe - that of a "blind watchmaker" ...there are too many riddles and unnecessary parts to make it design. Why rest your design on a knife's edge?

[limpnail]

Don't you just love it when christians try to sound scientific? He trys to argue for a god, but does nothing for a christian god. Maybe it's a Allah that we all should be sticking our butts in the air for.

[Wazzup132435465768]

Youtube: Mountain of Fire. The Real Mt Sinai. Jabel Al Lawz Saudi Arabia. God melted half a 4000 Ft. Mountain.

[andyrooney11]

After listening that clown in a purple jacket ramble on and on I noticed one thing...the only reason he believes in God is because, according to him, there is not enough sufficient proof for the Big Bang. I have two questions; one from another Atheist and one from my self: Assuming the big bang and evolution is 100% wrong what is the proof for Creationism? If the Big Bang & Evolution is wrong DO I HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ANY ALTERNATIVE THAT IS OUT THERE OR CAN'T I JUST SAY THAT I DON'T FUCKING KNOW?

[BermondseySteve]

Religios are emotionally needy followers. The little logic they have is trumped by their childish need to be accepted as part of a group - something they perceive as greater than themselves. They dont care about proof; anything they dont understand can simply be ascribed to some supernatural force. Ignorance is bliss but not sufficient for these blind cliques who will censor, ostracize, and destroy in the name of their phony beliefs.

[BermondseySteve]

Andy: I totally agree. See my answer above (Religios are emotionally needy...with regard to the supernatural). That's why they can't just walk away from things they don't understand. They NEED to believe that something is controlling the universe (so they invent religions), and they need to FORCE you to accept it.

[bornonmybday]

His probability argument is wrong. 10^124 is not so big. If you shuffle two decks of cards, one with a black back and one with a red back, there are 10^166 ways the cards can be ordered. Therefore, when you shuffle cards the order cannot be random?

His argument about scientists initially rejecting the big bang demonstrates the strength of science. Because Big Bang theorists were right, the paradigm shifted. Religion is not as malleable.

[cas343]

So maybe in 50 years people will accept intelligent design?

[DeusMerdaeEst]

His calculation is just as irrational as his beliefs.

If I let a paint bomb explode and one of the paint splashes on the wall happens to look like Garfield, can you say that I fine-tuned the explosion to enable that to happen? I mean, the chances for that happening by chance or ridiculously small.

Why do creationists always assume we're alone in this universe? Because there is no evidence for extraterrestrial life? LOL.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

It's fascinating to see how creationists totally embrace science when they think they can use it to prove their deluded point, while at the same time reject all science that proves them wrong - like all currently used dating methods.

[72whitegrapes]

By the way,Flew's evidence is pure b.s.- and I suppose rape and murder were just fine until the fictional Moses came down from the mountain.

[72whitegrapes]

What are the odds that Jesus should have been there to help Aunt Sally?

[Zdrazy]

I really have to wonder if this man would view an immoral act, however egregious, with complete indifference without a belief in God.

[Smudger21000]

Deism could possibly be a credible alternate world view opposed to atheism but the argument for theism is virtually zero. 100% a man made idea.

[noraacmw]

He totally nails the fact, way to go!

[johnnyp76]

probability is dependent on frequency. until you tell me how many chances take place to start this improbable universe, then don't talk probability of universe starting. if a lottery ticket has a 1 in 1 million chance of winning, then that is deemed improbable. if i buy 3 million tickets, a win becomes probable. thus, to say the chance of such a universe starting is x, you need to know the frequency of that chance.

[theory1976]

Keep up the good work Dag!

[friedlish]

Eloquent but ridiculous. Morals have come into being because it would be inconvenient for a living race to be made out of a bunch of creatures that liked to run around killing each other all the time. The whole race would soon become extinct. Thusly, survival of the fittest explains the existence of morals.

Besides, since the existence of a Universe is such an unlikely occurrence, shouldn't the God creating it, logically, be even more unlikely that his creation?

[Victoruto]

Survival of the fittest does not explain morals; it explains preferences. Accordingly, no act is wrong in itself, but only because we have labeled it as such. Torturing a small child and caring for one carry no objective moral distinction in an atheistic world.

But can one honestly believe this? It is impossible to live in this world without making moral considerations; it's something we all simply take for granted.

[johnnyp76]

morality has evolved into human characteristics. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.

[Victoruto]

How do you extinguish between the good acts and the bad ones? What about people who are "immoral"? Are they just genetic mutations? If morality is evolving then why even get so attached to it? After all, the morals we hold today will long gone in another few million years, right?

This also means that there is no moral difference between raping a child and caring for one; it's all a matter of social preference and the way we happened to evolve.

[watty024]

you're right. it is a matter of social preference. but look at the 'morality' in the bible, and note how social preference has changed since those laws were written and obeyed. why were they changed? wherever we get our morals from, we don't get them from god.

[Victoruto]

While circumstances have changed due to the nature of the times, the basic moral principals have remained. Things like murder, cowardliness, disloyalty, and rape have always been viewed as wrong.

Christianity accounts for these moral distinctions while atheism does not. In an atheistic world such acts are simply matter in motion doing what it can only do. There is no moral obligation or distinction at all.

[watty024]

have you read exodus? basic moral principles change with the times. some of the "laws" of exodus no longer apply, because the circumstances have changed. so, our "basic moral principles" change with them.

christianity only describes those moral principles that were relevant to those circumstances at that time. an atheistic world would focus on nature, and human beings, and our understanding of what creates social order; an evolution of principles that develop with the changing circumstances.

[Victoruto]

Yes, of course I've read Exodus. It is a great book. In the book of Exodus the 10 Commandments were given. These were a reminder of the moral principals that were already there. The greatest moral teaches have not taught new moralities, but reminded us of our already existing morality.

Now, if God does not exist, then the torture of innocent children for fun is not wrong. I don't think anyone can truly agree with this however.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"Now, if God does not exist, then the torture of innocent children for fun is not wrong. I don't think anyone can truly agree with this however."

Are you serious? Morality is innate in humans. Just like we don't need an invisible superdictator to tell us that jumping from high buildings is not wise or that pissing on your neighbour's head is not good for relationships. It's not in the bible, yet we know.

Didn't god like to kill innocent babies and children by the way?

[Victoruto]

Whose innate morality is the right one—Hitler's, or Gandhi's, or yours? How do we decide?

Are we obligated to adhere to our innate morality? If so, then is the obligation also innate? Who are we obligated to?

And no, God does not take pleasure in taking the lives of children; but He does not need to fill out a police report when He does. He is the only one who knows true justice, and we need not worry about the children; they are taken care of by a loving God.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"Whose innate morality is the right one—Hitler's, or Gandhi's, or yours? How do we decide?"

Well, definitely not by using the bible.

We decide by using this simple principle: treat others as you want to be treated ourselves. It works all the time.

I don't want to be killed, tortured or injured by anyone, therefore it makes perfect sense to treat other likewise.

I'm an atheist, working for five different NGO's. Not because some celestial dictator tells me to, but because I want to.

->

[DeusMerdaeEst]

->

Morality is innate in humans, it's the holy books that confuse the matter. Why don't you kill someone who works on the sabbath? Why don't you kill homosexuals? You holy book tells you you should - how moral is that? How on earth can the bible ever be a guideline for morality when you end up picking and choosing only the bits you like, and ignoring the immoral stuff? Isn't the bible the undisputed word of god?

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Hitler kills a million Jews because he thinks they're evil: that's horrible!

Saddam Hussein kills a village because he thinks they're evil: that's horrible!

God floods the entire earth because he thinks they're evil: hey, that makes perfect sense!

Religionist logic in a nutshell.

Religionists are completely incapable of critiqueing their deity - no matter how horrible his actions, they always rationalize the atrocities. Always.

Not questioning you leader can lead to bad stuff.

[dashriprock6]

Hitler didnt create those people and Saddam didn't create those people, God did. He can do what he wants with what he creates.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"Hitler didnt create those people and Saddam didn't create those people, God did. He can do what he wants with what he creates."

Your god does not exist. And even if she did, it would not make it morally correct to kill entire nations, including innocent babies - so much for free will for the innocent. Ah yes, they'll be with god after they're killed by god - suddenly it all makes sense. Not.

[Joerexia]

By that logic, I can engineer test tube babies and torture them at my whim. Why not hold "God" to the same moral standard as we hold humans?

[lpmurphy11]

I don't think you created the materials that can be guided together to create a "test tube" baby. So if you did whatever you have to do to engineer a child you wouldnt have created the baby you hae just assembled premade materials together. Thats like saying you "made" mac and cheese from one of those boxes from the store.All you really did was heat up some water put some pasta shells in. Drained the water and mixed it with cheese.You didn't make the pasta or the cheese you just put it together.

[Ari09x]

you realize the saying "treat others as you want to be treated COMES FROM THE BIBLE.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," Matthew 7:12

These so-called innate moralities you speak of are not innate. If that were true then we would be living in some sort of fairytale paradise where everyone automatically does "the right thing" based on internal moral code.

Also no one said God is a dictator, you assumed that.

Don't "assume" it makes an ASS of U and ME. get it?

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"you realize the saying "treat others as you want to be treated COMES FROM THE BIBLE."

So before jebus was born, people thought it was perfectly ok to kill, rape, and steal? Any evidence for that? Oops. I forgot, you guys don't do evidence.

"These so-called innate moralities you speak of are not innate."

I'ts pretty pathetic that you need a book of ancient prubble, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to make you behave.

[sustaincain]

Morality 101:

Do you want to be killed or raped or pillaged or defrauded? No?

Wanna make some laws that we should all not do that and educate and if necessary punish people who do? You do? Ok, how bout this single commandment:

Do what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone, and, if, having taken reasonable and careful precautions not to, you still do, then do all within your power to make ammends as the offended party asks.

One commandment, not 10 or 613.

[wayn3h]

imbecile.

[Ari09x]

What I like the best about people that insult based on religion is they always go for personal insults. They never present concrete fact. Ever. it's always "ignorant, stupid, needy, retarded" or "imbecile" as this ever so eloquent fool here has put it.

It's pathetic that none of you can have any sort of respect. Not to mention you assume and generalize more than any religious person and yet you criticize us for ironing out all the "details".

And no, I don't think that (what Deus said).

[wayn3h]

Religions are entitled to as much criticism as anything else. Why they should have some ingrained respect given to them is beyond me.

You are the ones believing in something which by its very nature would want you to discard any rational thoughts about the way the world works and completely ignore science. Religion and Science are both by their very nature completely incompatible. To say otherwise is completely "ignorant, stupid, needy, retarded"  (delete as appopriate).

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

To follow in DeusMerdaeEst's path - 1. Morality is innate: look to nature; the animal kingdom has no religion and yet they develop their own moral codes and have organized families - how could that be? human beings also display similar moral characteristics with/without religion or despite differences in religion

2. If you do not think that God is a dictator - you have not read the Old Testament nor do you understand "sins of the father" as an ideological concept

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

3 Matthew 7:12 - very nice verse....unfortunately Jesus was a little late; Confucius, Lao Tse, Buddha, and about half a dozen ancient Greek and Roman philosophers had said it already centuries earlier - but don't worry, Jesus did bring something completely original to him - eternal hell: before him shoal and hades were the underworld but were not eternal places of damnation, what say you Jesus:

"Think not that I come to bring peace to earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"

Matthew 10:34

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

"What I like the best about people that insult based on religion is they always go for personal insults. They never present concrete fact. Ever."

Here is a list of "good Christian names" slung at Thomas Paine: Judas, reptile, hog, mad dog, souse, louse, archbeast, brute, liar, infidel"

Mike Huckabee recently referred to atheists (as a group) as narcissists

Do you want me to send you my hate mail from Christians or should I direct you to Richard Dawkin's hate mail from Christians?

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

The non-religious don't supply evidence? For what? Get me started I'm ready to go - evolution? contradictions in the Bible? the fact that we don't get our morality from "Judeo-Christian values"? separation of Church and state? I'm excited.....you start and I'll supply completely free of name calling too; I won't even charge extra

[ForsetiOfTheBoard]

Out of courtesy I am having a few specials today: I'm a big fan of "Nazi Germany was a Christian nation perfectly situated for the holocaust," "how Christianity was derived from pre-existing pagan religions and how the early founders knew thins," "the strong correlation between Christianity and divorce, sexual deviancy, and serial killers" - I'm an expert in all three....I'm ready when you are - no name calling and tons of evidence to boot

[sustaincain]

Do unto others... is a FLAWED moral concept: if you're brutal you'll allow far greater abuse than a peaceful person: it gives a loophole to precisely the worst and most desperate elements,

AND

It throws the ball entirely into the human court, it FAILS to provide ANY INDEPENDENT measure.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

"If morality is evolving then why even get so attached to it?"

Morality is evolving. Read you holy book - a lot of the excessive punishments suggested in Leviticus for instance are not taken serious anymore - and rightly so. During the crusades the christians thought it was moral to kill people that believed in a different sky daddy.

For any rational human being the basics should always be - treat others as you want others to treat you. Makes perfect sense, no deity necessary.

[flux77xulf]

This guy goes on and on with the same flawed argument. You can backtrack from any event and construct impossibly long odds of anything right now.

What are the odds that a baby born wherever you were born, whenever you were born, would wind up sitting in your chair right now reading this comment? Calculate everything that could have been different; it'll be billions to 1. And yet here you are... Just like the Earth, the Universe, etc.

[NMFUntouchable]

why don't chimps murder and kill one another?

They dont have a book that a god wrote.

[Mikex117]

Yeah one huge flaw in his theory though. All the statistics were perfect correct? Well If they weren't we wouldn't be alive to analyze them. We are alive therefor we can analyze all we want but thats not gonna give us a solid conclusion. Just thinks there are 1000's of parallel universes were things aren't like ours. So we exist.... we are conscience therefor we wonder. But again if our universe wasn't like it already is WE WOULDNT BE ALIVE SO IT DOESNT MATTER IT WAS ALL LUCK!

[cossey44]

God is simply a control measure invented & used by the greedy to manipulate the weak minded.

[adznruses]

God is a mathematician.

[BSintolerant]

JIM CARREY..Dumb and Dumber

"So your saying there is still a chance?!"

[brookside1]

This guy is quoting people as his evidence....In American courts we call that "heresay".

[GSUS52]

The hedonic calculus posited by Bentham and Mill (greatest good for the greatest No.) ps how is god easier to understand than the universe unless you describe God But Kierkerguard would have found that obhorrant and many will argue that it is logically impossible to try and comprehend an omnipotent omniscient daity

[GSUS52]

Yes the universe was created with the purpose of life and the rivers of America were built along the state boundries (not my argument btw so don't give me credit for it/im pretty sure it was Dawkins) ps who designed said intelligent designer. how can morality from God be moral? (you don't know it's real, you don't know it's moral, you don't know it cares, you don't know you understand it correctly, you don't know yours is the right one!) but hey lets gain morality from God OR we could use

[jonthebaptist666]

I always want to know how these guys that rely on the cosmological argument determine that this uncaused trancendent casual agent definately came down to earth as a Jewish carpenter, and now goes nutto whenever we jerk off.

[mil1981es]

[RE: 1:24] Seconds are a man made time scale, WE can use it. The universe runs on Planck time, 10^-43 seconds. Its the time light travels one Planck length 10^-34 meters. Any time or any length shorter than this, conventional notions of each break down. Using human analogies to speak about cold, hard science is a spin!

[branrx]

Science gets people nowhere, believers or non believers. Unless its just interesting for you as a scientfic buff, it will never ever never ever never connect the dots to or away from God. Its all about that thing called faith. Perhaps the real question is this. If you have a problem that cant be fixed by another person , or a book, drugs, medicine, money or anything else tangible, what do you? Think about it.

[Cruciatum]

I think what the fuck kind of problem is this?!

[kathyrentino]

hi douglas, i uploaded everything into my personal website. thank you so much!

[templarart]

I want to emphasize that Anthony Flew DID NOT "cross the floor" or "gave up atheism". He believes in a possible creator while openly denying the existence of gods like Jehovah or Allah. Deism has almost NOTHING in common with theism yet is identical to empircial atheism in every respect except for "first cause".

[dcox12345]

God totally exists. How do you explain all that stuff out there? And don't give me all that, "I have scientific facts," hogwash. If i wanted facts, i'd read.

[senorsquiid]

You're trolling, right?

[CalebForPresident]

The improbability argument also has the problem of assuming that this is the end that was our goal. A person who truly does not believe in God, believes that the existence we enjoy is merely one potential end, and that the other potential ends, those that did not happen, were no more or less 'correct' than this one. Therefor it is NOTHING like breaking a watch and shaking it in a box, or any other useless example used by christians in order to 'prove' this point.

[Abdulmelik2007]

The set of potential ends make a mathematical infinity. Hence, this end is as likely (as probable) as any other end. Other ends would need other physical or natural laws which could seem improbable by themselves. If we were in one of the other ends say universe y, it would still be pointless to assert "universe y is improbable" since it was as likely and probable as any of the other possible universes.

[kilroy1964]

Here's the problem with the "improbability argument": We are here.

According to his logic, you could prove to a lottery winner that he did not win, because it's very improbable. Probability works before, not after the fact.

[clarkster28]

Yes, true but you have to consider the probability was calculated given there is no creator. It was extremely extremely small.If this is the only unique universe that completely tells you most likely some personal conscience knew what he was doing.

[KevinLockard]

One of the things that always confuses me about these debates - Why is it that people have somehow come to the conclusion that "God" is simply the Christian God?

As an Atheist, I don't believe in God, but I'm open to the possibility of there being one. It is a question for the species and for the universe as a whole, yes, but it is not tied to religious dogma, especially only one out of thousands of those religions.

[ptotheu]

It is true that many religious philosophers would say that "belief in God" is different from "religion", but the concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as you say. If you are open to the possibility of there actually being "God", why not be open to the possibility that one of those "religions" represents the tradition through which the actual God is properly understood?

[templarart]

I'd like to address this:

The definition of a god is a powerful, supernatural, worshiped being. A god may not be a creator and a creator may not be a god: Odin, Zeus and Ra were all gods without ever having created anything. Slartibartfast designs and helps create the world in "Hithchiker's Guide" but is not a god.

Kevin (above) believes in the possiblity of a "creator" - not a "god". A creator without a religion is an alien intelligence. Gods must have religions to be gods.

[kev3d]

I dont get this fine tuning argument. Im supposed to buy the fellow who "designed" and "tuned" life specifically for us against all improbable odds actually gives a shit if we gather wood on the sabbath. Pretty terrible philosophy if you ask me.

[quillini]

Anyone who says God is the basis for morality clearly hasn't read the Old Testament.

My favorite quote: "not that that proves anything..."

If you can't prove there is a God then you have to assume there isn't one.

[superfisto]

Funny he brought up Mother Theresa, as she was an atheist.

[bdcarlitosway]

not atheist exactly, but very very doubtful

[superfisto]

Did Mother Theresa believe in God?

[bdcarlitosway]

thats a hard question, cuz she really doubted his existance, so im gonna say she didnt, its like she wanted to believe but she just couldnt accept it

[superfisto]

Do atheists believe in God?

[KapitanoUK]

Had Nietzsche been right, atheists would be amoral, and believers profoundly moral. Manifestly this is not the case. If anything, it's the opposite.

Jocoby seems to think the man who raped his great-aunt *must* have been an atheist, or else that if the world had been christian, it wouldn't have happened. Odd that the most christian country in the world also has the most rapes.

[KapitanoUK]

Jacoby makes a stream of weak points, in the hope they'll add up to a strong argument.

Nietzsche did indeed write that without God there can be no morality. But...

Firstly, he thought there *was* no God. Second, he thought the consequent loss of morality was good thing. Third, he was wrong - morality does not depend on the existence of any god, or faith in it.

[zbvhs]

Debates like this are a waste of time. A formal objective proof of God's existence cannot be written. The best anyone can do is to present their own empirical arguments pro or con. In that case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[pinkcunt007]

the whole "Christian" thing just sounds funny. "jesus" ... i laugh like santa clause. being honest with oneself requires to not believe in anything. if there is a "god" why believe in a bible?

[courtXcore92]

he is such a good speaker. my friends showed me this at a bible talk at my school.

[hashmeltarif]

The debate was one sided i thought. Dr Jacoby

had far more superior knowledge of relevant

topics required for the debate and i thought

his presentation was fantastically factual as well as powerfully enlightening.

Great job Doug !!

[eruagnostic]

Gee.. I'm tired of hearing theist claim that there's no right and wrong without their god. Nietzsche can go kiss my... I don't care, I haven't read the guy, and I see no reason to do so. I'm not an atheist because of what som dead philosopher said. I'm an atheist because there's no more evidence for god than there is for the easter bunny. There's plenty of foundation for morality in evolution.

[thickblkpa]

Morality is just opionions.

[Gojogongua]

So morality isn't real. What's the problem with that conclusion? And I don't see that the universe without God is any less mysterious than with him, because if he is there it doesn't answer the question of why there is anything at all. That mystery will always be unsolved, because there is no answer. Whatever there is, just is, whether it's God, the universe, or whatever.

[Gojogongua]

The argument of fine-tuning is empty. If something was different there wouldn't be life? Okay, so there wouldn't be life. AS WE KNOW IT. What's the point? Maybe if the bond angle of water was different, there would ten times as much life.