Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 09:59 AM

Covering Your Internet Tr...
Today at 09:34 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 12:18 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 12:08 AM

The essence of the facts
October 19, 2021, 06:44 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
October 17, 2021, 04:40 PM

MP murdered
October 17, 2021, 11:45 AM

France Muslims were in d...
October 17, 2021, 09:41 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
October 15, 2021, 11:44 AM

Afghanistan
October 13, 2021, 08:24 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 11, 2021, 08:59 PM

Tommy Robinson is a refor...
October 08, 2021, 09:16 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina

 (Read 10913 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     OP - August 14, 2013, 10:13 PM

    Hello QSE, thank you for taking up the challenge. Please post your opening salvo and then we can begin from there.

    What makes you believe God exists?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #1 - August 14, 2013, 10:21 PM

    A good reason for believing in god is a love of science, or at least a working knowledge of various scientific studies and conclusions. The best argument is the universe itself. The chance of our universe becoming as it is (ie suitable to produce and sustain us) is so small that the idea it was chance alone seems to be unreasonable. Many regardless of a faith or lack of faith say it does appear to be designed. if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, might it not be a duck?

    Another argument I would make for the reality of god is evolution (gasp, yes I went there  Afro). Life evolving as it did, particularly human life, is an incredible thing. It's also worth noting that for reasons unexplained our brains and our intelligence went through a huge surge in a relatively small amount of time, the reason for this still unexplained. Perhaps god begat a miracle. Perhaps this was the moment we received souls, and thus distinguishing ourselves from the rest of nature. There is no explanation for the level of consciousness  humans possess.

    There's also the fact that life itself exists. No one can begin to explain with any solid backing how chemistry became biology. How life suddenly existed in a lifeless place.

    In all the above, I submit an argument for god.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #2 - August 14, 2013, 10:25 PM

    What makes you believe God exists?


    Never thought I'd live to see the day someone said that to me. Slander!

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #3 - August 14, 2013, 10:36 PM

    Ok, so let's look at your first evidence for the existence of God.

    You propose that the universe itself is evidence of God by virtue of it having the appearance of design. I'd first like to get a handle on what you mean by universe. Do you mean our local universe (the planets, stars, galaxies, physics, dimensions, that constitute one ordered and consistent system) perhaps as one of a kind or perhaps as one of many universes, or do you mean everything that we know to exist and everything that could possibly exist that we don't even know about yet – all that was, all that is, all that ever will be? Or something else?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #4 - August 14, 2013, 10:41 PM

    I meant it as I said it. The multiverse idea has no real proof behind it, indeed nothing to back it up as far as I'm aware of. It isn't an accepted scientific theory the way gravity or evolution is, it's a hypotheses that's been created as a possible counter to the seeming design of our own universe. The fact that everything is the way it is gives credit to design so far as the uniqueness of our universe. If indeed one day the multiverse idea has valid backing then this will lend credit to the creed that it was pure chance, but until such a time, as far as we know our universe is the only reality.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #5 - August 14, 2013, 10:58 PM

    So I'll assume the latter then - that by Universe you mean everything that we know to exist and everything that could possibly exist that we don't even know about yet – all that was, all that is, all that ever will be.

    Where is the design in all of this? What could the Universe possibly be designed for? You briefly allude to the idea of it being designed to give rise to humans, but this can't possibly be the purpose since the Universe is almost 100% hostile to humans. Surely if the Universe was designed with us in mind we'd be able to survive more than in just a tiny film of breathable atmosphere wrapped delicately around one great big ball of rock, which in turn is dwarfed by nearby celestial objects. Almost 100% of the Universe is unbreathable. Step outside of our delicate atmosphere, there is nothing to breath and we are bombarded with unfiltered radiation and the dead cold of the void.

    Even most of this single planet is hostile to humans. If it isn't the flora and fauna that kills us, the germs, parasites and diseases, its the intense heat or cold. If we go above a certain height we are affected by altitude suffocation. If we go a few miles into the Earth, we start to be cooked alive. If I picked you up and dropped you at a place at random on the Earth, the odds are that you'll end up drowning in the oceans that cover almost three quarters of the Earth's surface.

    Think about the size of the Universe too. We are tiny specks of life riding a tiny mote of dust in a Universe that is unfathomable in size. Are you genuinely trying to persuade people that all of it was designed for a flash-in-the-pan ape species on one small backwater planet in a far corner of a galaxy? If so, why is it so uneconomic? So impractical? What sort of architect would be so wasteful? Why are humans so important to this architect that it had to go through these great lengths to produce us?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #6 - August 14, 2013, 11:07 PM

    I think this would be a good time for you to give a bit of definition to this architect. Who or what is this God of yours?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #7 - August 14, 2013, 11:21 PM

    You've misunderstood my post, by saying that we have no solid proof to back up the multiverse and the other points I made, I was reasoning from what we currently know. We cannot have more information than the knowledge available to us. The current knowledge we have of the universe I'm summarised and as I've pointed out the multiverse idea has nothing to back it up. All we know if that this universe exists and so far as we currently know it's the only universe.  Everything that could possibly exist that we don't even know about yet, as you put it, can't be a factor in my argument because if there are things we have yet to discover, as I suspect to be the case, we haven't discovered them yet, let alone had time to properly understand them.

    Your point that if the universe was designed with us in mind. Now I never actually said this. The fact the universe looks so much like it is designed, to the point that even if you disagree you can't deny with intellectual honesty it would be perfectly logical to see a universe that appears to be designed to come to the conclusion that it might be. As I said before,looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, might it not be a duck?

    Trying to find explications that don't involve god is fine, and I'm not saying there aren't some good ideas out here, but saying there is nothing to lead intellectually in the opposite direction so far as current knowledge allows is at best bias, at worse intellectual dishonesty.

    As for your other points, see my comments on the origin of life and human evolution. I will also add I fully acknowledge the sheer unlikelihood of us existing at all. Which I would also add to the universe itself. So far as we know our universe is the only universe that it, and until there is solid proof or at least an argument compelling enough for a multiverse, the sheer unlikeliness of our universe even existing as it is (a universe where we could exist at all) is staggering.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #8 - August 14, 2013, 11:24 PM

    I'm not arguing for a god that takes a personal interest in humanity and individual humans as described in islam or christianity so much as a creator-force.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #9 - August 14, 2013, 11:34 PM

    And I'm not arguing for a multiverse. The only reason I mentioned it is to clarify what you meant by universe.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #10 - August 14, 2013, 11:38 PM

    Didn't think you were, sorry if I seem to be putting words in your mouth. Just trying to be crystal clear and clarify what I mean.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #11 - August 14, 2013, 11:47 PM

    Your point that if the universe was designed with us in mind. Now I never actually said this.

    Then what exactly are you saying? Designed for what purpose? I took "suitable to produce and sustain us" to mean humans were a desired product. If not that, then what? Is there a purpose that you perceive?

    The fact the universe looks so much like it is designed, to the point that even if you disagree you can't deny with intellectual honesty it would be perfectly logical to see a universe that appears to be designed to come to the conclusion that it might be. As I said before,looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, might it not be a duck?

    It isn't apparent to me that the universe is designed, and at this point I'm still none the wiser why it is apparent to you.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #12 - August 14, 2013, 11:50 PM

    I'm not arguing for a god that takes a personal interest in humanity and individual humans as described in islam or christianity so much as a creator-force.

    But a "creator force" with intelligence, right? Design implies a conscious intent.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #13 - August 14, 2013, 11:58 PM

    What I'm getting at is the apparent fine tuning of creation, universal fundamental physical constants. I wouldn't argue that the universe is fine tuned to produce life but for the building blocks and environments that life requires. A basic understanding of physics and cosmology assert is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different, perhaps even uninhabitable as the laws of physics would be so radically different, and in this I'm arguing that even the smallest change to these laws count as radical.

    As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

    If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #14 - August 14, 2013, 11:59 PM

    Yes, a creator-force that decided upon the creation of the universe without specifying a specific theistic god or even any kind of personal god.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #15 - August 15, 2013, 12:11 AM

    What I'm getting at is the apparent fine tuning of creation, universal fundamental physical constants. I wouldn't argue that the universe is fine tuned to produce life but for the building blocks and environments that life requires.

    What's the difference between a design to make life exist and a design to produce that which life requires in order to exist? This seems to be a distinction without difference.

    And if not life at all, then what is the purpose that you perceive? What exactly are you saying when you say the universe is designed?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #16 - August 15, 2013, 12:22 AM

    Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature, like the strength of gravity and the beginning state of the universe, for instance it's density, have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years

    I'm speaking from a deistic point of view. The apparent design I mentioned above. As to the purpose of creating the universe, I don't know what it is, or even if it has a purpose.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #17 - August 15, 2013, 12:28 AM

    So now you're saying it is fine tuned for life?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #18 - August 15, 2013, 12:36 AM

    I was actually on this point the entire time. The seemingly fine tuning is the basis of my intelligent design argument. It points to at the very least a deistic god.

    A good reason for believing in god is a love of science, or at least a working knowledge of various scientific studies and conclusions. The best argument is the universe itself. The chance of our universe becoming as it is (ie suitable to produce and sustain us) is so small that the idea it was chance alone seems to be unreasonable. Many regardless of a faith or lack of faith say it does appear to be designed. if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, might it not be a duck?


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #19 - August 15, 2013, 12:47 AM

    I was actually on this point the entire time. The seemingly fine tuning is the basis of my intelligent design argument. It points to at the very least a deistic god.

    You're going to have to forgive my confusion, when you say this:

    Your point that if the universe was designed with us in mind. Now I never actually said this.


    And then this:

    For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life.


    Let's backtrack a bit. Are you saying you believe the universe is fine tuned for life or not?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #20 - August 15, 2013, 12:53 AM

    Yes. What purpose, if any, we actually have though is something I can only speculate on.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #21 - August 15, 2013, 12:55 AM

    Let's backtrack a bit. Are you saying you believe the universe is fine tuned for life or not?


    Just so we're clear you remember I'm arguing a point I don't believe right? happymurtad said he might jump in on why allah is real, still waiting for that.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #22 - August 15, 2013, 12:58 AM

    Yes.

    Well then, this post still stands.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #23 - August 15, 2013, 01:02 AM

    Just so we're clear you remember I'm arguing a point I don't believe right? happymurtad said he might jump in on why allah is real, still waiting for that.


    It'll have to wait at least till tomorrow. I'm checking in on you guys from my phone. There's no way I'm writing up that much on here. Grin

    It's going to be sad but faithful to what many orthodox muslims still believe.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #24 - August 15, 2013, 01:02 AM

    Just so we're clear you remember I'm arguing a point I don't believe right?

    No, that's it now. I'm going to hold you to this forever.

    happymurtad said he might jump in on why allah is real, still waiting for that.

    Yeah, happymurtad can start a thread if he's still up for it. It seems there are no tag teams allowed in the one on one forum.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #25 - August 15, 2013, 01:09 AM

    As I said I'm not arguing the universe was designed for humanity specifically, but for life to flourish. Since at this point in time we have no proof we live in a multiverse I'm arguing from the standpoint that this universe is the only universe, and as such the idea that reality as we know it and universal natural law as we know it which gives us conditions for life is unlikely enough that it points to a creator for virtue of the exactness of it and the seeming precision (finely tuned/designed) of our reality.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #26 - August 15, 2013, 01:11 AM

    Yeah atheist. Refute that!  dance

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #27 - August 15, 2013, 01:11 AM

    Is this the only possible arrangement of the universe?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #28 - August 15, 2013, 01:13 AM

    No, which is my point.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #29 - August 15, 2013, 01:14 AM

    No, that's it now. I'm going to hold you to this forever.


    What? No! I've never even argued from an intelligent design point before! Have a heart...fellow atheist?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »