If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Keith&Co.]

I say this as someone who was an atheist for 14 years, and with over a thousand archived posts on this site.

Being an atheist doesn't grant special discernment into biology. Now, 14 yessrs as a biologist might be impressive.

But I don't know how you could so much as look into the mirror and not see design.

The human brain is a wonderful place. I hear creaks in the night and for a moment think Zombies are sneaking thru the house to eat me. This impression NEVER stands up to scrutiny, however.

And the more that is discovered about life, the more complex it looks.

So, you LIKE scientific research, but only as far as cataloging the universe. Not when it tries to explain how all the catalogued bits and processes interact.

It's quite a marvel. And even if life could arise by itself, we would not have consciousness if that were not also specially created.

Citation needed.

We'd be walking, talking globs of slime with no actual inner experiences, much like robots.

Citation desperately needed.

No, I don't believe we just "evolved" from slime. So if there's design, we're certain there is a Designer.

You know, 'trial and error' would qualify as one example of a design process. Quite literally, the gene pool fucks around, then retains what works.

 

[abaddon]

I say this as someone who was an atheist for 14 years, and with over a thousand archived posts on this site. But I don't know how you could so much as look into the mirror and not see design. And the more that is discovered about life, the more complex it looks. It's quite a marvel. And even if life could arise by itself, we would not have consciousness if that were not also specially created. We'd be walking, talking globs of slime with no actual inner experiences, much like robots.

No, I don't believe we just "evolved" from slime. So if there's design, we're certain there is a Designer. "Faith" is not intellectually blind at all; but we walk by faith and not by sight because we walk in accordance with the things unseen of which we are persuaded.

I don't know how you can reasonably conclude a god from the complexity.

You say a Mind had to design the body and the scientists have shown, with overwhelming evidence, that it can be designed by nature's mindless processes.

Consciousness is a truly grand mystery but I'm ok with reveling in it without knowing its cause. I'm intrigued in whatever the answer is but not desperate for it. Your leap into believing the fantastical to answer a mystery is what is not reasonably justified.

 

[ruby sparks]

And don't even ask who designed the supposed designer.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And don't even ask who designed the supposed designer.

Complex things like human beings are obviously designed. Super duper complex things like designers are far too complex to be designed. Understand?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And don't even ask who designed the supposed designer.

Complex things like human beings are obviously designed. Super duper complex things like designers are far too complex to be designed. Understand?

Magic.

 

[Learner]

Not knowing WHO the "previous" designer(s) in succession were; I don't think by this concept, it nessitates that you SHOULD know, in this particular "argument." Reason, if one was ONLY aware of the current designer etc.. A designer is still a designer, obviously.

 

[abaddon]

And don't even ask who designed the supposed designer.

Complex things like human beings are obviously designed. Super duper complex things like designers are far too complex to be designed. Understand?

Magic.

The magical designer. That saves so much explaining. Nature's too stupid to make complex things. So, cuz nature can't, therefore supernature can. Apparently that's supposed to be obvious. And I guess resorting to biblical mythology is too...

 

[abaddon]

Not knowing WHO the "previous" designer(s) in succession were; I don't think (by this concept), it nessitates that you SHOULD know, in this particular "argument." Reason, if one was only aware of the current designer etc.. A designer is a designer, obviously.

"A designer is a designer". How do you figure there's ANY designer?

You seem to want it accepted as obvious there's a designer. That's jumping ahead. You need to first establish there's any supernatural designer at all.

 

[Learner]

A similar modern equivalent I suppose: The sci-fi designer, that even Prof. Dawkins, Prof. Kaku and similar in mind can accept, a plausible possibility...i.e. very advanced civilizations seeding planets and life. ("in their image" as long as it's not biblical).

"A designer is a designer". How do you figure there's ANY designer?

You seem to want it accepted as obvious there's a designer. That's jumping ahead. You need to first establish there's any supernatural designer at all.

(I posted previous before seeing above)
I was wondering too, how the question, " who designed the designer" (another designer before) was figured out.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And how he/she/it got the inspiration for the Horse Nebula, the Grand Canyon, and childhood leukemia.

 

[abaddon]

"A designer is a designer". How do you figure there's ANY designer?

You seem to want it accepted as obvious there's a designer. That's jumping ahead. You need to first establish there's any supernatural designer at all.

(I posted previous before seeing above)
I was wondering too, how the question, " who designed the designer" (another designer before) was figured out.

They have not "figured out" that there needs to be "another designer before". The point is that positing even ONE intelligent designer is a bad answer. Because if you use ANY intelligent designer (God, aliens, or whatever) to explain complexity, you've posited a complex entity. So, when theists do that, it becomes THAT complex entity which needs to be explained.

IOW, "goddidit" is nothing but an extremely lame stopgap to the question "how'd it happen" and not a real answer.

The theist explanation for complexity (God) doesn't explain complexity. It just creates more puzzles to solve.

-----------

ETA: I thought of another way to explain it, just in case it helps clarify:

You probably see the problem with aliens. Because one then wonders "But then who created the aliens?"

It's the exact same problem with God. "But then who created God?" is the next logical question. Christians will want to say "but he's DEFINED as uncreated so it's a silly question when applied to God!" And, no, it's a valid question because the appeal to the definition is special pleading.

 

[ruby sparks]

I was wondering too, how the question, " who designed the designer" (another designer before) was figured out.

Basically, an intelligence so sophisticated that it could create life and other lesser intelligences, couldn't have come into existence naturally, all by itself. Intelligence surely doesn't come about like that.

 

[abaddon]

The creationist's non-explanation involves saying "nature can't explain intelligence therefore intelligence did it".

It's a logical fallacy regardless of what anyone believes that nature can or cannot do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was wondering too, how the question, " who designed the designer" (another designer before) was figured out.

Basically, an intelligence so sophisticated that it could create life and other lesser intelligences, couldn't have come into existence naturally, all by itself. Intelligence surely doesn't come about like that.

"Naturally" is all there is evidence for. Certainly a sufficiently advanced, intelligent life form that arose naturally could create life as we know it. We're just machines, complex chemistry. Creationists think that life is too complex to arise naturally. But their designer/creator must be orders of magnitude more complex yet they claim it just exists. Quite a contradiction.

If we read between the lines, creationists and intelligent design advocates aren't actually claiming that their designer/creator is real, they're simply claiming that magic is real. Without magic being real first, they don't have their magical designer/creator. So first comes their magic, then comes their magician, then comes everything except their magic and their magician. Their magic is what makes their magician possible.

 

[James Brown]

If a child asks his father how a magician made a dove disappear, and the father replies, “It’s
magic,” we would hardly accept this as an explanation. Yet the theist attempts the same kind of
maneuver. To his own question, “How do we explain natural phenomena?” the theist replies, “It’s
supernatural”—which, when translated, means: “It’s unknowable.

--Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith

 

[LoAmmo]

"Faith" is not intellectually blind at all; but we walk by faith and not by sight because we walk in accordance with the things unseen of which we are persuaded.

I'd initially "let this part go," in an effort to not muddy the waters by nitpicking every side alley of this "argument" to death, but...how to say this at ALL nicely:

I think believers tend to vastly underestimate how utterly uncompelling, unpersuavsive, unintelligible these sorts of gobbledygook ramblings are.


I mean, what the fucking fuck is that supposed to really mean?

 

[Lion IRC]

"Faith" is not intellectually blind at all; but we walk by faith and not by sight because we walk in accordance with the things unseen of which we are persuaded.

I'd initially "let this part go," in an effort to not muddy the waters by nitpicking every side alley of this "argument" to death, but...how to say this at ALL nicely:

I think believers tend to vastly underestimate how utterly uncompelling, unpersuavsive, unintelligible these sorts of gobbledygook ramblings are.


I mean, what the fucking fuck is that supposed to really mean?

Things unseen of which we are persuaded.

We aren't persuaded by nothing. We are persuaded by evidence and reason.

There's tons of things I've never seen which I am persuaded are real. The hole in the ozone layer, black holes, dark matter, the dark side of the moon, global warming...

 

[abaddon]

Things unseen of which we are persuaded.

We aren't persuaded by nothing. We are persuaded by evidence and reason.

There's tons of things I've never seen which I am persuaded are real. The hole in the ozone layer, black holes, dark matter, the dark side of the moon, global warming...

Everything you named is in fact observed.

There are photos of the dark side of the moon back to 1959.
The ozone layer is directly measured on a regular basis.
Black holes can't be seen directly but are observed nevertheless by their effect on the matter around them.
Global warming is measured and its effects observable.

These are observed and not of doubtable existence because we can all "see" them, directly or indirectly, if we ask to look at the evidence. No one can rightly say about them, "Well you're not going to see the evidence until after you try hard to believe" like with God.

The religious meaning of "unseen" very exactly means "of doubtable existence". The believer's efforts to have faith or "confidence" in it is to overcome the doubt by the most unscientific of means: confirmation bias.

 

[DBT]

"Faith" is not intellectually blind at all; but we walk by faith and not by sight because we walk in accordance with the things unseen of which we are persuaded.

I'd initially "let this part go," in an effort to not muddy the waters by nitpicking every side alley of this "argument" to death, but...how to say this at ALL nicely:

I think believers tend to vastly underestimate how utterly uncompelling, unpersuavsive, unintelligible these sorts of gobbledygook ramblings are.


I mean, what the fucking fuck is that supposed to really mean?

Things unseen of which we are persuaded.

We aren't persuaded by nothing. We are persuaded by evidence and reason.

There's tons of things I've never seen which I am persuaded are real. The hole in the ozone layer, black holes, dark matter, the dark side of the moon, global warming...

What it is that persuades us that something is true is the question.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Things unseen of which we are persuaded.

We aren't persuaded by nothing. We are persuaded by evidence and reason.

There's tons of things I've never seen which I am persuaded are real. The hole in the ozone layer, black holes, dark matter, the dark side of the moon, global warming...

What it is that persuades us that something is true is the question.

That would have to be the degree of personal comfort and security it affords the person. For someone who ascribes to magical forces facts don't matter. What becomes true is whatever makes me feel good.

There is a local case of a father who lost his wife and four children in a house fire. That was the end of his religious beliefs, and such an experience is quite understandable. Other persons rejoice that their loved ones are now with the angels. So we have two opposite reactions to personal tragedy. How can that be?

The answer is pretty obvious, that such biases are hardwired. Whereas for one person platitudes about mysterious forces and magical creatures simply do not carry weight anymore, for another person the same personal calamity will reinforce belief. It would be nothing short of horrifically selfish of me to rejoice when my young child dies, but for some that is just not the emotion that endures. Maybe the lesson is that a religious person is simply extremely obedient to his own biases.