keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409161521.42b07c7e@posting.google.com>...

keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409151348.3bf37fd7@posting.google.com>...

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:<2qqvv3F12cs3gU1@uni-berlin.de>...

"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0409150539.1fde30bb@posting.google.com...

snip

I have done so, Robin:

That's "Robyn".

Sorry.

the universe exists and you can verify that

fact by looking around the room.

True, but where's the evidence that it was created by a god?

Here's more or less how evidence works:

1. You observe such and such facts.

2. You infer the probable truth of a claim from those facts.

I draw the inference that God exists because it is implausible that
the universe would exist if God didn't exist. I'll bet you don't
accept that presupposition, though.

A wise wager. What makes you think it's implausible that the universe
would exist if God didn't exist? Do you assume the universe must have
been created, but not God? It appears your thought process is "I
don't understand how this works, therefore God did it." Is that
accurate?

I don't think it *is* accurate. What makes me think that it's
implausible that the universe would exist if God didn't exist? I'm not
sure how to answer that question; suppose I found a piece of paper
with marks that spell out "God exists and loves you"; it would find
any explanation other than "it was written by somebody" to be
implausible. My reason would be similar.

That appears to me to be "I don't understand, etc." The universe
appears to be guided by natural laws inherent in the materials of
which it is comprised, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of
or need for any creator god.

Introducing the concept of a creator god
just adds an additional layer of complication. Where did the creator
god come from? If it always existed, why can't the universe also
always have existed?

I've said before, though, show me objective,
verifiable evidence of god, and I'll believe.

On 16 Sep 2004 06:15:18 -0700,

Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<uurhk0p2t20qj5pt21semalgjlg3s2mrv7@4ax.com>...

On 15 Sep 2004 14:48:35 -0700,

I draw the inference that God exists because it is implausible that
the universe would exist if God didn't exist...

:

Wrong.
The blanket "it is implausible" bit.

If you are going to be accurate, you should have said "I think it is
implausible".

Many people believe that it *is* plausible.

How does the fact that many people believe it is plausible make my
claim that it isn't inaccurate?

I'm sorry. I assumed that:

1) You were capable of an intellectually robust discussion.
2) That you had more than a working knowledge of English.
3) That you understood the workings of logic.
4) That you have actually analysed the Bible.

It's my fault, I'm afraid.
I'm just so used to dealing with humans who have those qualities.

I cannot promise I won't do it again, as I think I made the same
assumptions in another response to one of your assertions.
But I shall try to keep it in mind in the future.

If I had said no one believes it's
plausible, *that* would have been inaccurate to be sure. And it is

In fact, in English, you *did* say, clearly and unambiguously, that
no-one believed it to be plausible.
Perhaps it's your second language.

I understand, and can perhaps help.
I may even be able to converse in your native language.
What is it, if that's not a too personal question?

true that I believ it is implausible, so I oculd have said that. I'm
sorry if I offended you by speaking so stridently.

It takes an awful lot more than that to offend me, I assure you!
I am offended by dishonesty, mainly.
And when someone kicks me in the testicles.

I tend to get mildy upset then.

That reduces your "inference" to the level of personal opinion, based
on personal ignorance, and as such has no place whatsoever in any form
of "proof".

If not, then there are no legitimate proofs, since evry proof depends
on some premises that could be challenged by the very same objection
yuou made to mine.

Not so.

I merely pointed out that you made a sweeping generalization that I
falsified with a counter-example.
I'm pretty sure I even advised you as to how to avoid that pitfall,
and make your assertion quite accurate.
I don't see any logical black hole there.
Why do you?
With the minor correction that I suggested, your statement would have
been totally accurate.
I would have to accept it as such.
Why can't you?

More to the point, what are you so angry/angstful about?
(It screams out from your posts, and I'm sure I'm not the first to
notice it)

And "based on ignorance"? That means you claim I am
actually wrong about the implausibility thing; where's your proof for
*that*?

Quite simple:
One counter-example.
Vis: me.

Methinks that if you have a local college or institution that has
night classes in elementary logic, you would do well to subscribe.
Don't take that as a semi-disguised insult, merely advice.

(When I dish out insults, no-one is in any doubt!)
You would fare a lot better in this newsgroup as a result.
You're chewing the fat at the wizard's water-cooler now.

Best not to embarrass yourself too eagerly.

I get the feeling that you are quite intelligent.
I hope to be proven correct.

Keith

keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409161853.7ffabf71@posting.google.com>...

You came to alt.atheism and made the
statement "God exists, but I can't prove it" (paraphrased); what sort
of response did you expect? I was trying to be polite. I'm sure you
would have preferred something more like "Well, shoot, you convinced
me."

I would *not* have preferred that. I only want you to be honest with
me, and if you don't believe then you'd be lying to say different. I
did indeed come to a.a.; I responded to a person who made an assertion
about God. I counter-asserted the contrary. If you guys are serious
about evidence you'd demand evidence even when *atheists* make
assertions.

I do. As do many others here that I've observed. Squabbles break
out.

<snip>

1. There exist some things that are objectively morally wrong. For
example, the Holocaust.

We have evolved to be a social, empathic animal; that's where our
morals come from.

Evolution can at most give us moral instinct. It doesn't even address
the issue of why things like the Holocaust are actually immoral. If
evolution were all there were to it, then our belief that some things
are objectively morally wrong would be nothing more than a useful
illusion, with no moral significance at all.

The Holocaust was immoral because humans deemed it so. Morals are a
subjective human construct. It is a useful illusion in that it
promotes the survival of the species.

What's god got to do with that? In fact, morality
is in large part fluid; what may be objectionable in one culture,
might be accepted in another.

For example the nazis accepted--even embraced--the murder of Jews. the
fact that a culture accepts a given behavior doesn't mean the behavior
isn't immoral.

Maybe not to you. You're applying your moral standards to cultures
where different moral standards might exist. The Nazis felt they were
doing God's work. Who are you to say they weren't? What is more
moral than doing God's work?

It is acceptable to eat the losing
warriors in some cultures; it is considered an honor to die in a
religious war in others. As repugnant as the Holocaust was, the moral
outrage was in large part a result of the scale, as far as I can tell.
Personally, I'm just as disturbed and sadden by the death of innocent
Iraqis; isn't that also objectively morally wrong?

yes it is objectively morally wrong--that's part of why the Bush
administration's foreign policy is so heinous.

But Bush is certain he is acting under mandate from God. His morality
appears to be different from yours. Hmm, maybe it isn't objectively
morally wrong after all.

2. If all we are is matter in motion following the laws of nature,
then nothing *would* be objectively morally wrong. The laws of nature
tell us how things are, but they cannot tell us how things ought to
be.

But we are not merely "matter in motion following the laws of nature,"
as you acknowledge; we have evolved certain characteristics that are
beneficial to the survival of the species, one of which is the
reluctance to kill others of our kind.

I need to be clear here: are you saying we are more than matter, or
that the matter of our bodies doesn't have to follow the laws of
nature?

The matter of our bodies must follow the laws of nature. Because we
are self-aware, or at least thing we are, we believe we are more than
matter, but we are bound by the laws that bind the laws of matter.
Change the chemicals in the brain, and awareness changes.

The laws of nature made us
what we are, though, not god. Our evolved intelligence and ability to
empathize tell us how things ought to be. Again, no need to postulate
a god.

if evolution is all there is, there is no moral significance to
actions that are non-empathetic.

The moral significance is in our minds. We decide what is moral based
on how we've evolved to interact socially and the society in which we
live.

3. Therefore we are not merely matter in motion.

Agreed. Was that in dispute?

I don't see how the beliefs you defend above are anything *but* "we
are just matter in motion, following the laws of nature". You seem to
dismiss the idea that we have any non-material parts, and surely you
don't think that the matter in our bodies can break the laws of
nature.

You know what, you're right; thanks. I'll say self-awareness is an
artifact of the interactions of the matter in a human brain. We
believe we are more than matter in motion, but it's an illusion.
Imagine that. This is the most productive conversation I've had in
alt.atheism.

THis argument doesn't conclude that God in fact exists, but any
argument proof against atheistic materialism points in teh general
direction of theism.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying "we are not merely
matter in motion, therefore God probably exists" is a proof against
atheism?

Not exactly. I am saying that evidence against materialism reduces the
probabilty of atheism, by leaving only some kind of spiritual atheisn
as a possible option.

I'm still not understanding. I haven't seen any convincing evidence
against materialism, and don't understand how that would reduce the
probablity of atheism anyway.