Did God(s) Create Humans or Did Humans Create God(s)?

Factfinder

@JulesKorngold

Belief in a higher power also provides a mechanism for manipulation and control over others for personal gain. Probably a bye product of knowing people want to feel they have comfort and meaning.

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold
Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Sure, thor did it. Pat you on the head and send you on your way.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Circular Nonsense

@just_sayin
Are you saying your god created itself or that your god came out of nothing? Either way, your story is hilarious.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

@JulesKorngold
Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait.

I recommend that you examine your logic closer. It amounts to "Since no one has been able to do X, it seems logical to assume that someone has done X".

On a serious note, may I just comment on how great the artistic style of the Ancient Egyptians was?

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
Are you saying your god created itself or that your god came out of nothing? Either way, your story is hilarious.

God is eternal and not created. In philosophy they call this a necessary being. Your faith model believes the same thing, you claim that energy is eternal. The problem with your theory is the big bang suggests that our universe at one time occupied zero space. Just how much stuff can you put in zero space, Jules? Let's do the math:

All the stuff in the universe = S
Amount of stuff we can fit into the universe = A
0 represents the amount of space available

A= S x 0

What's the answer Jules?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: It's More Complex

@just_sayin

Here are a couple of interpretations of your equation from the Gemini chatbot:

Total vs Observable Universe:

S could represent the total amount of stuff in the entire universe, including everything beyond what we can observe. This includes dark matter, dark energy, and potentially other dimensions or universes we can't perceive.
A would then represent the amount of stuff we can observe within the observable universe. This includes stars, planets, galaxies, and other detectable matter and energy.
By this definition, A would be a subset of S, and 0 would represent the amount of space beyond the observable universe that we can't access or observe.

Limited vs Unlimited Universe:

Another interpretation is that S represents the total theoretical capacity of the universe to hold stuff. This could be infinite or have some unknown limit.
A would then represent the current amount of stuff in the universe, which could be constantly expanding or changing.
In this case, 0 wouldn't represent empty space, but rather the difference between the current amount of stuff and the theoretical limit. We don't know if this limit exists or what value it might have.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
Here are a couple of interpretations of your equation from the Gemini chatbot:

Total vs Observable Universe:

S could represent the total amount of stuff in the entire universe, including everything beyond what we can observe. This includes dark matter, dark energy, and potentially other dimensions or universes we can't perceive.

A would then represent the amount of stuff we can observe within the observable universe. This includes stars, planets, galaxies, and other detectable matter and energy.

By this definition, A would be a subset of S, and 0 would represent the amount of space beyond the observable universe that we can't access or observe.

Limited vs Unlimited Universe:

Another interpretation is that S represents the total theoretical capacity of the universe to hold stuff. This could be infinite or have some unknown limit.

A would then represent the current amount of stuff in the universe, which could be constantly expanding or changing.

In this case, 0 wouldn't represent empty space, but rather the difference between the current amount of stuff and the theoretical limit. We don't know if this limit exists or what value it might have.

Actually the amount of 0 for the available space is the only number variable we do know. Did you try the math? Times any number by 0 and you'll get the answer. Unless you can explain how you fit all the stuff in the universe in zero space, a God is a much more likely answer.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

The problem with your theory is the big bang suggests that our universe at one time occupied zero space.

It, of course, does not suggest that. But we are having the Strawman Month currently, so let the games go on!

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

The problem with your theory is the big bang suggests that our universe at one time occupied zero space.

It, of course, does not suggest that. But we are having the Strawman Month currently, so let the games go on!

May, so tell me, if you follow the expansion associated backwards from the big bang backwards, what does it suggest?

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

That is a very vague question. It suggests many things. Can you be more specific?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Self-Creation

@just_sayin
If your god can create itself, why can't the universe create itself?

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
If your god can create itself, why can't the universe create itself?

Well because God is supernatural and the universe is natural. What properties does nothing have to create something with?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

God is eternal and not created.

Any empirical evidence? Peer reviewed articles? Experiments? Observations of god by using the scientific method to establish behavior patterns? Samples of it's physiology to analyze?

Didn't think so. Remember, conjecture, faith and the bible aren't evidence.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR COMICAL QUOTE REGARDING THE CONTRADICTING CREATION NARRATIVES IN YOUR BIBLE: "Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait."

To not embarrass you any further about the CONTRADICTING Creation narratives within the Bible, I will just inform you upon one entity of it forthwith:

Please write to your Congressman in the hopes of getting a law passed that will eliminate any further Satanic paintings or images showing Adam and Eve WITH BELLY BUTTONS, for the obvious reasons relative to Your Creation narrative where your god made Adam from dust, aka, DIRT (Genesis 2:7). Whereas god made Eve from Adam's RIB (Genesis 2:22). Therefore your serial killer god did not "birth" Adam and Eve to have BELLY BUTTONS in the first place, where paintings of Adam and Eve with BELLY BUTTONS IS SACRILEGE! GET IT? HUH?

Look at this blasphemous painting below of Adam and Eve having BELLY BUTTONS, how sickening can you get where this image is demeaning your faith and making a mockery of it, as if it can't be done with your primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bible as well! LOL!

AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS FACTUAL POST IS:

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Well because God is supernatural and the universe is natural. What properties does nothing have to create something with?

"X is supernatural" is a nice cop-out from having to explain the logic behind it. But this is precisely why rational people do not take these religious ideas seriously: they rest on a lousy epistemological framework set up in such a way as to make every point you want to make justifiable. And when everything you want to justify is justifiable, then the value of that justification becomes nil.

Why the origin of the Universe has to be explained, but the origin of god does not, is a perfectly reasonable question to ask - and to date I have never heard anyone give a coherent answer to it.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Well because God is supernatural and the universe is natural. What properties does nothing have to create something with?

"X is supernatural" is a nice cop-out from having to explain the logic behind it. But this is precisely why rational people do not take these religious ideas seriously: they rest on a lousy epistemological framework set up in such a way as to make every point you want to make justifiable. And when everything you want to justify is justifiable, then the value of that justification becomes nil.

Why the origin of the Universe has to be explained, but the origin of god does not, is a perfectly reasonable question to ask - and to date I have never heard anyone give a coherent answer to it.

I believe the evidence from the fine tuning and big bang suggest an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. I also believe the complexity of even the simplest life form is best answered by an intelligence. Code needs a coder. The chemical miracles needed for life starting from non-life are numerous and after billions and billions of dollars, and years and years and years of human intelligence, science has got bupkis.

May, I could have so much fun mocking your hypocrisy right now, but I will not do so. Instead, I will once again ask for you to give me your evidence that nothing created everything or your evidence that life came from non-life. If these are naturalistic events it should be a breeze for you to explain them. Or will you, like you always do, make an appeal to the science-of-the-gaps

?

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

@JulesKorngold
Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait.

I recommend that you examine your logic closer. It amounts to "Since no one has been able to do X, it seems logical to assume that someone has done X".

Aka Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

@JulesKorngold
Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait.

I recommend that you examine your logic closer. It amounts to "Since no one has been able to do X, it seems logical to assume that someone has done X".

Aka Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Hey Zeus, feel free to tell me how you solved the 10+ chemical problems with making life from non-life. Or feel free to give me a theory on how a universe came from nothing that doesn't break the laws of physics. I've been waiting a long time now for those specific details. Are you going to join May in singing the science-of-the-gaps song? just sayin

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE TO MAYCEASER: "May, I could have so much fun mocking your hypocrisy right now, but I will not do so."
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177387/#Comment_177387

In turn, I will have much fun in mocking your primitive Bronze and Iron Age Christianity like I did with the Adam and Eve post of mine, THAT YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM because your pseudo-christian apologetics can't answer it for you! LOL!

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT IS TO EMBARRASSED ABOUT HIS CHRISTIANITY TO ADDRESS A SIMPLE BIBLE CONCEPT, WILL BE .....?

.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

@JulesKorngold
Since no one has been able to create a universe from nothing, nor create life from non-life, its seems more logical that an intelligence created the universe and life. If you think I'm wrong, just post the recipe for making life for us. Go ahead - we'll wait.

I recommend that you examine your logic closer. It amounts to "Since no one has been able to do X, it seems logical to assume that someone has done X".

Aka Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Hey Zeus, feel free to tell me how you solved the 10+ chemical problems with making life from non-life. Or feel free to give me a theory on how a universe came from nothing that doesn't break the laws of physics. I've been waiting a long time now for those specific details. Are you going to join May in singing the science-of-the-gaps song? just sayin

God of the gaps. Your insistence on using that instead of evidence means you have none. Though you invent meaningless terms like 'science of the gaps' to ease your insecurities.

Any empirical evidence? Peer reviewed articles? Experiments? Observations of god by using the scientific method to establish behavior patterns? Samples of it's physiology to analyze?

Didn't think so. Remember, conjecture, faith and the bible aren't evidence.

Meantime you continue to dodge the questions that show science does debunk myth.

When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

21CenturyIconoclast · Screenshot 2024-03-13 at 9.51.24 AM.png 893.8K

.@just_sayin

YOUR COMICAL POST RELATIVE TO THIS THREADS TOPIC: "Hey Zeus, feel free to tell me how you solved the 10+ chemical problems with making life from non-life. Or feel free to give me a theory on how a universe came from nothing that doesn't break the laws of physics. I've been waiting a long time now for those specific details." "https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177391/#Comment_177391

Forget about the Bible fool "JUST_SAYIN" wants shown above, whereas in turn, he is to address the pseudo-christian basis for life in Genesis, and his gods creation of the entire 93 billion in diameter light year universe where god only created life upon earth! Where in the 21st century of thinking, the dumbfounded pseudo-christians like "JUST_SAYIN" are to swallow and accept the following two propositions, of which there are MANY MORE that show how utterly laughable the pseudo-christian creation truly is!!:

1. Like Adam, Jesus as God has a PENIS, urinates, and shits!: “Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us AND RESEMBLE US.” (Genesis 1:26). GET IT? LOL!

2. Jesus as God set Adam up to have sex with animals FIRST for procreation!!!: “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20)

THINK! Notwithstanding Adam in having to name 7.77 million animal species, *cough,* then why did Jesus as god create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST? Whereas Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female!

Then the Bible fool "JUST_SAYIN" has to question why his god Jesus expected Adam to have sexual relations with the animals in the beginning for procreation! Therefore, was the pseudo-christian god in to bestiality early on? Bad god, tsk, tsk, tsk.

I have only given the Bible fool "JUST_SAYIN" two propositions of the comical Creation narratives so as not to overtax his brain in trying to apologetically refute them, where in essence, he can't anyway, but only to RUN AWAY from them and hide like before, just watch! LOL!

.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I believe the evidence from the fine tuning and big bang suggest an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. I also believe the complexity of even the simplest life form is best answered by an intelligence. Code needs a coder. The chemical miracles needed for life starting from non-life are numerous and after billions and billions of dollars, and years and years and years of human intelligence, science has got bupkis.

May, I could have so much fun mocking your hypocrisy right now, but I will not do so. Instead, I will once again ask for you to give me your evidence that nothing created everything or your evidence that life came from non-life. If these are naturalistic events it should be a breeze for you to explain them. Or will you, like you always do, make an appeal to the science-of-the-gaps ?

All of these arguments you make are based on the assumption that complexity intrinsically requires intelligent design. But we have already been over this: it just pushes the problem upwards, as whatever could create such complexity itself would have to be complex and be created. But then you suddenly just say, "Oh, god is different: it is eternal". So you do not even follow your own assumption consistently, which makes your arguments made on it intellectually dishonest.

I do not think you can mock any of my positions, for the simple reason that you do not understand them. I have not seen anything from you that indicated that you grasped what I talked about. You can repeat your "science of gaps" thing as many times as you want, but the arguments you attribute to me I do not make.

Your position is strongly dependent on negating and twisting observable reality, which makes its intellectual value equal to zero.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar, @Factfinder

Slightly off-topic, but I'm pretty sure I understand why Happy_k accused me of giving WLC too much credit. I think it's because his entire argument can be boiled down to mere special pleading. That's the gist of it, anyway. I've just watched part of a debate where he faced off against Hitchens. He seemed to ignore several of Hitchens' points. Moreover, he also had a tendency to misdefine atheism. I'm fairly certain this is their biggest tactic. In fact, according to John Wayne Loftus, a former believer who trained under WLC among others, this is a common trend among many apologists.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Yup. Sound like anyone we know? LOL

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

Hey Zeus, feel free to tell me how you solved the 10+ chemical problems with making life from non-life. Or feel free to give me a theory on how a universe came from nothing that doesn't break the laws of physics. I've been waiting a long time now for those specific details. Are you going to join May in singing the science-of-the-gaps song? just sayin

Hey,

When you stop equating non-life with non-matter, when you stop confusing abiogenesis with spontaneous generation, when you stop conflating nothingness with non-existence/neverness/emptiness/voidness/ etc, when you stop confusing a "scientific theory" with just a "hunch," when you stop conflating science with some kind of post-modernist ideological stance, when you stop misdefining an absence of beliefs as beliefs, when you understand what empirical means, when you're comfortable with not knowing something due to a lack of sufficient evidence, when you're comfortable embracing uncertainty, then perhaps we can have a serious discussion. If and/or when you do ever manage to grasp this concept, then I guess there's a high likelihood that we won't be having this talk here anyway. Until then, have a good day.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar, @Factfinder

Slightly off-topic, but I'm pretty sure I understand why Happy_k accused me of giving WLC too much credit. I think it's because his entire argument can be boiled down to mere special pleading. That's the gist of it, anyway. I've just watched part of a debate where he faced off against Hitchens. He seemed to ignore several of Hitchens' points. Moreover, he also had a tendency to misdefine atheism. I'm fairly certain this is their biggest tactic. In fact, according to John Wayne Loftus, a believer who trained under WLC among others, this is a common trend among many apologists.

Yes, arguments of people like this tend to heavily rely on simply ignoring inconvenient objections. To me this has always been a sign of intellectual cowardice and weakness: when I think about something, I want my thoughts to be attacked from all possible angles (and I do it myself as much as I can), because in letting hundreds of bad ideas die in order to uncover a gem resisting a lot of pressure is how intellectual progress is made. But these people just turn away from arguments they dislike, or respond to their alternated version that does not pack nearly as much punch.

I suppose Prof. Craig has strong oratorial skills, but the substance of his words is very low. It is like that bad undergraduate student who wrote a large essay full of filler sentences. Who writes, "The cognitive processes within the thinking framework of a conscious agent can be associated with driving the growth of his neurological pathways backwards compatible with the dispersed knowledge within the complex system of cross-referenced attributes", and when asked for clarification of the meaning of the sentence by the professor, spits out a few more sentences like this. The way to call the student on his is to request that he summarizes the sentence in at most 10 simple words - and be amused by his sudden stuttering. But Prof. Craig will not participate in a debate where clarity is enforced. He will not go to a serious debating competition - instead, he will go speak in a room filled with people who share his faith and respect his eagerness to defend it.

Such people are just weak and timid. They would not survive a minute on a debating floor with hard moderation and rigorous logical standards, much like that undergraduate student would not survive a minute in a real neuroscience lab.

Factfinder

@JulesKorngold

Interesting how you chose Egyptian gods and then put christianity under them. There's actually a movement that truly believes christianity plagiarized Egyptian mythology. https://daily.jstor.org/a-holy-trinity-in-ancient-egypt/

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81-ns2AlqIL._SY466_.jpg

just_sayin

If someone walks into a room and on the table they see a message that says 'Vacuum the floor. I love you - Mom'. They could see that and think 'Wow, look what nature did. Somehow the wind blew or the earth shook in such a sequence that it wrote a note out that makes sense.' But we all know it is much more likely that a message (code) comes from an intelligence. The DNA of the simplest one celled organism is vastly more complex than the short note mom left. Scientists, having spent billions and billons of dollars, using complex technology, have not been able to make biological life from scratch. And they are using intelligence to do so. Yet, the miracle claim of some is that life came from non-life. No doubt these same people would say that the deduction that mom wrote the note would be a 'mom of the gaps' argument.

The issues with making life from non-life are many - there are problems in forming all the needed amino acids. There are problems in forming lipids, there are problems in forming proteins, there are problems with the chemical reactions that create some types of amino acids as they destroy other amino acids, there is the issue of water causing proteins to breakdown, there is the problem of chirality - getting all the building blocks to line up with only left handed bonding, there are problems creating enzymes needed for RNA and DNA, there are problems with the RNA world hypothesis working, there are problems making DNA - even simple strands. Further, time is actually a major problem for these processes, because they break down very quickly and so they must all happen in a relatively short period of time.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

MayCaesar

Well, I do not see anyone claiming that written messages are chaotically created by nature. But I do see someone who claims that complexity indicates intelligent design and simultaneously thinks that the grandest designer - the most complex entity there is - does not.

I just don't have enough mushrooms to be @just_sayin.

21CenturyIconoclast · Screen Shot 2023-02-08 at 10.42.17 AM.png 217.5K

@just_sayin

"Just_sayin_I'am_Bible_Dumb,

We see once again where you had to run away from your JUDEO-Christian bible AGAIN relative to the comedy of your gods CREATION NARRATIVES in the following links! Can you at least tell us what "running shoes" you wear, Adidas, Nike, or Converse, or? LOL!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177355/#Comment_177355
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177395/#Comment_177395

Then you have the audacity to question others with your bringing forth the issues of making life from non-life, where you say there are problems in forming all the needed amino acids and the problem in forming lipids, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, where your CREATION COMEDY is the most embarrassing BIBLICAL FACT known to mankind in the 21st Century, where you are still HIDING from it in embarrassment!

I will continue to embarrass you AGAIN at your expense in front of the membership about your primitive Bible's CREATION NARRATIVES that you cannot defend as a pseudo-christian bible fool!

READY little wussy boy pretend Christian?

BIBLE CREATION CONTRADICTIONS:

1. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)

2. In the second Creation story, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib! “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22)

JEWISH MAN AND EARTH BEING ONLY 6000 YEAR OLD, AND DINOSAURS AND NOAH'S ARK:

3. Subsequent to the creation narratives within your primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible, Jesus' inspired words state with specificity that A JEWISH MAN THAT WAS CREATED BY A JEWISH GOD, is only approximately 6000 years old along with the earth being made from the void! The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from the mythical Jesus to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans within the scriptures. Subsequent to the bible mythical character Jesus until present day is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that the creation of THE JEWISH MAN and the entire universe is only 6000 years old! GET IT?!

Therefore, how do you account for the DINOSAURS being millions upon millions of years old? Furthermore, if you want to embarrassingly say that the DINOSAURS were present when Noah built his ship that was biblically only 450 feet long, three stories high, and 65 feet wide, how did Noah fit all of the DINOSAURS upon the Ark with the other 77 million species that were gathered around the world in the first place?

Oh, oh, do I envision you putting on your Satanic RUNNING SHOES again to run away from BIBLICAL FACTS, and you want to call yourself a Christian? NOT! LOL!

IS THERE ANOTHER BIBLE RUN AWAY LIKE ....."JUST_SAYIN_I'AM_BIBLE_DUMB" ..... THAT COULD POSSIBLY HELP HIM WITH ACTUAL BIBLICAL AXIOMS THAT HE HAS TO EMBARRASSINGLY RUN AWAY FROM AS A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN? ANYONE? PLEASE HELP HIM!

.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Btw, This sentences passes as "I'm not enough into pretending to not pretend about the unknowable."

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

I just watched one of Richard Dawkins' documentaries today, and he made an excellent point. He said that what we do not know far exceeds what we do know, but we can expand what we do know steadily by following the scientific method. On the other hand, pretending to know what we do not know makes sure that this expansion does not occur.

If I do not know what happens at the center of a black hole, I can hope to make, at least, some progress by doing some theoretical calculations, obtaining experimental predictions and then performing the experiment and trying to validate or invalidate my hypotheses. On the other hand, if I say, "At the center of a black hole is a purple gnome laughing evilly, and this concludes my search" - then I have forever condemned myself to be ignorant, and, even worse, ignorant while believing I am knowledgeable. This is a truly deadly combination.

People get away with it when it comes to abstract philosophies like religion, but they never do it when it comes to more serious things. Imagine, instead of learning how to drive, saying, "My angel will guide me. Let's start the car!". The lifespan of someone walking through life like this will be quite short.
Yet personal philosophy of life is as important as that, if not more, for it guides everything we do moment to moment. And we have already seen how deep self-deception grows if allowed into the system.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Btw, This sentences passes as "I'm not enough into pretending to not pretend about the unknowable."

But he has enough faith to be delusional. I. E. atheism is a faith based religious belief.

PorfirioDiaz

The question of whether humans created God or vice versa is complex and has intrigued many throughout history. To humans, the concept of God often appears as a product of imagination, observed through perceived miracles across various cultures. Some speculate that humans fabricated the notion of God during the Roman era to establish societal order and deter immoral behavior.However, evidence from religious texts like the Bible and artifacts from ancient civilizations suggests the existence of a divine entity. As I've mentioned previously, I hold the belief that gods derive their power from the energy they receive, particularly through prayer. This principle is exemplified in instances such as the cult of personality surrounding leaders like those in North Korea. Despite whether such reverence is genuine or coerced, the collective energy directed towards these figures sustains their influence.If this energy were to diminish, perhaps due to external influences or technological advancements, it could lead to the decline of regimes like North Korea. In essence, the power of belief and the energy it generates play a significant role in shaping the perception and influence of gods or revered figures in society.

MayCaesar

@PorfirioDiaz

In the Forgotten Realms universe the gods receive literal power from their followers. Gods who become unpopular and lose followers consistently wane away and eventually die, to give rise to new gods rapidly gaining worshipers. Some gods, such as Lolth or Myrkul, are tyrannical and coerce people to follow them through intimidation, manipulation and sometimes physical violence. Other gods, such as Ellistraee or Mielikki, attract them by promoting good virtues and helping them at the times of need. Some gods are neither benevolent nor evil, but instead attract people of particular crafts or lifestyles. My personal favorite goddess is Waukeen who embodies free spirit, markets, competition, cunning and business acumen.

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Btw, This sentences passes as "I'm not enough into pretending to not pretend about the unknowable."

But he has enough faith to be delusional. I. E. atheism is a faith based religious belief.

@Factfinder

Yes, indeed. I had noted that @MayCaesar previously stated, 'that passes as "I do not have enough faith to not have faith."' Both quotes, he and I said, mean essentially the same thing. What @just_sayin either does not know or just doesn't concede is that what he said is a double negative that actually produces a positive. What he is saying is, 'I have so much faith that I can't imagine not having any faith in God or gods.'

Moreover, in the religious sense, faith is defined as beliefs about the supernatural without any or a lack of sufficient objective empirical evidence. At least, that is the standard semantic definition. However, I would also argue that faith, from an epistemological point of view, has to do with pretending to know things about the unknowable. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims and they are often stated with conviction. This pretending, of course, is not deliberate; through no fault of their own, they have entered into this artificial confidence about things they don't know. I, too, would argue this is nothing short of many years of indoctrination; at least, that is the case with religion and/or other similar ideologies. Thus, my quote should be interpreted as, 'this sentence passes as "I am very much into pretending to know things about the unknowable regarding God or deities."' Just as I added a bit to @MayCaesar's quote, I did the same with mine to make it more apt given this context.

Now, transitioning from the concept of faith within religious contexts, I think it's pertinent to discuss how this concept applies to atheism and agnosticism. While Atheism is simply an absence of belief regarding gods, that doesn't negate the fact that there are many atheists who make other faith-based claims with reference to other things, or what I prefer to call pretending to know things about that which they don't know; and this is pretty much the same for multitudes of people regardless of what religion or lack thereof.

Furthermore, this argument of mine is not reminiscent of agnosticism; a position that often gets conflated as well. This too, I would contend, is a belief system as it also makes knowledge-based claims, even if ironically, about the impossibility of knowing anything about the unknowable now or ever.

In addition to that, I would also like to say that I think the term 'blind faith' (I also used to use this) is a redundant term. I contend that all faith is blind!

Lastly, I recently made a typo regarding John Loftus. I meant to say he was a former believer and not a believer anymore. He also trained under people far more influential than WLC (he trained under WLC too), yet less public. If there is anyone who knows almost all there is to know about theism, it's him! He is now an Atheist and a counter-apologist. And I can't wait to read his next books, still on his book 'How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.'

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

I have always been wary of all these labels: it is very hard to characterize a particular person's position by such a wide label as "atheist" or "agnostic". We have seen many times how this leads to confusion, when someone calls you "atheist", or "liberal", or "conservative", or "libertarian" and immediately makes assumptions about a wide array of your positions by nature of those positions being associated (in one's mind) with the particular label. I do not remember what this effect is called, but it is the same problem as the problem of "metric hijacking". When GDP is used to measure the general economical performance of a country, and then governments start seeing GDP as the metric to be maximized by all means necessary, many of which have nothing to do with economical performance of the country - defeating the purpose of the metric. Here, similarly, we have "label hijacking", where a label assigned to someone overwrites the nuances of their positions.

Am I an atheist? In the sense of not believing in the supernatural, sure. But I would not call myself that if I could help it, much like I do not call myself a "libertarian" despite most of my political positions being aligned with libertarianism. I am an original thinker, with my own ideas, thought processes and conclusions. If we take, for instance, "The Four Horsemen of Atheism" that are often considered the most influential and active critics of religion on the West, then, while I respect all four men, I have plenty of disagreements with each of them. I could sit at the table with them and have a conversation, but I would not feel like a part of any meaningful group/organization.

In general, ideologically I have always been a lone wolf. Chaotic neutral creature that likes challenging everything and laughing at absurdity of life, especially my own. Resenting the idea of being a member of any ideological or philosophical or social groups with any degree of structure. Diogenes of Sinope is probably the historical figure closest in spirit to me, although with him I have a ton of disagreements as well.

But all of these nuances are obscured the moment I call myself a group label. I think that it is much more useful to talk about the individual's expressed positions, than to try to philosophically characterize them in some meaningful way.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

I understand what you're saying about people pretending to know things that aren't knowable. Both in and out of the religious realm. It's part of our primal need to know, even if we don't. Like I can say the best way to discover truths and facts about our world is through the scientific method. But the reality is would we recognize the scientific method of say 200 years in the future? Evidence gathering could get such a radical overhaul in that time who knows what science would consist of then? The lone wolf ain't a bad position as long as you're continuously in touch with reality. Labels are confining and often they're used to manipulate in some way. Bottom line is we are all alone when it comes to the navigation of life, yet in some ways we're in this thing called life together. Now I'm not sure if this qualifies as pretending to know what I don't know or not, but I blame you for making me think about!

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think that science will become very interesting when AIs learn to analyze large volumes of data, prove theorems and develop engineering design fully autonomously. There has been a lot of progress in attempts to formalize mathematics and theoretical physics, so that they could be put into a program that will start deriving conclusions from the axioms. The promise of this is hard to overestimate: we are looking at 1 year of AI work advancing fundamental science further than all of humanity has throughout its history. At that point it will be less about scientists actually doing scientific research, and more about making sense out of AI outputs. Imagine an AI that on its own develops a breakthrough hypothesis promising to cure cancer forever, accumulates investments through advertisement, builds a fully autonomous lab, conducts more experiments a day than humanity has over the past century, and delivers cure for all cancer types faster than anyone could figure out that anything happened. And we are potentially looking at this kind of results not a century or two from now, but possibly within a couple of decades.

I honestly do not understand all the despair in the world: we are living in the wildest time in human history, where every year our quality of life leaps forward more than it would over centuries in the past. Just look at what the generative AI models did over the past year, completely transforming multiple industries. What the world will look like 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now is very hard to predict, but we can know with absolute certainty that life will be far more interesting than it is now. I LOVE the 21st century. We are truly privileged to live in the period where humanity is almost turning into a different species. Who cares about Trumps and Bidens, Christianities and Islams, when such incredible things are happening?

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_sayin_I'am_Bible_Dumb,

We see once again where you had to RUN AWAY from your JUDEO-Christian bible AGAIN relative to the comedy of your gods Creation Narratives in Genesis in the following THREE LINKS NOW, WOW! Can you at least tell us what "running shoes" you wear, Adidas, Nike, or Converse, or? LOL!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177355/#Comment_177355

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177395/#Comment_177395

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177420/#Comment_177420

MEMBERSHIP: Shhhhhh……… Watch “Just_sayin_I'am_Bible_Dumb," run away again and go into HIDING because deep down he is to embarrassed to even try and make sense of his Jesus’ creation stories in Genesis, where the membership should be questioning him on said Creation Narratives FIRST AND FOREMOST before answering his issues with making life from non-life through evolution!

Get with the program, you bury the pseudo-christian like him with the foundation of their faith, IN USING THE BIBLE to make them the fools that they are in the 21st Century!

IS THERE ANOTHER EMBARRASSED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE “JUST_SAYIN_I’AM_BIBLE_DUMB” THAT AT LEAST HAS THE GUTS TO DISCUSS JESUS’ COMEDY OF ERRORS IN HIS GENESIS CREATION STORIES? ANYONE?

21CenturyIconoclast · Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 10.33.15 AM.png 1.2M

@just_sayin

“Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,”

You have now RAN AWAY from your god Jesus’ Creation propositions THREE TIMES now as embarrassingly shown in this link: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177609/#Comment_177609

Don't you realize that the membership is watching?!

Therefore, here is another CREATION proposition for you to RUN AWAY from in front of the membership and HIDE from, ready pseudo-christian bible fool?

Within the approximate 6000 years subsequent to the creation of man from DIRT, and where Eve was made from Adam’s RIB, has there been any fossils of the following listed biblical beings to help support the two 2 contradicting and comical creation narratives within your JUDEO-Christian bible?

1. SATYRS: “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there.” (Isaiah 13:21) For the ignorant pseudo-christian, a Satyr is an animal that is half goat, and half man!

2. FOUR-FOOTED INSECTS: "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you.” (Leviticus 11:20)

3. A COCKATRICE: “Rejoice not thou, whole Palestinans, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” (Isaiah 14:29) For the continued ignorance of the pseudo-christians, a Cockatrice is a serpent that is hatched from a ! LOL!

4. UNICORNS: “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” ( Isaiah 34:7). For STU-PID pseudo-christians, a unicorn is an animal that looks like a horse with a horn upon its head!

These are just some of the bible’s creatures that should be easy to find since the pseudo-christians godly earth and creation of man and woman is approximately only 6000 years old, remember?! “Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,” do you know of any factual evidence of these beings shown above, or has any pseudo-christian Paleontologists found any of these bible insects, animals, and birds listed herein? Anyone?

Pseudo-christians like “Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,” that try, in part, to explain “creationism” as shown above are so entertaining to watch as they squirm and turn themselves into a pretzel while doing so! Whereas “Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,” knows he has to RUN AWAY from the Bible's creation to save him from further embarrassment regarding his faith, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HE WANTS OTHERS TO PROVE EVOLUTION!!! LOL!!! Can he spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? Sure he can!

HERE IS THE GIRLFRIEND OR WIFE OF “JUST_SAYIN_I’AM_BIBLE_DUMB,” ACCEPTING THE CREATION NARRATIVES WITHIN THE BIBLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY! .......... ATHEISTS, QUIT LAUGHING!

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder

FACTDENIER,

In my discussion with the Bible RUNAWAY “Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,” within this thread above relative to his Jesus' creation propositions, DO NOT FORGET to copy and paste the biblical verses that I have used within said posts to be able to use them for the topics they represent at a later date, so as to show the membership that you are not so Bible inept in the future as you are NOW! You can thank me later.

Like I have said before, you bury the Bible inept pseudo-christians like “Just_Sayin_I’am_Bible_Dumb,” with the foundation of their faith, the JUDEO-Christian Bible, instead of wasting the time in the rhetoric pertaining to philosophy and science which they cannot accept in the first place, as they are coupled to their primitive Bronze and Iron Age Christianity!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Oh, oh, guess what? You once again ran away from your primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible regarding the creation of your god's animals in being Satyrs, Cockatrices, and Unicorns, and barring 4 footed insects as shown in this link: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177674/#Comment_177674

Are you that SCARD of Bible facts that shows your serial killer Jesus as god in his comedy of errors in his creation process, BUT, YET YOU WANT OTHERS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?! What a Bible runaway fool you remain in front of the membership! Priceless!

Just_sayin, now you are up to FOUR RUNAWAYS from your JEWISH bible regarding the FACT that you cannot discuss your god's creation as embarrassingly shown in the links below!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177355/#Comment_177355

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177395/#Comment_177395

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177420/#Comment_177420

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177674/#Comment_177674

Don't you worry one bit, I will continue to show you as a RUNAWAY from your JEWISH bible relative to your pagan god's creations!

NEXT SCAREDY CAT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT IS TO SCARED TO AT LEAST TRY AND ADDRESS HIS SERIAL KILLER GOD'S CREATION, WILL BE .......?

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Here is your FIFTH POST for you to embarrassingly RUN AWAY from in front of the membership because you cannot defend your primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, are you ready?

Through that scary word for you in being science, we are able to dismiss the comical narrative of Adam and Eve within your laughable bible in the embarrassing TWO CONTRADICTING CREATION STORIES in Genesis!

“Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) had to live thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans! GET IT?!

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, case in point, the look of the African American, the Chinese, the Philippine, the Hawaiian, etc., where our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals! It could not go back to just two individuals named Adam and EVE, regardless of when they lived! GET IT BIBLE FOOL?

DOES THE TERM "INCEST" COME TO MIND, WHERE THEIR THREE SONS WERE SCREWING THEIR MOTHER EVE IN THE BEGINNING TO ALLEGEDLY PRODUCE THE WORLDS POPULATION THAT JESUS AS GOD WAS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BRUTALLY MURDER IN HIS GREAT FLOOD SCENARIO, GET IT?

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE DUMMY LIKE ..... “JUST_SAYIN”..... THAT HAS TO CONTINUE TO RUN AWAY FROM HIS PRIMITIVE BIBLE'S FACTS THAT MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE A FOOL IN THE 21ST CENTURY, WILL BE …….?

Joeseph

@Factfinder

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/9658/should-israel-have-veto-power-over-creation-of-a-palestinian-state/p3

21CenturyIconoclast

@Joeseph

Yeah, like you are doing to FACTDENIER in your topic of discussion, I had to BIBLE SLAP SILLY Factdenier in this Religion Forum, where he has had to remain silent to my recent posts to him in educating him upon his Bible Ineptness!

This link shows in how BIBLE STU-PID FACDENIER truly is: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177041/#Comment_177041

FACTDENER is allegedly an Atheist, but wears a gold cross around his neck in your enlarged photo of him as shown in the link below, hmmmmmm..............whereas he is a FAKE Christian, like you are showing that he is a FAKE soldier?
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177736/#Comment_177736

.

Factfinder

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177724/#Comment_177724

ibadullah

Argument Topic: Game dev in his own game?

@MayCaesar
The guy you replied to meant that if a no npc in a game can be the creator of the game, then why would anyone in the universe be creator of the universe? The game developer made the game, the universe developer or God made the universe. The game dev is not in the game and not obliged by any rule of the game nor is God obliged by any rule of the universe. Since time is a rule of the universe, God isn't effected by time and is immortal. let me give you another example. You needed your parents to be born, your existence depends on your parents, and their existence depends on your grandparents, and theirs on your great grandparents and so on. This Cycle goes on forever and like this we would never exist, unless there was something that was uncreated, the thing whose existence is not dependent on anything or anyone else, something that has been around since the universe was created. What was the thing present before the creation of the universe? The creator of the universe, God, who we just learned is immortal, uncreated and uneffected by the laws of the universe. BTW, in 10 min it will be 3am. If I made any error or there is some problem in logic or anything, just point it out. I'll reply to it to explain better after getting some sleep.

Edit: I'm new to debateisland.com and didn't know that if you do an edit to fix spelling and grammar errors then all reactions will disappear

someone reacted that my argument was persuading, but its too late.

Factfinder

ibadullah said:

@MayCaesar
The guy you replied to meant that if a no npc in a game can be the creator of the game, then why would anyone in the universe be creator of the universe? The game developer made the game, the universe developer or God made the universe. The game dev is not in the game and not obliged by any rule of the game nor is God obliged by any rule of the universe. Since time is a rule of the universe, God isn't effected by time and is immortal. let me give you another example. You needed your parents to be born, your existence depends on your parents, and their existence depends on your grandparents, and theirs on your great grandparents and so on. This Cycle goes on forever and like this we would never exist, unless there was something that was uncreated, the thing whose existence is not dependent on anything or anyone else, something that has been around since the universe was created. What was the thing present before the creation of the universe? The creator of the universe, God, who we just learned is immortal, uncreated and uneffected by the laws of the universe. BTW, in 10 min it will be 3am. If I made any error or there is some problem in logic or anything, just point it out. I'll reply to it to explain better after getting some sleep.

Edit: I'm new to debateisland.com and didn't know that if you do an edit to fix spelling and grammar errors then all reactions will disappear someone reacted that my argument was persuading, but its too late.

First let me tell you your 'persuaded' tag wasn't lost, it's visible.

Your argument is not new. Evidence suggest everything has a beginning except god because he doesn't need one. Right? Well you see it falls short right at the point you assert it doesn't need one. The typical explanation is that god isn't confined by the rules of the universe, because it created it so it has creator domain rights. It functions without the constricts of time, blah, blah, blah. That leaves two things.

1. How come it can operate outside human axioms like time restraints but not where freewill is involved? Why couldn't it create a perfect existence without pain and suffering? If nothing is impossible with god why didn't do things that way? Where it's all appreciated but no one had to suffer? Why can't god make a rock to heavy for it lift? Why is your god restricted by my human logical axioms? If it's not constrained in that way it must be evil. That's the only logical conclusion.

2. Why do you dismiss constant regression as an answer? Maybe your god IS created over and over, how would you know? Energy can't be destroyed it is only dispersed and regathered so there has to be some form perpetual cycle going on, wouldn't you think? Wouldn't that define the nature of an eternal god?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

United Auto Workers reaches deal with Daimler Truck, averting potential strike

In this Debate

Did God(s) Create Humans or Did Humans Create God(s)?

Debate Information

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch